Geotechnical Engineering Study 4-7-2006 (2).pdf

GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING STUDY

Jumbo Evans Sports Park Concession/Bathroom Building Comal County, Texas

Prepared for:

Comal County Engineering Office 195 David Jonas Drive New Braunfels, Texas 78132

Report Date: April 7, 2006

Nova Project No: T06-0881

Nova· Consulting Group, Inc.

I

I I

I

I I I

Consulting Group, Inc.

Apri l 7, 2006

Mr. Robert Boyd, P.E.

Coma! County Engineering Office

195 David Jonas Drive New Braunfels, Texas 78132

Dear Mr. Boyd:

CORPORATE H EADQUARTERS OFFICE LOCATIONS

Minneapolis, MN Allan/a, GA Chicago. IL Dallas. TX Denver, CO Houslon, TX Indianapolis, IN Kenner, LA Los Angeles, CA

Millon. NC New York. NY Pillsburgh. PA Pori/and, OR Sa/1 Lake Cily. UT San Anlonio, TX San Francisco, CA Temecula, CA

RE: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Jumbo Evans Sports Park

Concession/Bathroom Bui lding

Coma! County, Texas

NOV A Project No. T06-0881

NOVA Consulting Group, Inc. (NOV A) is pleased to submit this report covering the geotechnical engineering study that was prepared for the above referenced project. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we cou ld be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us.

We appreciate the opportunity to be a member of the design team on this project. We look forward to meeting with you to discuss construction materials testing needs that will be necessary during the construction phase of this project.

Respectfully Submitted, Nova Consulting G roup, Inc.

Copies Submitted: Above (4) DEH Structural Eng ineering (I) an equal opportunity employer

14220 Northbrook Drive Suite 300 San Antonio, TX 78232

2 10/402-3 102 FAX 2 10/402-3 104

I I I

I I I I I I I I I

Coma! County Engineering Office Nova Project No. T06-0881 April 7, 2006

Page (i) Jumbo Evans Sports Park - Concession/Bathroom Coma! County, Texas

1.0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .................... ............ ........ .. ............................ ....... ...... .. ...................... ................. I

I. I

1.2 AUTHORIZATION ... ....... ............... ........................ ....... ............... .................................... . I

PROJECT INFORMATION ...... ........ ............................. .................................................... I

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES .......................... .................................................... ......... I

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS

3. 1 SURFACE CONDITIONS

3.2

3.3

SUBSURFACE CON DITIONS

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

4.0 FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS

4.I SLAB-ON-GRADE FOUNDATION

5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATION S

5.1 GENERAL SITE PREPARATION

5.2 BUILDING PAD CONSTRUCTION

5.3 DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING

6.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING

7.0 LIMITATIONS

8.0 COPYRIGHT© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

APPENDIX A- ILLUSTRATIONS

APPENDIX B- FIELD PROGRAM

APPENDIX C- LABORATORY TESTING

I I

I

Coma) County Engineering Office Nova Project No. T06-088 I April 7, 2006

Page (I) Jumbo Evans Sports Park - Concession/Bathroom Coma) County, Texas

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The project consists of a new concession/bathroom building at the Jumbo Evans Sports Park in Coma! County, Texas. A Vicinity Map, depicting the approximate location of the site, is provided on Page A-I in Appendix

A of this report. This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering study performed by Nova

Consulting Group, Inc. (NOVA), for the proposed structure.

1.1 AUTHORIZATION

NOVA commenced work on this project on April 3, 2006, fo llowing written authorization to proceed by the Coma) County Purchasing Department. The scope of services performed was in general accordance w ith

NOVA Proposal No. GE I40-06, dated March 29,2006.

1.2 PROJECT INFORMATION

It is our understanding that the project will consist of a new concession/bathroom building at the existing

Jumbo Evans Sports Park in north Coma! County on US Highway 281 . The structure is proposed to be located at the site in the approximate area indicated by the client during a s ite meeting prior to the fie ld study. The structure will have dimensions of26 feet by 3 1 feet and will be single-story with reinforced concrete and CMU walls. Other details regarding the proposed structure are not available at the time of this report.

No structural loading information has been provided to NOV A at the time of this report. For the purposes of analysis it has been assumed that maximum loads w ill not exceed 2 kips per lineal foot for walls and 40 kips for column loads. If the actual structural loads are determ ined to be significantly higher (+ I 0%) than those assumed, NOVA should be notified to determ ine if modi fications to the recommendations provided are warranted.

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

The purpose of this geotechnical engineering study was to evaluate the subsurface materials at the site so that geotechnical recommendations could be provided for use in the design and construction of the fou ndation system for the proposed structure. To achieve this objective, our scope of services consisted of the following:

I . One ( I) boring was performed on April 5, 2006, to evaluate subsurface stratigraphy and groundwater conditions. The boring was conducted in the footprint of the proposed structure and extended to a depth of approximately I 1.5 feet below the existing ground surface. The boring was terminated following several feet of exploration into a very dense limestone stratum.

2 . Geotechnical laboratory tests were performed on recovered samples to evaluate the physical and engineering properties of the strata encountered.

3. Ana lyses were made to develop geotechnical engineering design and construction criteria with respect to subgrade and fill preparation and a foundation system for the proposed structure.

I

I I I

I

Comal County Engineering Office Jumbo Evans Sports Park - Concession/Bathroom Comal County, Texas

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS

Nova Project No. T06-088 1 Apri l 7, 2006

Page (2)

The following subsections discuss the surface and subsurface conditions that were observed and encountered during the fie ld exploration portion of this study. Our evaluation of the subsurface conditions also incorporates the results of the laboratory testing program.

3.1 SURF ACE CONDITIONS

At the time of our field study, the s ite consisted of a grass area to the east of a softball field and west of a parking area. The surface soils were relatively dry and hard at the time of the field study. The site has a very slight downward slope to the south.

3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

As previously discussed, the subsurface stratigraphy at the project site was evaluated by drilling one (I) boring on April 5, 2006. The boring extended to a depth of approximately 11.5 feet below the existing ground surface elevation. The approximate location of the boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan, Figure A-2, in

Appendix A of this report. The stratification at the boring and the results of all laboratory tests conducted on samples from the boring are presented on the boring log on page B-2 of Appendix B. A brief description of the field program is presented on page B-1 of Appendix B. A brief description of the laboratory program and testing methods are presented on page C- 1 of Appendix C.

Based on both our observations at the time of the field study and on the results of our laboratory testing, the stratigraphy of the subsurface materia ls can generally be described as presented in the following Table I.

TABLE 1.

Stratum Depth (ft) Generalized Stratigraphy Description & USCS Classification

I 0.0 - 4.5 Very stiff to hard, dry to slightly moist, dark brown CLAY (CH)

II 4.5 - 9.8

Hard, slightly mo ist, light yellow brown, GRAVELLY, CLAYEY SANDY (SC)

Ill 9.8 - TD Very dense, light yellow brown, slightly weathered LIMESTONE

TD =Total Depth

Stratum I - This stratum consists of very stiff to hard, dry to s lightly moist, dark brown clay with scattered gravel. Stratum I extends from the surface to a depth of approximately 4.5 feet. An Atterberg Limits test conducted on a representative sample from Stratum I indicates the material has a Liquid Limit (LL) of 64 percent and a Plasticity Index (PI) of 45 percent. Based on these measured properties, the Stratum I materials have the potential to undergo relatively moderate to large changes in volume if exposed to fluctuations in moisture content. A Standard Penetration Test (SPT) in this zone indicated 18 blows for 12 inches of penetration.

Stratum II - This intermed iate stratum consists of hard, s lightly moist, light yellow brown, gravelly clayey sand. Stratum II extends from the overlying soi l zone to a depth of approximately 9.8 feet. An Atterberg Limits test conducted on a representative sample from Stratum II indicates the material has an LL of33 percent

I I

I I I

I I I

Comal County Engineering Office Jumbo Evans Sports Park - Concession/Bathroom Comal County, Texas

Nova Project No. T06-0881 April 7, 2006

Page (3) and a PI of 19 percent. Based on these measured properties, the Stratum II materials have the potential to undergo relatively small changes in volume if exposed to fluctuations in moisture content. An SPT blow count in this stratum indicated 50 blows for 12 inches of penetration.

Stratum III - This lower stratum consists of very dense, light yellow brown, slightly weathered limestone.

Stratum Ill extends from the overlying stratum through the total exploration depth of I 1.5 feet. Auger penetration within this zone was very slow and the boring was subsequently terminated fo llowing 1.7 feet of exploration into the limestone stratum. An SPT test in this zone indicated 50 blows for 2 inches of penetration.

3.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

The boring was dry augered to its full depth in an attempt to observe the presence of any groundwater. No groundwater was observed in the boring during drilling or after completion of the drilling. Although groundwater was not encountered, groundwater conditions can fluctuate due to seasona l and climactic variations and should be checked prior to commencement of construction activities.

Groundwater seepage is common in formations between strata of varying permeability, such as the c lay and underlying gravelly, clayey sand and limestone strata encountered at this site. Such seepage is particularly common during periods of heavy and/or frequent precipitation. The groundwater seepage can typically occur either at or near the interface of varying strata. Grade beam or utility excavations or grading cuts can sometimes expose these natural seepage avenues. Drainage systems such as a "french" drain can generally be used to intercept and/or redirect groundwater seepage if it becomes problematic.

4.0 FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS

Based on the project information, we understand that a slab-on-grade foundation system is proposed to support the structure. The potential vertical rise (PVR) for the subsurface stratigraphy encountered at the test boring location was calculated us ing the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Method TEX-124E. It was calculated that the ex isting materials, in their current moisture state, have a PVR of approximately I. 7 inches.

The following sections provide recommendations for a relatively shallow foundation system for the proposed structure.

4.1 SLAB-ON-GRADE FOUNDATION

The proposed structure may be founded on a monolithic, grid-type beam and slab foundation system designed to resist the expansive soil conditions encountered at the site. If required by either the operational or structural tolerances, the anticipated PVR can be reduced by soil improvements prior to construction of the slab-on-grade foundation system. The soil improvements would consist of over excavating a portion of the existing on s ite clays from the proposed foundation area and replacing with select structural till in compaction-controlled lifts.

The following Table 2 indicates the estimated PVR and Ym for varying amounts of over excavation and replacement of the native c lays:

I

I I I

Coma! County Engineering Office Jumbo Evans Sports Park - Concession/Bathroom Coma! County, Texas

Table 2.

Nova Proj ect No. T06-088 1 April 7, 2006

Page (4)

Soil Improvements vs. Potential Vertical Rise, Design PI & Y m

Over Excavation and Potential Vertical Rise Design PI

Center Lift, Edge Lift, Replacement Depth, ft. (PVR), inches Ym Ym

0 1.7 32 2.7 4.6

I 1.2 30 2.3 3.8

1.5 < 1.0 28 2. 1 3.4

Provided that the building pad for the proposed structure can be constructed for both the variable and expansive soil conditions at this s ite, and that they are constructed in strict accordance with the recommendations presented in this section, and the Construction Considerations section of this report, the

BRAB/PTl design parameters presented in the following Table 3 may be used to design a monolithic, grade supported grid type beam and slab foundation system for the proposed structure.

Table 3.

Recommended BRAB/PTI Design Criteria

For Shtb-on-Gnuk Foundation I

Design Criteria CASE I

Minimum Select Fill Pad Thickness 0.5 feet

Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) See Table 2

Design Plasticity Index (PI) See Table 2

Climatic Rating (C.) 17

Net Allowable Bearing Capacity, dead + long term live loads 2,000 psf

Net Allowable Bearing Capacity, total load 3,000 psf

Soil Support Index, c 0.88

Edge Distance Penetration, e111, Center 8.5 ft.

Edge Distance Penetration, em, Edge 4.3 ft.

Thornwaite Index Om) - 15

Center Lift, Y m See Table 2

Edge Lift, Y"' See Table 2

These foundation design parameters are based on the criteria published by the Building Research Advisory

Board (BRAB) and the Post Tensioning Institute's (PTI 's) Design of Post-Tensioned Slab-On-Ground, Third Edition. These values were based on our understanding of the proposed project, our interpretation of the information and data collected as a part of this study, the criteria publications, and on our past experience.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Coma! County Engineering Office Jumbo Evans Sports Park - Concession/Bathroom Coma! County, Texas

Nova Project No. T06-088 1 April 7, 2006

Page (5)

If required by final grade elevations, the foundation pad can be built-up and leveled using select structura l fi ll material. Select structural fill material used to construct the foundation pad should be moisture conditioned and properly placed in compaction-controlled lifts as specified in the Construction Considerations section of this report. To provide proper drainage of storm water runoff, the foundation pad should be built up a min imum of 6 inches above existing and/or final grade using select structural fill material. It is important to the performance of the structure foundation, that site drainage be developed so that storm water runoff is d irected away from the proposed structure.

We recommend that the foundation grade beams extend a minimum of eighteen (1 8) inches into the subgrade soils and be a minimum of 12 inches in width. These recommendations are for proper development of bearing capacity for the continuous beam sections of the foundation systems, and are NOT based on structural considerations. The grade beams may be thickened and widened to serve as spread footings at concentrated load areas.

For a monolithic, grid type beam and s lab foundation system, designed and constructed as recommended in this report, post construction settlements should be within allowable structural tolerances. Settlement response of a fi ll-supported s lab is influenced more by the quality of construction than by soil-structure interaction.

Therefore, it is essential that the recommendations for both the foundation and the building pad construction be strictly followed throughout the foundation construction phase of the building foundation.

5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

The comments and suggestions in this section are provided for planning and informational purposes so that the project specifications can be prepared, and to indicate conventional methods that can be used to achieve the intent of our recommendations. Detai ls regarding excavation, dewatering, se lection of machinery/equ ipment, trafficability, project safety, shoring, and other s imilar construction techniques that require "means and methods" to accomplish the work is the sole responsibility of the proj ect contractor. The contractor is respons ible for development of an excavation plan which will meet all state and federal requirements with regard to trench safety. Our comments and opinions do not re lieve the contractor's responsibility to establish and maintain all aspects of site safety.

5.1 GENERAL SITE PREPARATION

The building pad area should be stripped of a ll loose fill materials, vegetation, debris, and loose topsoil to the required e levation to meet the recommendations presented in Section 4.1 . Tree roots greater than one ( I) inch diameter should be grubbed and removed. Stripping should extend at least five (5) feet beyond the perimeter of the s lab foundation.

The exposed subgrade, at the base of the recommended over excavation, should be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches and the soi l moisture adjusted to within two (2) percent of optimum. The scarified and moisture treated native soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry dens ity as determined by

ASTM Test Method D 698 (Standard Proctor). Fill placement operations should commence promptly so that the prepared subgrade is not influenced by the elements, which could a lter the compaction and moisture content of the subgrade soils.

I

I

I

Comal County Engineering Office Jumbo Evans Sports Park - Concession/Bathroom Comal County, Texas

5.2 BUILDING PAD CONSTRUCTION

Nova Project No. T06-0881 Apri l 7, 2006

Page (6)

Following satisfactory subgrade preparation, the structural fi ll pad should be carefully constructed using imported select structural fill material. Imported select structural fill material should preferably be crushed limestone. Specific criteria for crushed limestone or gravel base material is provided in the TxDOT Standard Specifications, Item 247, Type A orB, Grade I or 2. If not required by other des ign considerations, we recommend that the floor slab be established a minimum of 6 inches above surround ing grade to facilitate the drainage of storm water away from the building found ation.

Beam sections for the monolithic, grid-type beam and slab foundation can either be neatly excavated into the compacted fill pad or can be formed on that portion of the compacted fill pad or on top of either rock or properly compacted natural subgrade so ils below the bottom of the grade beams. The select structural fill material for that portion of the foundation pad which extends above the beam bottoms may be constructed using conventional batter boards and/or bagging techniques. However, select structural fill material used in the portion below the beam bottoms must be placed in 8 inch thick, maximum loose lifts, moisture-cond itioned to within 2 percentage points of the optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry dens ity as determined by ASTM Test Method D 698. In addition, if the entire building pad thickness exceeds 3 feet, then the pad material should be placed and compacted as previously described to avoid excessive settlement in the fil l pad. These compaction requirements may need to be achieved using hand operated, mechanical tampers, capable of being utilized in narrow or isolated spaces. lfthe required degree of compaction can not be achieved using this method, then the lift thickness may have to be reduced. Each lift of the select structural fill material should be tested by an independent testing laboratory to confirm that it is properly compacted prior to placing subsequent fill lifts. Any select fill li fts not meeting the required compaction specification must be reworked and recompacted until the specified moisture and dens ity is achieved. The structural fi ll pad shou ld be constructed to the specified final elevations using th is method.

5.3 DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING

The performance of the foundation system will not on ly be dependent on the quality of construction, but also on the stability in the moisture content of the near-surface soils. We recommend that the site drainage be developed so that ponding of both roof and surface runoff near the foundations does not occur. Heavy and continuous irrigation of landscaped areas adjacent to or near the slab foundation can lead to water migration into and beneath the building pad.

In addition, the owner should be informed that placement of large bushes and trees adjacent to the building may result in distress to the slab foundation . Vegetation placed in landscape beds that are adjacent to the structure should be limited to plants and shrubs that will not exceed a mature height of three (3) feet. Large bushes and trees should be planted away from the s lab foundation at a d istance that will exceed their full mature height and canopy.

6.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING

Every construction site and design project is unique. As a result, it is vitally important that all construction drawings and documents be reviewed by all of the design professionals participating in the project. The

I I I I

I

Comal County Engineering Office Jumbo Evans Sports Park - Concession/Bathroom Comal County, Texas

Nova Project No. T06-0881 April 7, 2006

Page (7) performance of the proposed foundation will depend on the correct interpretation of our geotechnical engineering recommendations, and proper compliance of construction activities with regard to our recommendations and to the project drawings and specifications.

The performance of any foundation is strongly influenced by the quality of construction. As Geotechnical

Engineer of Record for this project, NOV A shou ld be contacted prior to construction in order to ass ist in developing a plan for foundation and earthwork construction monitoring which may be incorporated into the overall project quality control program.

7.0 LIMITATIONS

This geotechnical engineering study was based on the data acquired from one boring drilled at this site. The evaluation presented in this report is based on our estimation of the conditions which occur beyond the boring and within the proposed structure area. Variations in subsurface conditions are like ly to occur across the project s ite due to the geology of the area. This study was performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice using the standard of care and skill currently exercised by geotechnical engineers practicing in this area. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made or intended.

8.0 COPYRIGHT © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

This geotechnical engineering report in its entirety (text, illustrations, tables, boring log, and test data) is the property ofNova Consulting Group, Inc. Our report was prepared exclus ively for the specified client and project to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations to a id in the evaluation of this site for the proposed structure. This report shall not be reproduced or used for any other purposes without the written consent of our firm.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

APPENDIX A

ILLUSTRATIONS AND TABLES

VIClNITY MAP

BORING LOCATION PLAN

Page

A-I

A-2

Site Topographic Map Jumbo Evans Sports Park Concession/Restroom Addition Carnal County, Texas Project No: T06-0881

Envirom1~lal Architecture

NO¥

Consulting Group, Inc.

s (Not to Scale)

April 2006

Figure A-1

I I I I

Softball Field I I I I I

+ = Approximate Boring Location

Boring Location Plan Jumbo Evans Sports Park Concession/Restroom Addition Comal County, Texas Project No: T06-0881

Approximate New Structure Footprint

Parking

N s (Not to Scale)

Figure A-2

Environm~tal ArcMect...-e

NOV

Consulting Group, Inc.

April2006

I

I

I I I

I I

APPENDIX B

FIELD PROGRAM

I

I

I

I I

APPENDIX B

FIELD PROGRAM

Subsurface conditions were studied by drilling one (I) boring to a depth of 11.5 feet below the existing ground surface elevation at the time of our drilling activities. The boring was drilled w ith truck-mounted rotary drilling equipment. The approximate location of the boring is shown on page A-2 in Appendix A.

The Boring Log, includ ing the material descriptions, types of sampling used, and other pertinent field data, are presented in this Appendix on Page B-2. The Symbol Key Sheet, which defines the terms and descriptive symbols used on the log, is presented on Page B-3.

The borings was augered to its termination depth using dry drilling techn iques. All of the samples were prepared at the site in appropriate containers to minimize disturbance during transportation to the laboratory.

When possible, soil samples were generally recovered using thin-walled, open-tube samplers (Shelby tubes) in substantial accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 1587. All samples were removed from samplers in the field, classified, and placed in sample containers to preserve their in-place moisture contents.

Pocket penetrometer tests were performed on samples of cohesive soils in the field to serve as a general measure of consistency.

For cohesionless soils and soi ls for which good quality Shelby tube samples could not be obtained, samples were generally recovered by means of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) in accordance w ith ASTM D 1586.

This test consists of determining the number of blows required for a 140 pound hammer free falling 30 inches to drive a standard split-spoon sampler 12 inches into the subsurface materia l after an initial seating of 6 inches. This blow count or SPT "N" value is used to evaluate the engineering properties of the stratum. When refusal was encountered during split spoon sampling, samples were taken from the auger flights during subsequent drilling.

B-1

I

I

I

LOG OF BORING

PROJECT: Jumbo Evans Sports Park Concession/Bathroom PROJECT NUMBER T06-0881

Comal County, Texas BORING NUMBER Bl

DATE DRILLED 4/5/2006

CLIENT: Comal County Engineering Office SURFACE ELEVATION N/A New Braunfels, Texas

FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILLING METHOD{S):

DRY AUGER

('5

ATTERBERG

~ IU ~

~z 0 UMITS(%) ...... a: ~ ~ _o 1- )( ;:::) IU GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: >-~ z ~ Ill > IU t IDz w No groundwater encountered either during or upon etc w 0 z ... "'z 1- 1- z ... Ill 1- ... a: ... completion of drilling activities tt i:i~ z ... ::E ...

~a w t ~ ~~ 8 .... 0 ::E ~ > 0 ...._()':.:~ u

Iii N 1111 ~:Z:()I z:~ 'tt t 11)111 a: Q w .... Ill' ::E Ill a: u u zlll wl-111 ~iii~-§ 0 ... IU zo ~ >- ....... IU

~ ~ wO a:"' a: z Ill :t: .... ozz ;:::) oz o.ZIIl ;:::) ,..z ... .... li:

Q, ...10"' 0' :5 ,_:::l ::Ewz .... "-:::l Ill ... ::E Clllt- ~< ... ... a:O oa:o ... zo ~ 0 IU C( • • • • w:l 0 .... Q, Q, C( 8~ Ill 0 Ill ZA.a.O' ::E PL PI 0~ ulii!:. 1&. Q, DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM LL

N- 18 17 64 19 45 Very stiff, dry, dark brown CLAY (CH) with scattered

~ gravel

~ P=4.5+ 23 82 5.35 2.1 0 - becomes hard at 2'

~ P=4.5+ 13 t-5 _ Hard, sli~htlb moist, light yellow brown, GRAVELLY, ~ CLAYEY AN {SC)

~ N=SO 6 33 14 19 34

~ N=S0/2" 9

~ IX

~ t-10 _ Ve.?; dense, light yellow brown, slightly weathered

I~ L1 ESTONE

e;

Boring terminated at 11.5 feet.

t-- -

N- STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE

REMARKS:

Borehole backfilled upon completion of drilling

P - POCKET PENETROMETER RESISTANCE activities

T- POCKET TORVANE SHEAR STRENGTH

..~~ --B2 Nova 'fll"'

I KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS

CD

I

I I I

FILL SILTY CLAYEY SANDY I I LIMESTONE

SAND SAND SILT

CLAY SILTY CLAYEY SANDY MARL

CLAY SILT CLAY

GRAVEL

SILTY CLAYEY SANDY SANDSTONE

SAND GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL

CALCAREOUS

GRAVELLY GRAVELLY SHALE SILT aCJ 0

SILTY CLAY SAND CLAY

CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS

Compressive Penetration Resistance blows/foot

Strength Plasticity Consistency _ts Index

Degree of Plastici

Relative Dens it

0-2 2-4 4-8

8. 15 15.30 >30

Very Soft Soft

< 0.25

0.25. 0.5

0.5. 1.0

1.0. 2 .0

2.0. 4 .0 > 4 .0

0-5 5-10 10.20 20-40 > 40

None Low Moderate Plastic

0-4

4. 10 10.30 30.50 >50

Very Loose Loose

Firm Medium Dense Dense Stiff

Very Stiff Hard

Highly Plastic Very Dense

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D 1586) DRIVING RECORD

Note: Driving Is limited to 50 blows per Interval, or 25 blows for 0 .25 Inch advancement, whichever controls. This Is done to avoid damage to sampling tools.

Blows Per Foot

50/9" Ref/3"

Organic Ferrous Calcareous Layer Seam Parting Pocket Nodule Streak Slickensided Fissured Laminated Interbedded Blocky Cemented Fracture Bentonitic Mottled Vuggy

Descri tion Sampler was seated 6 inches, then 34 blows were required to advance the sampler 12 inches.

Sampler was seated 6 inches, then 50 blows were required to advance the sampler 9 inches.

Sampler could only be driven 3 inches of the 6 inch seating penetration before the 50 blow limit was reached.

TERMS CHARACTERIZING SOIL STRUCTURE

• Material derived or decomposed from living organisms, usually dark gray in color.

• Containing significant quantities of iron oxide.

• Containing appreciable quantities of calcium carbonate.

• Inclusion of different material 3 Inches to 2 feet thick.

- Inclusion of different material 1/8 inch to 3 Inches thick.

- Inclusion of different material less than 1/8 Inch thick.

- Inclusion of different material that is roughly circular.

• A small, more or less rounded body; a concretion.

• A line or mark of contrasting color or texture.

- Having p lanes of weakness that are slick and glossy in appearance.

• Containing shrinkage cracks, frequently filled with fine sand or silt; usually more or less vertical.

- Composed of t h in layers of varying color and texture.

• Composed of layers of different soil types.

-Divided Into blocks generally less than 1/2 inch.

• Material grains bound together forming an Intact mass.

• Plane of breakage.

- Containing the clay mineral bentonite being highly plastic and subject to extreme shrink/swell behavi r.

• Having colored spots or blotches, as if stained.

• Small cavities within a rock formation size ranging from a fraction to several inches which may or may not interconnect.

SAMPLER TYPES

[9 []

WATER LEVEL SYMBOLS

Water encountered during drilling

Shelby Tube

Split Spoon

Auger U-Ring No Rock Recovery Core

Quasl-statlc/24 hr.

(see report text)

B-3 Nova~ Nova Consulting Group, Inc. ----

APPENDIX C

LA BORA TORY TESTING

I

I

I

I

I I

I

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TESTING

All samples obtained during the fie ld program were visua lly classified in the laboratory by a geotechnical engineer according to procedures outlined in ASTM D 2488. A testing program was conducted on selected samples to aid in classification and evaluation of engineering properties required for analyses. Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the procedures ind icated below.

Laboratory Test Applicable Test Standard

Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200 sieve ASTM D 11 40

Unconfined Compression Test ASTM D 2 166

Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index of Soil ASTM 043 18

Mo isture Content ASTM D 4959

Results of the tests performed are presented on the Boring Log, located on Page B-2 of Appendix B. Laboratory test results were used to classify the so ils encountered according to the Unified Soil C lassification System

(ASTM D 2487).

Soil samples taken during our fie ld program which remained after completion of our laboratory testing will be stored for a period of30 days subsequent to submittal of this report and will be discarded after this period, un less we are notified otherwise.

C- 1