The URL can be used to link to this page

Geotechnical Engineering StudyProject No. ASA12- 008 -00 February 22, 2012 Mr. Mark Oppelt, AIA, LEED AP, REFP OCO Architects, Inc. 114 East Cevallos Street San Antonio, Texas 78204 RE: Geotechnical Engineering Study Animal Control Addition and Renovation Schertz, Texas Dear Mr. Oppelt: LRADA ISTNER. CONSULTANTS Raba Kistner consultants, Inc. 12821 W. Golden Lane San Antonio, TX 78249 P.O. Box 390287 San Antonio, T., 78269 www.rkci.com F 210 :: 69S :: 9090 = 210 :: 6e9 :: 6426 TBPE Firm F -3257 Raba Kistner Consultants Inc. (RKCI) is pleased to submit the report of our Geotechnical Engineering Study for the above- referenced project. This study was performed in accordance with RKCI Proposal No. PSA11- 189 -00, dated January 20, 2012. The purpose of this study was to drill borings within the Animal Control facility area, to perform laboratory testing to classify and characterize subsurface conditions, and to prepare an engineering report presenting foundation design and construction recommendations for the proposed additions, as well as to provide pavement design and construction guidelines. The following report contains our design recommendations and considerations based on our current understanding of the project information provided to us. There may be alternatives for value engineering of the foundation and pavement systems, and RKCI recommends that a meeting be held with the Owner and design team to evaluate these alternatives. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Should you have any questions about the information presented in this report, or if we may be of additional assistance with value engineering or on the materials testing - quality control program during construction, please call. Very truly yours, RABA KISTNER CONSULTANTS, INC. I3 /4ke [J r•_�t� R. Blake Wright, E.I.T. Graduate Engineer RBW /GLB /mem Attachments Copies Submitted: Above (3) 5 ...................... ........ .c.... g GARLAND L. BURCH .......................... ......... �® 38 126 .: a Garland L. Burch, P.E. °� °°ens HA Senior Geotechnical Consultant 0:\Active Projects \San Antoni6ASA12- 008 -00 Animal Control AdditionRenovationlReporting \ASA12- 008 -00 Report.doc GE0100 01/20/2009 ® Szn ,� noo.iio Austin 3.,orsvilie Zo: p s Ch -isd Cr ilas El Peso Aoe-stoe rdecAllen meaieo Salt Lace Ckq, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY For ANIMAL CONTROL ADDITION AND RENOVATION SCHERTZ, TEXAS Prepared for OCO ARCHITECTS, INC. San Antonio, Texas Prepared by RABA KISTNER CONSULTANTS, INC. San Antonio, Texas PROJECT NO. ASA12- 008 -00 February 22, 2012 RAL3- :mISTNER Project No. ASA12- 008 -00 February 22, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... ..............................1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... ..............................1 LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................ ..............................1 BORINGS AND LABORATORY TESTS ....................................................................... ..............................2 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS .................................................................................. ..............................3 SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... . ..............................3 GEOLOGY. .................................................................................................................................... 3 3 S SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS .................................................................................... ..............................3 STRATIGRAPHY............................................................................................... . ..............................4 GROUNDWATER............................................................................................. . ..............................5 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... . ..o...........................5 EXPANSIVE SOIL - RELATED MOVEMENTS ........................................................... . ..............................5 OVEREXCAVATION AND SELECT FILL REPLACEMENT ........................................... . ..............................5 Drainage Considerations ............................................................................ . ..............................6 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... . ..............................7 SITEGRADING ................................................................................................. . ..............................7 RIGID - ENGINEERED BEAM AND SLAB FOUNDATION ........................................... . ..............................7 AllowableBearing Capacity ........................................................................ . ..............................8 AREAFLATWORK ............................................................................................ . ..............................8 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................ . ..............................8 FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .................................................. . ..............................9 SITEDRAINAGE ............................................................................................... . ..............................9 SITE PREPARATION .......................................................................................... . ..............................9 SELECTFILL .................................................................................................... . .............................10 SHALLOW FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS ........................................................... . .............................10 EXCAVATION SLOPING AND BENCHING ............................................................ . .............................10 EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. . .............................11 Z T N E R ��S Project No. ASA12- 008 -00 February 22, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS UTILITIES....................................................................................................... .............................11 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ .............................11 SUBGRADE CONDITIONS ................................................................................. .............................12 DESIGN INFORMATION ................................................................................... .............................12 FLEXIBLEPAVEMENT ...................................................................................... .............................12 GarbageDumpsters ................................................................................. .............................13 RIGIDPAVEMENT ........................................................................................... .............................13 SUBGRADE TREATMENT OPTION ..................................................................... .............................14 PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................... .............................14 SUBGRADE PREPARATION ............................................................................... .............................14 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................... .............................14 ON -SITE CLAY FILL .......................................................................................... .............................15 LIME TREATMENT OF SUBGRADE .................................................................... .............................15 GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT ............................................................................. .............................16 FLEXIBLEBASE COURSE ................................................................................... .............................16 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE ......................................................... .............................16 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE ...................................................................... .............................17 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES ..................................................................... .............................17 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES .................. .............................17 BUDGETING FOR CONSTRUCTION TESTING ...................................................... .............................18 ATTACHMENTS Boring Location Map Logs of Borings Key to Terms and Symbols Results of Soil Analyses Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report Project No. ASA12- 008 -00 February 22, 2012 INTRODUCTION 1 Raba Kistner Consultants Inc. (RKCI) has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and foundation analysis for the proposed additions and renovation to the Animal Control facility located at 1298 Borgfeld Road in Schertz, Texas. This report briefly describes the procedures utilized during this study and presents our findings along with our recommendations for foundation design and construction considerations, as well as for pavement design and construction guidelines. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The facilities being considered in this study include additions and renovation to the Animal Control facility located at 1298 Borgfeld Road in Schertz, Texas. The proposed building additions include extending the existing facility to the north, southwest, and east. Relatively light loads are anticipated to be carried by the foundation system. It is our understanding that site grading plans will include finished floor elevations (FFE's) which match the existing buildings. Also included in this project are two new parking lots to be located to the south and east (one each) of the facility buildings. Our understanding of the existing topography and proposed grading at this site is based on a drawing provided to us via email on February 7, 2012 by Mr. Mark Oppelt, AIA, LEED AP, REFP with OCO Architects, Inc. Based on this drawing, the topographic high and low across the site are 703 and 698 ft, respectively. LIMITATIONS This engineering report has been prepared in accordance with accepted Geotechnical Engineering practices in the region of south /central Texas and for the use of OCO Architects, Inc., and its representatives for design purposes. This report may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or other uses. This report is not intended for use in determining construction means and methods. The recommendations submitted in this report are based on the data obtained from three borings drilled at this site, our understanding of the project information provided to us, and the assumption that site grading will result in only minor changes in the existing topography. If the project information described in this report is incorrect, is altered, or if new information is available, we should be retained to review and modify our recommendations. This report may not reflect the actual variations of the subsurface conditions across the site. The nature and extent of variations across the site may not become evident until construction commences. The construction process itself may also alter subsurface conditions. If variations appear evident at the time of construction, it may be necessary to reevaluate our recommendations after performing on -site observations and tests to establish the engineering impact of the variations. d Project No. ASA12- 008 -00 2 February 22, 2012 The scope of our Geotechnical Engineering Study does not include an environmental assessment of the air, soil, rock, or water conditions either on or, adjacent to the site. No environmental opinions are presented in this report. If final grade elevations are significantly different from existing grades (more than plus or minus 1 ft), our office should be informed about these changes. If needed and /or if desired, we will reexamine our analyses and make supplemental recommendations. BORINGS AND LABORATORY TESTS Subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by three borings drilled at the locations shown on the Boring Location Map, Figure 1. These locations are approximate and distances were measured using a hand -held, recreational -grade GPS locator; tape; angles; pacing; etc. Ground surface elevations were estimated from the topography depicted on the above - referenced drawing. The estimated ground surface elevation at each of the boring locations is listed in the table below as well as the approximate bottom elevation of each boring. Boring No. Ground Surface Elevation (ft, MSL) Boring Bottom Elevation (ft, MSL) B -1 701.5 681.5 B -2 700 670 B -3 698.5 678.5 The borings were drilled using a truck - mounted drilling rig, and during drilling operations, 23 Split -Spoon samples (with Standard Penetration Tests) were collected. Each sample was visually classified in the laboratory by a member of our Geotechnical Engineering staff. The geotechnical engineering properties of the strata were evaluated by the following tests: Type of 'rest Number Conducted Natural Moisture Content 23 Atterberg Limits 8 Percent Passing a No. 200 Sieve 2 The results of all laboratory tests are presented in graphical or numerical form on the boring logs illustrated on Figures 2 through 4. A key to classification terms and symbols used on the logs is presented on Figure 5. The results of the laboratory and field testing are also tabulated on Figure 6 for ease of reference. Standard penetration test results are noted as "blows per ft" on the boring logs and Figure 6, where "blows per ft" refers to the number of blows by a falling hammer required for 1 ft of penetration into the soil /weak rock. RABAKISTNE Project No. ASA12- 008 -00 3 February 22, 2012 Samples will be retained in our laboratory for 30 days after submittal of this report. Other arrangements may be provided at the request of the Client. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is a tract of developed land located at 1298 Borgfeld Road in Schertz, Texas. The site is generally grass- covered, with a few small, isolated trees. Existing structures include the Animal Control facility and its associated animal pens, driveways and parking areas. An improved portion of East Dietz Creek lies to the immediate east of the facility. The topography generally slopes downward toward the north, east, and southeast with vertical relief of about 5 ft across the site. Surface drainage is visually estimated to range from poor to fair. GEOLOGY A review of the Geologic Atlas of Texas, San Antonio Sheet, indicates that this site is naturally underlain by fluviatile terrace deposits which are stream bed deposits typically consisting of clays, sands, silts, and gravels. Such deposits can contain point bars, cutbanks, oxbows, and abandoned channel segments associated with variations in stream bed activity. As a result, soil profiles in terrace deposit areas may vary greatly over relatively short distances. Key geotechnical engineering concerns for development supported on this formation are the expansive nature of the clays, the consistency or relative density of the deposits, and the absence /presence as well as thickness of potentially water - bearing gravels. SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS Based upon a review of Section 1613 Earthquake Loads — Site Ground Motion of the 2009 International Building Code, the following information has been summarized for seismic considerations associated with this site. ® Site Class Definition (Table 1613.5.2): Class C. Based on the soil borings conducted for this investigation, the upper 100 feet of soil may be characterized as very dense soil and soft rock. ® Mapped Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion for a 0.2 sec Spectral Response Acceleration (Figure 1613.5(1)): S, = 0.104g. Note that the value taken from Figure 1613.5(1) is based on Site Class B and are adjusted per 1613.5.3. ® Mapped Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion for a 1 sec Spectral Response Acceleration (Figure 1613.5(2)): Sl = 0.031g. Note that the value taken from Figure 1613.5(2) is based on Site Class B and are adjusted per 1613.5.3 ® Values of Site Coefficient (Table 1613.5.3(1)): Fa =1.2 ® Values of Site Coefficient (Table 1613.5.3(2)): F„ =1.7 Project No. ASA12- 008 -00 February 22, 2012 The Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Accelerations are as follows: ® 0.2 sec, adjusted based on equation 16 -37: S,,,s = 0.125 • 1 sec, adjusted based on equation 16 -38: Srti1= 0.053 The Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters are as follows: • 0.2 sec, based on equation 16 -39: SDS = 0.083 • 1 sec, based on equation 16 -40: SD1= 0.035 4 Based on the parameters listed above, Tables 1613.5.6(1) and 1613.5.6 (2), the Seismic Design Category for both short period and 1 second response accelerations is A. However, without more information we are not able to discern the Seismic Use Group, which will be one of the following four choices; I, II, III, or IV. STRATIGRAPHY The subsurface stratigraphy at this site can be described by three generalized strata. Each stratum has been designated by grouping soils that possess similar physical and engineering characteristics. The borings logs should be consulted for more specific stratigraphic information. The lines designating the interfaces between strata on the boring logs represent approximate boundaries. Transitions between strata may be gradual. It should be noted that approximately 1 in. of asphalt overlying 7 in. of base material was encountered at the surface in Boring B -1. Stratum I consists of firm to hard, dark brown clay. These clays are classified as highly plastic with measured plasticity indices ranging from 46 to 54. Measured moisture contents range from 20 to 31 percent. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N- values range from 7 to 37 blows per ft. This stratum extends to elevations ranging from 684 to 688 ft in our borings. Stratum II consists of stiff to hard, tan clay. These clays are classified as plastic with measured plasticity indices ranging from 23 to 32. Measured moisture contents range from 15 to 20 percent. SPT N- values range from 13 to 31 blows per ft. This stratum extends to elevations of approximately 677 and 681 ft below the existing ground surface in Borings B -2 and B -3, respectively. This stratum extends to at least the termination depth in Boring B -1. Stratum III consists of medium dense to dense, clayey, tan sand. Measured moisture contents range from 5 to 12 percent. SPT N- values range from 13 to 32 blows per ft. Based on grain size analyses, the percentage of fines (percent passing a No. 200 sieve) ranges from 23 to 40 percent. This stratum extends to at least the termination depth in Borings B -2 and B -3, and was not encountered in Boring B -1. rF; Project No. ASA12- 008 -00 February 22, 2012 GROUNDWATER 5 Upon completion of the drilling operations, the groundwater level in Boring B -2 was at an elevation of approximately 673 ft. Based on observations noted by our drill crew during drilling operations, groundwater seepage was first observed at an elevation of approximately 671 ft in Boring B -2. Borings B -1 and B -3 remained dry during the field exploration phase. However, Boring B -2 was drilled to a depth of 30 ft below the existing ground surface while Borings B -1 and B -3 were drilled to depths of approximately 20 ft below the existing ground surface. It should be noted that at the time of our field study the areas of central and south Texas were in the midst of a prolonged, extreme drought period. These drought conditions have impacted local groundwater conditions. Fluctuations in groundwater levels occur due to variation in rainfall and surface water run -off. The construction process itself may also cause variations in the groundwater level. FOUNDATION ANALYSIS EXPANSIVE SOIL - RELATED MOVEMENTS The anticipated ground movements due to swelling of the underlying soils at the site were estimated for slab -on -grade construction using the empirical procedure, Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Tex - 124 -E, Method for Determining the Potential Vertical Rise (PVR). PVR values ranging from 5 to 5 -1/2 in. were estimated for the stratigraphic conditions encountered in our borings. A surcharge load of 1 psi (concrete slab and sand cushion), an active zone of 15 ft, and dry moisture conditions were assumed in estimating the above PVR values. The TxDOT method of estimating expansive soil - related movements is based on empirical correlations utilizing the measured plasticity indices and assuming typical seasonal fluctuations in moisture content. If desired, other methods of estimating expansive soil - related movements are available, such as estimations based on swell tests and /or soil - suction analyses. However, the performance of these tests and the detailed analysis of expansive soil- related movements were beyond the scope of the current study. It should also be noted that actual movements can exceed the calculated PVR values due to isolated changes in moisture content (such as due to leaks, landscape watering....) or if water seeps into the soils to greater depths than the assumed active zone depth due to deep trenching or excavations. OVEREXCAVATION AND SELECT FILL REPLACEMENT To reduce expansive soil - related movements in at -grade construction, a portion of the upper highly expansive subgrade clays in the building addition areas can be removed by overexcavating and backfilling with a suitable select fill material. PVR values have been estimated for overexcavation and select fill replacement to various depths below the existing ground surface and are summarized in the table below. Recommendations for the selection and placement of select backfill materials are addressed in a subsequent section of this report. RABAKISTK.:_:: r�� Project No. ASA12- 008 -00 February 22, 2012 Depth of Overexcavation and Select Fill Replacement (ft)* Estimated PVR (in.) 0 5 -1/2 2 4 -1/4 4 3 -1/4 6 2 -1/2 8 2 10 1 -1/4 11 1 *below the ground surface elevation existing at the time of our study 0 The Stratum I and II clays both contribute to the PVR values estimated for this site. The depths of these clays require a significant amount of overexcavation and select fill replacement to achieve a PVR of on the order of 1 in. or less. The table above should be used by the project designers to determine the depth of overexcavation and select fill replacement required in order to meet project specifications and tolerances. However, in order to try and reduced differential movements between the existing building and the new additions, consideration should be given to matching the thickness of the existing building pad to the building pads of the new additions. Depending on the thickness of the existing building pad this approach may not reduce the PVR for the addition to .within acceptable tolerances. It should, however, help to reduce the differential movement between the existing building and the addition. To achieve PVR values on the order of those presented in the table above, all fill placed in the building addition areas should consist of select fill material in accordance with the Select Fill section of this report. Drainage Considerations When overexcavation and select fill replacement is selected as a method to reduce the potential for expansive soil - related movements at any site, considerations of surface and subsurface drainage may be crucial to construction and adequate foundation performance of the soil - supported structures. Filling an excavation in relatively impervious plastic clays with relatively pervious select fill material creates a "bathtub" beneath the structure, which can result in ponding or trapped water within the fill unless good surface and subsurface drainage is provided. Water entering the fill surface during construction or entering the fill exposed beyond the building lines after construction may create problems with fill moisture control during compaction and increased access for moisture to the underlying expansive clays both during and after construction. Several surface and subsurface drainage design features and construction precautions can be used to limit problems associated with fill moisture. These features and precautions may include but are not limited to the following: Project No. ASA12- 008 -00 February 22, 2012 7 • Installing berms or swales on the uphill side of the construction area to divert surface runoff away from the excavation /fill area during construction; • Sloping of the top of the subgrade with a minimum downward slope of 1.5 percent out to the base of a dewatering trench located beyond the building perimeter; • Sloping the surface of the fill during construction to promote runoff of rain water to drainage features until the final lift is placed; ® Sloping of a final, well maintained, impervious clay or pavement surface (downward away from the building) over the select fill material and any perimeter drain extending beyond the building lines, with a minimum gradient of 6 in. in 5 ft; • Constructing final surface drainage patterns to prevent ponding and limit surface water infiltration at and around the building perimeter; • Locating the water - bearing utilities, roof drainage outlets and irrigation spray heads outside of the select fill and perimeter drain boundaries; and • Raising the elevation of the ground level floor slab. Details relative to the extent and implementation of these considerations must be evaluated on a project- specific basis by all members of the project design team. Many variables that influence fill drainage considerations may depend on factors that are not fully developed in the early stages of design. For this reason, drainage of the fill should be given consideration at the earliest possible stages of the project. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS SITE GRADING Site grading plans can result in changes in almost all aspects of foundation recommendations. Based on the project information provided to us, we understand that site grading plans at this site will include FFE's of the proposed buildings which match the existing buildings. If site grading plans differ from existing grade by more than plus or minus 1 ft, RKCI must be retained to review the site grading plans prior to bidding the project for construction. This will enable RKCI to provide input for any changes in our original recommendations that may be required as a result of site grading operations or other considerations. RIGID - ENGINEERED BEAM AND SLAB FOUNDATION The proposed building additions may be founded on rigid- engineered beam and slab foundations, provided the selected foundation type can be designed to withstand the anticipated soil - related movements (see Expansive Soil- Related Movements) without impairing either the structural or the operational performance of the structures. If shallow foundations are to be considered, we recommend that overexcavation and select fill replacement be utilized to reduce expansive soil- related movements. RABAKISTNER fi Project No. ASA12- 008 -00 February 22, 2012 Allowable Bearing Capacity A Shallow foundations founded on compacted, select fill should be proportioned using the design parameters tabulated below. Minimum depth below final grade 18 in. Minimum beam width 12 in. Minimum widened beam width 18 in. Maximum allowable bearing pressure for grade beams 1 2,000 psf Maximum allowable bearing pressure for widened beams 1 2,500 psf The above presented maximum allowable bearing pressures will provide a factor of safety of about 3 with respect to the measured shear strength, provided that fill is selected and placed as recommended in the Select Fill section of this report. We estimate total settlement to be on the order of 1 to 2 percent of the depth of select fill material placed in the building pad area. Differential settlement is estimated to be about 1/2 of the total settlement. We recommend that a vapor barrier comprised of polyethylene or polyvinylchlo ride (PVC) sheeting be placed between the supporting soils and the concrete floor slab. AREA FLATWORK it should be noted that ground- supported flatwork such as walkways, courtyards, etc. will be subject to the same magnitude of potential soil - related movements as discussed previously (see Expansive Soil - Related Movement section). Thus, where these types of elements abut rigid building foundations or isolated /suspended structures, differential movements should be anticipated. As a minimum, we recommend that flexible joints be provided where such elements abut the main structure to allow for differential movement at these locations. Where the potential for differential movement is objectionable, it may be beneficial to consider methods of reducing anticipated movements to match the adjacent building performance, such as extending or transitioning the select fill pad to beneath critical areas of the flatwork. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS As with any project where new additions are to be connected to an existing structure, differential movements between the existing structure and addition should be anticipated. This is especially true of this project, where expansive clays underlie the site. To reduce possible differential movements, it is typically desirable to match the old and the new foundation types. However, this will not eliminate the potential for differential movements. Therefore, the recommendations and options discussed in this report should be carefully considered by the design team to obtain the desired performance of the new structural system. As a minimum, control /expansion joints are recommended at connection points between the old and new structures and between architectural trim materials along walls /ceilings. R�� Project No. ASA12- 008 -00 9 February 22, 2012 Should excavations adjacent to existing structures be required, precautions should be taken not to undermine or damage existing grade beams, footings, and /or utility lines. Excavations at the edge of the existing foundations should be stepped or benched as necessary to prevent undermining of the existing building grade beams. FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS SITE DRAINAGE Drainage is an important key to the successful performance of any foundation. Good surface drainage should be established prior to and maintained after construction to help prevent water from ponding within or adjacent to the building foundation and to facilitate rapid drainage away from the building foundation. Failure to provide positive drainage away from the structure can result in localized differential vertical movements in soil supported foundations and floor slabs (which can in turn result in cracking in the sheetrock partition walls, and shifting of ceiling tiles, as well as improper operation of windows and doors). Current ordinances, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), may dictate maximum slopes for walks and drives around and into new buildings. These slope requirements can result in drainage problems for buildings supported on expansive soils. We recommend that, on all sides of the building, the maximum permissible slope be provided away from the building. Also to help control drainage in the vicinity of the structure, we recommend that roof /gutter downspouts and landscaping irrigation systems not be located adjacent to the building foundation. Where a select fill overbuild is provided outside of the floor slab /foundation footprint, the surface should be sealed with an impermeable layer (pavement or clay cap) to reduce infiltration of both irrigation and surface waters. Careful consideration should also be given to the location of water bearing utilities, as well as to provisions for drainage in the event of leaks in water bearing utilities. All leaks should be immediately repaired. Other drainage and subsurface drainage issues are discussed in the Expansive Soil - Related Movements section of this report and under Pavement Construction Considerations. SITE PREPARATION Building areas and all areas to support select fill should be stripped of all vegetation and organic topsoil. Furthermore, as discussed in a previous section of this report, if a shallow foundation system is chosen for the proposed structure, we recommend that overexcavation and select fill replacement be utilized to reduce expansive soil - related movements. Care must be taken to prevent undermining the existing building foundations. Excavations at the edge of the existing foundations should be stepped or benched as necessary to prevent undermining of the existing building grade beams. Exposed subgrades should be thoroughly proofrolled in order to locate and densify any weak, compressible zones. A minimum of 5 passes of a fully - loaded dump truck or a similar heavily - loaded piece CIS v ��9 Project No. ASA12- 008 -00 February 22, 2012 10 of construction equipment should be used for planning purposes. Proofrolling operations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative to document subgrade condition and preparation. Weak or soft areas identified during proofrolling should be removed and replaced with suitable, compacted on -site clays, free of organics, oversized materials, and degradable or deleterious materials. Upon completion of the proofrolling operations and just prior to fill placement or slab construction, the exposed subgrade should be moisture conditioned by scarifying to a minimum depth of 6 in. and recompacting to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum density determined from TOOT, Tex - 114 -E, Compaction Test. The moisture content of the subgrade should be maintained within the range of optimum moisture content to 3 percentage points above optimum moisture content until permanently covered. SELECT FILL Materials used as select fill for final site grading preferably should be crushed stone or gravel aggregate. We recommend that materials specified for use as select fill meet the TxDOT 2004 Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets and Bridges, Item 247, Flexible Base, Type A or C, Grades 1 through 3. Soils classified as CH, CL, MH, ML, SM, GM, OH, OL and Pt under the USCS are not considered suitable for use as select fill materials at this site. The native soils at this site are not considered suitable for use as select fill materials. Select fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 in. in thickness and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum density as determined by TxDOT, Tex - 113 -E, Compaction Test. The moisture content of the fill should be maintained within the range of 2 percentage points below to 2 percentage points above the optimum moisture content until final compaction. SHALLOW FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS Shallow foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. This is necessary to verify that the bearing soils at the bottom of the excavations are similar to those encountered in our borings and that excessive loose materials and water are not present in the excavations. If soft pockets of soil are encountered in the foundation excavations, they should be removed and replaced with a compacted non - expansive fill material or lean concrete up to the design foundation bearing elevations. EXCAVATION SLOPING AND BENCHING If utility trenches or other excavations extend to or below a depth of 5 ft below construction grade, the contractor or others shall be required to develop a trench safety plan to protect personnel entering the trench or trench vicinity. The collection of specific geotechnical data and the development of such a plan, which could include designs for sloping and benching or various types of temporary shoring, are IRAB I S T N E R Project No. ASA12- 008 -00 February 22, 2012 11 beyond the scope of the current study. Any such designs and safety plans shall be developed in accordance with current OSHA guidelines and other applicable industry standards. EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT Our boring logs are not intended for use in determining construction means and methods and may therefore be misleading if used for that purpose. We recommend that earth -work and utility contractors interested in bidding on the work perform their own tests in the form of test pits to determine the quantities of the different materials to be excavated, as well as the preferred excavation methods and equipment for this site. UTILITIES Utilities which project through slab -on- grade, slab -on -fill, or any other rigid unit should be designed with either some degree of flexibility or with sleeves. Such design features will help reduce the risk of damage to the utility lines as vertical movements occur. These types of slabs will generally be constructed as monolithic, grid type beam and slab foundations. Our experience indicates that significant settlement of backfill can occur in utility trenches, particularly when trenches are deep, when backfill materials are placed in thick lifts with insufficient compaction, and when water can access and infiltrate the trench backfill materials. The potential for water to access the backfill is increased where water can infiltrate flexible base materials due to insufficient penetration of curbs, and at sites where geological features can influence water migration into utility trenches (such as fractures within a rock mass or at contacts between rock and clay formations). It is our belief that another factor which can significantly impact settlement is the migration of fines within the backfill into the open voids in the underlying free - draining bedding material. To reduce the potential for settlement in utility trenches, we recommend that consideration be given to the following: ® All backfill materials should be placed and compacted in controlled lifts appropriate for the type of backfill and the type of compaction equipment being utilized and all backfilling procedures should be tested and documented. ® Curbs should-completely penetrate base materials and be installed to a sufficient depth to reduce water infiltration beneath the curbs into the pavement base materials. ® Consideration should be given to wrapping free - draining bedding gravels with a geotextile fabric (similar to Mirafi 140N) to reduce the infiltration and loss of fines from backfill material into the interstitial voids in bedding materials. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for both flexible and rigid pavements are presented in this report. The Owner and/or design team may select either pavement type depending on the performance criteria established for the project. In general, flexible pavement systems have a lower initial construction cost RABAKISTNEi "b Project No. ASA12- 008 -00 12 February 22, 2012 as compared to rigid pavements. However, maintenance requirements over the life of the pavement are typically much greater for flexible pavements. This typically requires regularly scheduled observation and repair„ as well as overlays and /or other pavement rehabilitation at approximately one - half to two - thirds of the design life. Rigid pavements are generally more "forgiving', and therefore tend to be more durable and require less maintenance after construction. For either pavement type, drainage conditions will have a significant impact on long term performance, particularly where permeable base materials are utilized in the pavement section. Drainage considerations are discussed in more detail in a subsequent section of this report. SUBGRADE CONDITIONS We have assumed the subgrade in pavement areas will consist of the Stratum I or recompacted on -site clays, placed and compacted as recommended in the On -Site Clay Fill section of this report. Based on our experience with similar subgrade soils, we have assigned a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 2.5 for use in pavement thickness design analyses. DESIGN INFORMATION The following recommendations were prepared using the DARWin 3.1 software program which utilizes a procedure based on the 1993 "Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures" by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The following recommendations were prepared assuming a 20 -yr design life and Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL's) of 15,000 for light duty pavements and 50,000 for heavy duty pavements. This traffic frequency is approximately equivalent to 1 and 3 tractor - trailer trucks per day for a design period of 20 years for light and heavy duty pavements, respectively. The Project Civil Engineer should review anticipated traffic loading and frequencies to verify that the assumed traffic loading and frequency is appropriate for the intended use of the facility. FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT Flexible pavement sections recommended for this site are as listed in the table below: Past experience with flexible base pavement sections indicates that the use of a geogrid base reinforcement (such as TENSAR TriAx TX -5) provides considerable tensile strength to the pavement section. This tensile strength is achieved without making the section more brittle, as occurs with many a e 1 3 IP. Flexible Pavement Components Flexible Base (in.) Surface Course (in.) Traffic Type Light Duty Traffic (parking areas) 7 2 Heavy Duty Traffic (entrances, driveways, and channelized) 8 2 -1/2 Past experience with flexible base pavement sections indicates that the use of a geogrid base reinforcement (such as TENSAR TriAx TX -5) provides considerable tensile strength to the pavement section. This tensile strength is achieved without making the section more brittle, as occurs with many a e 1 3 IP. Project No. ASA12- 008 -00 13 February 22, 2012 other subgrade or base stabilization methods. The added tensile strength and flexibility allows the pavement section to move and flex, as any expansive clay subgrade undergoes the normal shrink and swell with changes in climatic conditions or as any undocumented fill material experiences isolated settlements, with considerably less cracking and premature deterioration than otherwise typically occurs. For these reasons, we recommend that consideration be given to adding geogrid to the pavement sections which will be constructed on the clay subgrade.. In these instances we do not recommend that the pavement sections be decreased from those recommended in the table above. Our experience indicates that the additional cost of the geogrid will be recovered several times over in decreased maintenance costs. Geogrid is also recommended if the decision is made to leave any of the pavement drives or parking lots unpaved. In these instances we recommend a minimum of 8 inches of crushed limestone base over TENSAR TriAx geogrid (TX -5). Garbage Dumpsters Where flexible pavements are constructed at any site, we recommend that reinforced concrete pads be provided in front of and beneath trash receptacles. The dumpster trucks should be parked on the rigid pavement when the receptacles are lifted. It is suggested that such pads also be,provided in drives where the dumpster trucks make turns with small radii to access the receptacles. The concrete pads at this site should be a minimum of 6 in. thick and reinforced with conventional steel reinforcing bars or welded wire mats. RIGID PAVEMENT We recommend that rigid pavements be considered in areas of channelized traffic, particularly in areas where truck or bus traffic is planned, and particularly where such traffic will make frequent turns, such as described above for garbage dumpster areas. We recommend that rigid pavement sections at this site consist of the following: Traffic Type Portland Cement Concrete Light Duty Traffic 5 in. Heavy Duty Traffic 6 in. We recommend that the concrete pavements be reinforced with welded wire mats or bar mats. As a minimum, the welded wire mats should be 6 x 6 in., W4.0 x W4.0, and the bar mats should be No. 3 reinforcing bars spaced 18 in. on center in both directions. The concrete reinforcing should be placed approximately 1/3 the slab thickness below the surface of the slab, but not less than 2 in. The reinforcing should not extend across expansion joints. Joints in concrete pavements aid in the construction and control the location and magnitude of cracks. Where practical, lay out the construction, expansion, control and sawed joints to form square panels, but not to exceed ACI 302.69 Code recommendations. The ratio of slab length -to -width should not exceed 1.25. Recommended joint spacings are 15 ft longitudinal and 15 ft transverse. ��g Project No. ASA12- 008 -00 14 February 22, 2012 All control joints should be formed or sawed to a depth of at least 1/4 the thickness of the concrete slab. Sawing of control joints should begin as soon as the concrete will not ravel, generally the day after placement. Control joints may be hand formed or formed by using a premolded filler. We recommend that all longitudinal and transverse construction joints be dowelled to promote load transfer. Expansion joints are needed to separate the concrete slab from fixed objects such as drop inlets, light standards and buildings. Expansion joint spacings are not to exceed a maximum of 75 ft and no expansion or construction joints should be located in a swale or drainage collection locations. If possible, the pavement should develop a minimum slope of 0.015 ft /ft to provide surface drainage. Reinforced concrete pavement should cure a minimum of 3 and 7 days before allowing automobile and truck traffic, respectively. SUBGRADE TREATMENT OPTION The soils at this site are highly plastic and can be difficult to work with, particularly during periods of inclement weather. To provide a suitable, weather - resistant working surface for construction activity, the upper 6 in. to 8 in. of the highly plastic subgrade clays may be treated with hydrated lime. This is an option and is not required as part of the pavement thickness design presented above. We do not recommend that the lime- treated subgrade be considered as a structural pavement component. Recommendations for lime treatment are provided in the section of this report entitled Lime Treatment of Subgrade. PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS SUBGRADE PREPARATION Areas to support pavements should be stripped of all vegetation and organic topsoil and the exposed subgrade should be proofrolled in accordance with the recommendations in the Site Preparation section under Foundation Construction Considerations. After completion of the proofrolling operations and just prior to flexible base placement, the exposed subgrade should be moisture conditioned by scarifying to a minimum depth of 6 in. and recompacting to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum density determined from the Texas Department of Transportation Compaction Test (TxDOT, Tex- 114 -E). The moisture content of the subgrade should be maintained within the range of optimum moisture content to 3 percentage points above optimum until permanently covered. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS As with any soil- supported structure, the satisfactory performance of a pavement system is contingent on the provision of adequate surface and subsurface drainage. Insufficient drainage which allows saturation of the pavement subgrade and /or the supporting granular pavement materials will greatly reduce the performance and service life of the pavement systems. RABAK `,'BIER Project No. ASA12- 008 -00 February 22, 2012 15 Surface and subsurface drainage considerations crucial to the performance of pavements at this site include (but are not limited to) the following: 1) Any known natural or man -made subsurface seepage at the site which may occur at sufficiently shallow depths as to influence moisture contents within the subgrade should be intercepted by drainage ditches or below grade French drains. 2) Final site grading should eliminate isolated depressions adjacent to curbs which may allow surface water to pond and infiltrate into the underlying soils. Curbs should completely penetrate base materials and should be installed to sufficient depth to reduce infiltration of water beneath the curbs. 3) Pavement surfaces should be maintained to help minimize surface ponding and to provide rapid sealing of any developing cracks. These measures will help reduce infiltration of surface water downward through the pavement section. ON -SITE CLAY FILL As discussed previously, the pavement recommendations presented in this report were prepared assuming that on -site soils will be used for fill grading in proposed pavement areas. If used, we recommend that on -site soils be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 in. in thickness and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density as determined by TOOT, Tex- 114 -E. The moisture content of the fill should be maintained within the range of optimum water content to 3 percentage points above the optimum water content until permanently covered. We recommend that fill materials be free of roots and other organic or degradable material. We also recommend that the maximum particle size not exceed 4 in. or one half the lift thickness, whichever is smaller. LIME TREATMENT OF SUBGRADE Lime treatment of the subgrade soils, if utilized, should be in accordance with the TxDOT Standard Specifications, Item 260. A sufficient quantity of hydrated lime should be mixed with the subgrade soils to reduce the soil -lime mixture plasticity index to 15 or less. For estimating purposes, we recommend that 3 percent lime by weight be assumed for treatment. For construction purposes, we recommend that the optimum Lime content of the subgrade soils be determined by laboratory testing. Lime - treated subgrade soils should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum density at a moisture content within the range of optimum moisture content to 3 percentage points above the optimum moisture content as determined by Tex - 114 -E. If lime treatment is considered as a method to improve pavement subgrade conditions, it is also recommended to perform additional laboratory testing to determine the concentration of soluble sulfates in the subgrade soils, in order to investigate the potential for a recently reported adverse reaction to lime in certain sulfate - containing soils. The adverse reaction, referred to as sulfate- induced heave, has been known to cause cohesive subgrade soils to swell in short periods of time, resulting in pavement heaving and possible failure. R A B A K I S T N E R Project No. ASA12- 008 -00 February 22, 2012 GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT 16 The geogrid reinforcement should be Tensar TriAx TX -5. An approved source of geogrid .is The Tensar Corporation, Morrow, GA or their designated representative. The geogrid component shall be integrally formed and produced from a punched sheet of polypropylene which is then oriented in three substantially equilateral directions so that the resulting ribs shall have a high degree of molecular orientation, which continues at least in part through the mass of the integral node. The resulting geogrid structure shall have apertures that are triangular in shape, and shall have ribs with a depth -to -width ratio greater than 1.0. The geogrid shall have the nominal characteristics shown in the table below, and shall be certified in writing by the manufacturer to be TX -5: Properties Longitudinal Diagonal Transverse General Rib pitch, mm (in.) 40 (1.60) 40 (1.60) - - Mid -rib depth, mm (in.) - 1.3 (0.05) 1.2 (0.05) - Mid -rib width, mm (in.) - 0.9 (0.04) 1.2 (0.05) - Rib shape - - - Rectangular Aperture shape - - - Triangular The geogrid should be placed at the bottom of the flexible (granular) base section in all cases.. FLEXIBLE BASE COURSE The flexible base course should be crushed limestone conforming to TxDOT Standard Specifications, Item 247, Type A, Grades 1 or 2. Base course should be placed in lifts with a maximum thickness of 8 in. and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum density at a moisture content within the range of 2 percentage points below to 2 percentage points above the optimum moisture content as determined by Tex - 113 -E. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE The asphaltic concrete surface course should conform to TOOT Standard Specifications, Item 340, Type D. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 92 percent of the maximum theoretical specific gravity (Rice) of the mixture determined according to Test Method Tex - 227 -F. Pavement specimens, which shall be either cores or sections of asphaltic pavement, will be tested' according to Test Method Tex- 207 -F. The nuclear- density gauge or other methods which correlate satisfactorily with results obtained from project roadway specimens may be used when approved by the Engineer. Unless otherwise shown on the plans, the Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining the required roadway specimens at their expense and in a manner and at locations selected by the Engineer. �F� Project No. ASA12- 008 -00 February 22, 2012 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE 17 The Portland cement concrete should be air entrained to result in a 4 percent plus /minus 1 percent air, should have a maximum slump of 5 inches, and should have a minimum 28 -day compressive strength of 3,000 psi. A liquid membrane - forming curing compound should be applied as soon as practical after broom finishing the concrete surface. The curing compound will help reduce the loss of water from the concrete. The reduction in the rapid loss in water will help reduce shrinkage cracking of the concrete. CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS-TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES As presented in the attachment to this report, Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report, subsurface conditions can vary across a project site. The conditions described in this report are based on interpolations derived from a limited number of data points. Variations will be encountered during construction, and only the geotechnical design engineer will be able to determine if these conditions are different than those assumed for design. Construction problems resulting from variations or anomalies in subsurface conditions are among the most prevalent on construction projects and often lead to delays, changes, cost overruns, and disputes. These variations and anomalies can best be addressed if the geotechnical engineer of record, RKCI is retained to perform construction observation and testing services during the construction of the project. This is because: • RKCI has an intimate understanding of the geotechnical engineering report's findings and recommendations. RKCI understands how the report should be interpreted and can provide such interpretations on site, on the client's behalf. • RKCI knows what subsurface conditions are anticipated at the site. • RKCI is familiar with the goals of the owner and project design professionals, having worked with them in the development of the geotechnical workscope. This enables RKCI to suggest remedial measures (when needed) which help meet the owner's and the design teams' requirements. • RKCI has a vested interest in client satisfaction, and thus assigns qualified personnel whose principal concern is client satisfaction. This concern is exhibited by the manner in which contractors' work is tested, evaluated and reported, and in selection of alternative approaches when such may become necessary. • RKCI cannot be held accountable for problems which result due to misinterpretation of our findings or recommendations when we are not on hand to provide the interpretation which is required. 019 Project No. ASA12- 008 -00 February 22, 2012 BUDGETING FOR CONSTRUCTION TESTING 17 Appropriate budgets need to be developed for the required construction testing and observation activities. At the appropriate time before construction, we advise that RKCI and the project designers meet and jointly develop the testing budgets, as well as review the testing specifications as it pertains to this project. Once the construction testing budget and scope of work are finalized, we encourage a preconstruction meeting with the selected contractor to review the scope of work to make sure it is consistent with the construction means and methods proposed by the contractor. RKCI looks forward to the opportunity to provide continued support on this project, and would welcome the opportunity to meet with the Project Team to develop both a scope and budget for these services. The following figures are attached and complete this report: Figure 1 Boring Location Map Figures 2 through 4 Logs of Borings Figure 5 Key to Terms and Symbols Figure 6 Results of Soil Analyses I IRA B A K I S T N E R ATTACHMENTS SITE LOCATION MAP S I T E Cibolo, Scheirtz 00 or 17;0 do B -03 ♦ OA IV j B Legend egen'd g en I@ BORING Proposed roposed Building Layout with Additions r SOURCE: 2010 Aerial Photograph Provided by The City of San Antonio (COSA) REVISIONS: RABA No. DATE DESCRIPTION ILA K I STNE R I K S CONSULTANTS Raba Kistner Consultants, Inc. — 12821 West Golden Lane BORING LOCATION MAP — San Antonio, Texas 78249 ANIMAL CONTROL ADDITION AND RENOVATION - P 210:: 699 :: 9090 F 210;: 699:: 6426 SCHERTZ, TEXAS - www.rkci.com TBPE Firm Number 3257 NOTE: This Drawing is Provided for Illustration Only, May Not be to Scale and is Not Suitable for Design or Construction Purposes PROJECT No.: ASA12-008-00 ISSUE DATE: 2-17. DRAWN BY: CCL CHECKED BY: RBW REVIEWED BY: GL13 FIGURE 1 C 2012 by Raba Kistner Consultants, Inc. LOG OF BORING NO. B -1 Ram L4 Animal Control Addition and Renovation Mstner Schertz, Texas TBPE Firm Registration No. F -3257 DRILLING METHOD: Straight Flight Auger LOCATION: N 29.56607; W 98.25343 STRENGTH, TONS /FT2 U. F LL V ppS�HEAR —V— — —0— — _0 — — Q _ ❑— o ra a o 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 w °o a DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL a y g z <? PLASTIC WATER LIQUID Q? e p y O J a X - - - -- - - - - - -X_ SURFACE ELEVATION: 701.5 ft 10 2 30 50 60 0 so 7777 A ASPHALT (1 in.) BASE MATERIAL (7 in.) 14 • CLAY, Stiff to Hard, Dark Brown 23 •- - - -- - - -- 49 5 21 23 - -- - - -- - -X 54 31 • 10 22 • 15 CLAY, Very Stiff, Tan 19 — — —X 24 20 -------------- - - - - -- — -- — -- — -- — Boring Terminated 25 30 35 DEPTH DRILLED: 20.0 ft DEPTH TO WATER: Dry PROJ. No.: ASA12- 008 -00 DATE DRILLED: 2/10/2012 DATE MEASURED: 2/10/2012 FIGURE: 2 r O a- w tY H U W O n. w O 4� } J W H Q cc n o_ w C7 O J X00 OF BORING NO. B -2 R ba Animal Control Addition and Renovation K stnff L4 Schertz, Texas TBPE Firm Registration No. F -3257 DRILLING METHOD: Straight Flight Auger LOCATION: N 29.56606; W 98.25308 SHEAR STRENGTH, TONS/FT' F fA F LL LL Y a / y F- O J a o 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 u w o a DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL Np " w Y ¢ 3 zW PLASTIC WATER LIQUID ¢? e p y y O LIMIT CONTENT LIMIT a — — — — �— — — — — — SURFACE ELEVATION: 700 ft 80 CLAY, Stiff to Hard, Dark Brown 8 16 X, — — — -- — X 52 5 37 40 • 34 10 CLAY, Stiff to Hard, Tan 31 — — — — 32 15 -with shells below 18 ft 13 • 20 SAND, Clayey, Medium Dense to Dense, Tan 13 40 25 - gravelly below 28 ft DRILLER'S NOTE: WATER encountered at 32 • 28 -1/2 ft 30- Boring Terminated 35 DEPTH DRILLED: 30.0 ft DEPTH TO WATER: 26.8 ft PROJ. No.: ASA12- 008 -00 DATE DRILLED: 2/14/2012 DATE MEASURED: 2/14/2012 FIGURE: 3 I— re O D- w F- U W O a J W a w 0 W U) 0 J Z) O (n f� O J w w x Iii H O z LOG OF BORING NO. B -3 Raba L4 Animal Control Addition and Renovation Kisbwr Schertz, Texas TBPE Firm Registration No. F -3257 DRILLING METHOD: Straight Flight Auger LOCATION: N 29.56568; W 98.25285 SHEAR STRENGTH, TONS /FT2 F � } c -W - -O- - -®- - � - -❑- U. o U) a i? 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 v w Z5 `= a DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL y �= No " a y g m PLASTIC WATER LIQUID z e p N O LIMIT CONTENT LIMIT a m - x - - - - - - a - - - - X- SURFACE ELEVATION: 698.5 ft 10 2 30 50 60 80 CLAY, Firm to Hard, Dark Brown 7 - - - - - - - 46 10 • 5 26 - - - - - - - -X 54 25 35 10 CLAY, Very Stiff, Tan 24 - - X 23 15 SAND, Clayey, Medium Dense, Tan - ".1-1 24 • 23 20 -------------- - - - - -- - -- - -- - -- - Boring Terminated 25 30 35 DEPTH DRILLED: 20.0 ft DEPTH TO WATER: Dry PROJ. No.: ASA12- 008 -00 DATE DRILLED: 2/14/2012 DATE MEASURED: 2/14/2012 FIGURE: 4 H CC O CL W I— U W O CL W O W J W H a W rn 0 W W m I- O z KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS MATERIAL TYPES SOIL TERMS ROCK TERMS OTHER CALCAREOUS jCALICHE ® CLAY ❑ CLAYEY Q� GRAVEL o GRAVELLY ❑ BLANK PIPE ❑ SCREEN J _1i 7 PEAT SAND SANDY SILT ❑ SILTY ❑ FILL ❑ CHALK CLAYSTONE ❑ CLAY -SHALE $oo �o oa CONGLOMERATE 0 ❑ DOLOMITE x x x x IGNEOUS ❑ LIMESTONE i MARL METAMORPHIC SANDSTONE SHALE SILTSTONE ASPHALT n n n n ^ n BASE n Q . o CONCRETE /CEMENT BRICKS / PAVERS 0 J PC J �6 WASTE NO INFORMATION WELL CONSTRUCTION AND PLUGGING MATERIALS lz x x ® BENTONITE x BENTONITE & CUTTINGS CUTTINGS CEMENT GROUT a�o CONCRETE /CEMENT �Q� GRAVEL SAMPLE TYPES SAND ❑ VOLCLAY STRENGTH TEST TYPES ti ti AIR ROTARY n n n MUD ROTARY SHELBY TUBE ® O POCKET PENETROMETER TORVANE GRAB SAMPLE ROECOVERY SPLIT BARREL UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION UNCONSOLIDATED -U N D RA I N E D CORE NX CORE SPLIT SPOON mill, GEOPROBE H PITCHER 8 TEXAS CONE ❑ NOTE: TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION CONSOLI DATED-UN DRAINED VALUES SYMBOLIZED ON BORING LOGS REPRESENT SAMPLER PENETROMETER SHEAR STRENGTHS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ROTOSONIC DAMAGED I ROTOSONIC INTACT DISTURBED PROJECT NO. ASA12- 008 -00 R ili�A K7C�7 \P7� REVISED 08 /2011 FIGURE 5a KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS (CONT'®) TERMINOLOGY Terms used in this report to describe soils with regard to their consistency or conditions are in general accordance with the discussion presented in Article 45 of SOILS MECHANICS IN ENGINEERING PRACTICE, Terzaghi and Peck, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967, using the most reliable information available from the field and laboratory investigations. Terms used for describing soils according to their texture or grain size distribution are in accordance with the UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, as described in American Society for Testing and Materials D2487 -06 and D2488 -00, Volume 04.08, Soil and Rock; Dimension Stone; Geosynthetics; 2005. The depths shown on the boring logs are not exact, and have been estimated to the nearest half -foot. Depth measurements may be presented in a manner that implies greater precision in depth measurement, i.e 6.71 meters. The reader should understand and interpret this information only within the stated half -foot tolerance on depth measurements. RELATIVE DENSITY COHESIVE STRENGTH PLASTICITY Penetration Resistance Relative Resistance Cohesion Plasticity Degree of Blows per ft Density Blows per ft Consistency TSF Index Plasticity 0 - 4 Very Loose 0 2 Very Soft 0 - 0.125 0 - 5 None 4 - 10 Loose 2 - 4 Soft 0.125 - 0.25 5 - 10 Low 10 - 30 Medium Dense 4 - 8 Firm 0.25 - 0.5 10 - 20 Moderate 30 - 50 Dense 8 - 15 Stiff 0.5 - 1.0 20 - 40 Plastic > 50 Very Dense 15 30 Very Stiff 1.0 - 2.0 > 40 Highly Plastic > 30 Hard > 2.0 B = Benzene T = Toluene E = Ethylbenzene X = Total Xylenes BTEX = Total BTEX TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ND = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed NR = Not Recorded /No Recovery OVA = Organic Vapor Analyzer ppm = Parts Per Million F-AVI-TI-M WWI liMM Qam, Qas, Qal = Quaternary Alluvium Qat = Low Terrace Deposits Qbc = Beaumont Formation Qt = Fluviatile Terrace Deposits Qao = Seymour Formation Qle = Leona Formation Q -Tu = Uvalde Gravel Ewi = Wilcox Formation Emi = Midway Group Mc = Catahoula Formation El = Laredo Formation Kknm = Navarro Group and Marlbrook Marl Kpg = Pecan Gap Chalk Kau = Austin Chalk Kef = Eagle Ford Shale Kbu = Buda Limestone Kdr = Del Rio Clay Kft = Fort Terrett Member Kgt = Georgetown Formation Kep = Person Formation Kek = Kainer Formation Kes = Escondido Formation Kew = Walnut Formation Kgr = Glen Rose Formation Kgru = Upper Glen Rose Formation Kgrl = Lower Glen Rose Formation Kh = Hensell Sand PROJECT NO. ASA12- 008 -00 REVISED 02/2005 FIGURE 5b KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS (CONT °D) TERMINOLOGY SOIL STRUCTURE Slickensided Having planes of weakness that appear slick and glossy. Fissured Containing shrinkage or relief cracks, often filled with fine sand or silt; usually more or less vertical. Pocket Inclusion of material of different texture that is smaller than the diameter of the sample. Parting Inclusion less than 1/8 inch thick extending through the sample. Seam Inclusion 1/8 inch to 3 inches thick extending through the sample. Layer Inclusion greater than 3 inches thick extending through the sample. Laminated Soil sample composed of alternating partings or seams of different soil type. Interlayered Soil sample composed of alternating layers of different soil type. Intermixed Soil sample composed of pockets of different soil type and layered or laminated structure is not evident. Calcareous Having appreciable quantities of carbonate. Carbonate Having more than 50% carbonate content. SAMPLING METHODS RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLING Cohesive soil samples are to be collected using three -inch thin - walled tubes in general accordance with the Standard Practice for Thin - Walled Tube Sampling of Soils (ASTM D1587) and granular soil samples are to be collected using two -inch split - barrel samplers in general accordance with the Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split - Barrel Sampling of Soils (ASTM D1586). Cohesive soil samples may be extruded on -site when appropriate handling and storage techniques maintain sample integrity and moisture content. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) A 2- in. -OD, 1- 3 /8- in. -ID split spoon sampler is driven 1.5 ft into undisturbed soil with a 140 -pound hammer free falling 30 in. After the sampler is seated 6 in. into undisturbed soil, the number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 in. is the Standard Penetration Resistance or "N" value, which is recorded as blows per foot as described below. SPLIT - BARRELL SAMPLER DRIVING RECORD Blows Per Foot Description 25 - - - - 25 blows drove sampler 12 inches, after initial 6 inches of seating. 50/7" - - 50 blows drove sampler 7 inches, after initial 6 inches of seating. Ref /3" - - - - 50 blows drove sampler 3 inches during initial 6 -inch seating interval. NOTE: To avoid damage to sampling tools, driving is limited to 50 blows during or after seating interval. PROJECT NO. ASA12- 008 -00 r-11P.91 °MM '*V1q Mr1" REVISED 02/2005 FIGURE 5c RESULTS OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSES PROJECT NAME: Animal Control Addition and Renovation Schertz, Texas FILE NAME: ASA12- 008- OO.GPJ 2/17/2012 Boring Sample Blows Water Liquid Plastic Plasticity USCS Dry Unit Weight %-200 Shear Strength Strength No. Depth per ft Content Limit Limit Index (pcfl Sieve (tsf) Test (ft) (%) B -1 1.0 to 2.5 14 28 2.5 to 4.0 23 25 69 20 49 CH 4.5 to 6.0 21 24 6.5 to 8.0 23 22 72 18 54 CH 8.5 to 10.0 31 22 13.5 to 15.0 22 25 18.5 to 20.0 19 17 38 14 24 CL B -2 0.0 to 1.5 8 30 2.5 to 4.0 16 31 72 20 52 CH 4.5 to 6.0 37 20 6.5 to 8.0 40 22 8.5 to 10.0 34 21 13.5 to 15.0 31 20 49 17 32 CL 18.5 to 20.0 13 15 23.5 to 25.0 13 11 40 28.5 to 30.0 32 12 B -3 0.0 to 1.5 7 29 65 19 46 CH 2.5 to 4.0 10 25 4.5 to 6.0 26 21 74 20 54 CH 6.5 to 8.0 25 21 8.5 to 10.0 35 21 13.5 to 15.0 24 17 37 14 23 CL 18.5 to 20.0 24 5 23 PP = Pocket Penetrometer TV = Torvane UC = Unconfined Compression FV = Field Vane UU = Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial CU = Consolidated Undrained Triaxial PROJECT NO. ASA12- 008 -00 IN"Illmn Kiat.amm-r FIGURE 6