geotechnical investigation report no. 2 cloice... · geotechnical investigation – report no. 2...

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION – REPORT NO. 2

Church Road and Cloice Creek Lift Stations – Sewer Lines Waco, Texas

LFE Project No. W19-050 November 22, 2019

Report Prepared For: CDM Smith Austin, Texas Report Prepared By:

Ottis Foster, P.E. Principal / Geotechnical Engineer

November 22, 2019

Waco and Harker Heights (Killeen), Texas Ph: 254/235-1048 www.LFEctx.com

Copyright 2019 Waco and Harker Heights (Killeen), Texas Page 1 of 11 LFE Project No. W19-050, Report 2 254/235-1048; www.LFEctx.com November 22, 2019

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION – REPORT NO. 2

CHURCH ROAD AND CLOICE CREEK LIFT STATIONS – SEWER LINES WACO, TEXAS

1.0 INTRODUCTION Project Description: Sewer lines are planned as part of proposed work at the Church Road and

Cloice Creek Lift Stations. The project vicinity is shown on Plate 1. The scope of services is described in Langerman Foster Engineering (LFE) proposal number GEO 18-146R1, dated April 23, 2019. Authorization was provided by the signature of CDM Smith Representative Allen D. Woelke, PE, Vice President dated June 28, 2019 on the project contract.

Eighteen borings to various depths were originally proposed for this

project (Reports 1 and 2), with a total proposed drilling length of 610 feet. Working together with CDM, 2 borings were added for a total of 20 borings, but then Borings 5 and 7 were deleted, for a total of 18 borings drilled. The depths of other borings were also changed. The total drilling footage done was 520 linear feet, but the volume of lab testing was not changed appreciably. The fee was reduced accordingly to account for less drilling. This Report No. 2 addresses the planned sewer lines, and is primarily a data report. Report 1 addressed the Lift Stations. Borings B-1 and B-11 were addressed in Report No. 1, and are not addressed in this Report No. 2.

Purpose: The purpose of this Geotechnical Investigation Report No. 2 has been to

provide geotechnical information, including boring logs and field and laboratory test results, for use by others in planning the sewer line. The information in this report is based on field investigations, laboratory investigations, and analysis of the field and laboratory information.


2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Drilling Date: Borings for this Report No. 2 were drilled on August 20, 21, 22, and

September 18, 19, and 24, 2019. Boring Layout: The approximate boring locations are shown on Plates 2A, B, and C. The

locations shown are based on GPS coordinates collected with a handheld GPS device with a stated accuracy usually of +/- 16 feet.

Sampling and Drilling Operations: Sampling and drilling details are shown on the boring logs in the Appendix.

In general, push-tubes were used in cohesive soils, and Standard Penetration Tests (SPT, ASTM D 1586) in harder soils, granular soils, and in shale and rock. Shale and rock were also cored, with water used for coring. The borings and depths drilled are shown in Table 2.1. Borings 1 and 11 are shown but are not addressed in this Report No. 2.

TABLE 2.1: DEPTHS DRILLED (ft)

Boring

Depth Drilled

Boring Depth Drilled

1 35 11 25

2 20 12 15

3 40 13 10

4 90 14 10

5 deleted 15 10

6 90 16 25

7 deleted 17 25

8 30 18 25

9 10 19 25

10 10 20 25


3.0 LABORATORY TESTS Test Procedures: The following tests were conducted in general conformance with the

standards noted in Table 3.1.

TABLE 3.1: LABORATORY TESTS

Test Name Test Method

Atterberg Limits ASTM D 4318

-#200 Mesh Sieve ASTM D 1140

Moisture Content ASTM D 2216

Soil Classification ASTM D 2487

Unconfined Compression (soil) ASTM D 2166

Unconfined Compression (rock) ASTM D 2938

Test Results: Laboratory test results are tabulated on Plate 3 in the Appendix, and on

the boring logs.

4.0 SUBSURFACE MATERIALS Geology: The Environmental Atlas of McLennan County1 maps the borings in various

geologic formations. Figure 4.1 is excerpted from the referenced Environmental Atlas. The geologic formations shown by number in Figure 4.1 are described in Table 4.1.

LFE understands that the vertical black line between Borings 9 and 10 in Figure 4.1 indicates a fault line. Faults in this area are considered inactive, but abrupt changes in the geologic conditions occur at faults. Also of note in Figure 4.1 is the change from South Bosque Shale to Austin Chalk limestone and back to South Bosque Shale between Borings 13 and 14. The South Bosque Shale and the Austin Chalk limestone have very different properties, as discussed further in this report and as shown in the Table 4.1 final column titled ‘LFE Comment’.

1 Joe Yelderman and Robert Cervenka, Baylor Geological Studies, Spring 1992, Bulletins No. 13 & 14, Environmental Atlas of McLennan County.


Figure 4.1 Geologic Map From the Baylor Atlas, with Approximate Bore Locations

TABLE 4.1. GEOLOGY UNIT NUMBER FROM FIGURE 4.1, AND DESCRIPTION

Unit Number

Geology

Abbreviated Atlas Description

LFE Comment

5 Bosque Terraces

Limestone gravels with clay and sand

Gravel, sand, silt, and clay, layered or intermixed

9 Austin Chalk Chalk and marl beds, alternating

Limestone with clayey seams and layers

10 South Bosque Shale

Gray Shale that weathers to tan

Highly expansive, upper zone is clay, harder with depth

11 Lake Waco Shale

Shale with limestone and bentonite seams

Highly expansive, upper zone is clay, harder with depth

12 Pepper Shale Shale Highly expansive, upper zone is clay, harder with depth

13 Del Rio Clay Clay with limestone seams Highly expansive, harder with depth

Note: Descriptions are very general.

Except for the low geologic unit numbers related to river deposits, the

higher (younger) numbered geologic units overlie the lower (older) numbered geologic units. Sometimes a lower (older) geologic unit may be higher than an adjoining geologic unit because of faulting.


Stratigraphy: Individual boring logs are contained in the Appendix. Material descriptions are general and range of depths approximate because boundaries between different strata are seldom clear and abrupt in the field. The approximate depth to shale or limestone is shown in Table 4.2.

TABLE 4.2: DEPTHS TO SHALE OR LIMESTONE (ft)

Boring

Depth to Clayey Shale

or Shale

Depth to

Limestone1

Boring

Depth to Clayey Shale

or Shale

Depth to

Limestone1

2 None None 12 14 None

3 22 None 13* None None

4 16 60 14* None 3**

5 Deleted Deleted 15* None 2**

6 28 65 16 None 1/2

7 Deleted Deleted 17 None 8

8 None None 18 None 6

9* None None 19 None 9

10* 14 None 20 None 10 Depths and descriptions are general and approximate. See paragraph below for limitations of and an explanation of this Table. 1weathered tan or unweathered gray limestone *Boring depth only 10 feet. Boring 12 only extended 15 feet. **Depth to Severely Weathered Limestone, not limestone. LFE describes severely weathered limestone as a mixture of broken limestone and limestone-derived gravel, sand, silt, and clay, with limestone seams and layers. It is a transitional layer from more soil-like material above and more rock-like material below.

General Notes on Table 4.2. LFE usually identified clayey shale whenever

the penetration test N value in a material with plasticity was greater than about 40 (sampling by push-tube did not seem possible). LFE usually identified shale whenever the N value in a material with plasticity was greater than about 50 blows for 6 inches, or could be cored. Rock was identified whenever non-plastic mass material provided N values generally stronger than about 50 blows for 4 or 5 inches, or appeared to have compression strength greater than about 30 to 50 tsf.

Differentiating between harder shale and softer limestone is not always obvious to LFE. Many depths described in the borings as rock had or may have shale seams and layers, and depths labeled as shale had or may have limestone seams and layers. LFE’s description of shale and limestone is a reflection of the strength of the material, and not necessarily in agreement with terminology that would be used by a geologist.


Groundwater: Groundwater was observed in the borings as shown in Table 4.3. The water observations conducted for this investigation are short-term and should not be interpreted as a groundwater study. However, the presence of groundwater will affect construction operations and can affect the performance of the utility line. Construction operations should be prepared to handle groundwater.

TABLE 4.3: SUBSURFACE WATER OBSERVATIONS (ft)

Boring

Initial Water Depth

Depth After 10 Minutes

Boring

Initial Water Depth

Depth After 10 Minutes

2 12.8 12.8 12 None None

3 18.4 16.7 13** None None

4* 12.2 11.8 14** None None

5 deleted --- 15** None None

6* 29.2 24.1 16* None None

7 deleted --- 17* None None

8** None None 18* None None

9** None None 19* None None

10** None None 20* None None Additional water readings including end-of-day and next day readings were done on some of the borings and are shown on the boring logs in the Appendix. *Water was used for coring in these borings, and observations for subsurface water could not be done in the boring after using water for coring. **Borings were only 10 feet deep. Boring 12 was only 15 feet deep.

The lack of water in some borings does not mean the absence of water within the depths explored, only that it was not observed at that particular time and location. It could exist within the boring depths at different elevations at different times, and it could exist elsewhere on the project site. It is common to encounter shallow groundwater in the Central Texas area, especially during and after periods of rainfall. The water tends to percolate down through the surficial soils until encountering a relatively impervious layer, and then either flow down gradient or become trapped. Water also tends to fill fractures and joints within the rock mass.

Groundwater levels may be more consistent and likely near the river, where the subsurface water elevation may be more directly influenced by the river water elevation. Elsewhere LFE generally expects shallow groundwater levels to reflect rainfall activity and seasonal wet periods. LFE has found groundwater to be problematic where the Austin Chalk limestone formation and the South Bosque shale formation are exposed on slopes, and along the horizontal contact between these formations near outcrops. Excavation or tunneling that intersects this contact may


have a higher risk of encountering subsurface water. Groundwater is also expected to be more prevalent near faults.

Subsurface Material Characteristics: Soil Movement Potential. Clay soils in the Central Texas area tend to swell

when allowed to increase in moisture content and shrink when allowed to decrease in moisture content. The moisture fluctuations occur due to seasonal wet and dry cycles, but are also influenced after construction by site grading, drainage, landscaping, and groundwater. Some clay soils swell when the overlying load is reduced, such as in the bottom of excavations. Soil movements can occur vertically, affecting foundations, and laterally, affecting retaining walls. Actual soil movement is difficult to predict due to the many variables involved.

The borings with clay and clayey shales with a higher Plasticity Index (PI) are expected to have a high potential for soil movements.

Concerns for Shifting Ground: Where utilities will be in expansive clays and clayey shale and within about

15 to 20 feet of the ground surface, they will likely be subjected to shifting ground (clayey soils shrinking and swelling in response to soil moisture changes). The pipe design and installation methods must take this into account.

As noted previously, the Austin Chalk is a limestone that is relatively stable

and rock-like. The adjoining South Bosque formation is a shale material that weathers to a clay that is highly expansive and becomes weaker when wetted. As shown in Figure 4.1, the stratigraphy is mapped as varying between South Bosque Shale and Austin Chalk limestone between Borings 13 and 14. As well, from Boring 14 towards Boring 15, the South Bosque Shale is mapped generally to the west-northwest of the line between these borings, and Austin Chalk limestone to the east-northeast. Note that the geologic maps are very approximate, but indicate there could be abrupt changes in the subsurface material characteristics in these areas.

Concern for Abrupt Changes In Subsurface Conditions: As discussed, the utility line crosses several mapped geologic formations.

In our opinion, the most abrupt change in subsurface materials and conditions can be expected at the zone where the Austin Chalk limestone (Geologic Unit 9) and South Bosque Shale (Unit 10) meet, or outcrop, and


especially where these meet at a fault. As noted previously, the Austin Chalk limestone is considered a volumetrically stable material (not generally subject to expansive soil movement potential), while the South Bosque shale is considered highly subject to shrinking and swelling due to moisture changes.

LFE understands that faults in the Waco area are not seismically active. However, the degree of excavation or tunneling effort will be very different for these differing materials, especially if the excavation or tunneling follows along a fault line. As well, LFE has seen subsurface water behavior more problematic where the Austin Chalk and the South Bosque Shale meet.

Recommendation For Input by the Baylor Geology Department: LFE respectfully recommends that the Baylor Geology Department be

contacted to discuss the geology of the proposed utility line route. Baylor has published numerous studies of the local geology, including the Atlas referenced previously. LFE understands that Baylor Geology staff was involved with developing the local Escarpment Zone ordinances, which LFE understands relate to the geology existing at this project. Geology Professor Dr. Joe Yelderman was an author of the previously-referenced Environmenal Atlas of McLennan County.

Excavations: The following paragraphs contain general comments regarding below

grade excavations. Excavation characteristics, design of temporary support systems, and dewatering methods are the sole responsibility of the contractor. Accordingly, the following statements should be regarded only as opinions.

Materials encountered in the borings varied from granular to clayey soils,

and from shaley clay to shale to limestone. With some exceptions, LFE expects conventional earth-moving equipment to be sufficient to conduct excavations in the clayey soils and granular materials. The limestone will require rock-excavation equipment. The shale and harder clayey shales can be considered an intermediate material that may require rock-excavation equipment or may be workable with conventional earth-moving equipment. Because there are limestone layers sometimes between more clay-like layers, and vice versa, the excavation equipment required to accomplish the work will vary across the project.


The design of temporary excavation support systems, trench safety systems, and slope stability for temporary open cut excavations were excluded from our scope of services. The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and must shore, slope or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom.

All excavations must comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations including current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. Construction site safety is generally the sole responsibility of the contractor, who shall also be responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. We are providing information in this report solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should the provided information be interpreted to mean that LFE is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor’s activities; such responsibility is not being implied and must not be inferred.

In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth,

including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations. Specifically, the current OSHA Health and Safety Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926 must be followed. The contractor’s “responsible person” as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, must evaluate the materials exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor’s safety procedures.

If an excavation, including a trench, is extended to a depth of more than twenty (20) feet, it will be necessary to have the side slopes designed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Texas. The contractor’s “responsible person” must establish a minimum lateral distance from the crest of the slope for vehicles, spoil piles, or other surcharge loads. Likewise, the contractor’s “responsible person” shall establish protective measures for exposed slope faces.

The contractor must include the proximity to adjacent features when

planning their method of excavation and support. These features include, but are not limited to, adjacent structures and utility lines. The contractor must also be prepared to manage varying amounts of subsurface water. Dewatering quantities will depend on drainage features, any groundwater, and rainfall prior to and during construction.


Slope Stability: Slope stability analysis was not included in the scope of services, and slope stability is discussed only generally in this report. The following discussion primarily concerns excavation work in the highly expansive clays and shales in Geologic Units 10 to 13 (see Figure 4.1). These materials can be unstable at even gentle slopes. Geologic Unit 9 (Austin Chalk Limestone) can also experience instability if the underlying South Bosque Shale (Unit 10) is compromised.

Excavations in the expansive clays and shales should be covered as soon as possible to reduce the risk of causing a slope failure. Water should be prevented from entering or ponding in excavations, and removed as quickly as possible if water does enter or pond in an excavation.

Excavations at the toe of a slope in Geologic Units 10 to 13 should be avoided to prevent activating a slide, or if necessary then the excavation should be done during dry weather conditions and backfilled as quickly as possible. LFE recommends monitoring the slope above a cut, and taking immediate remedial action if slope instability is suspected. Utility line construction should not permanently steepen existing slopes in Geologic Units 10 to 13. Existing vegetation is usually beneficial for slope stability, and should not be removed unless necessary for the conduct of the work, and should be re-established after the work unless root systems or other complications make such re-planting unwise. The Project Engineer is encouraged to be mindful of the following factors which can contribute to slope instability. Some of these actions may be required to conduct the project, but the risks should be recognized and such actions be limited to as short a time as feasible.

- Steepening a slope; - Removing existing vegetation; - Allowing water to pond on or in the immediate vicinity of slopes; - Allowing water to enter into or otherwise saturate the slope mass; - Reducing the load at the toe of a slope (such as by excavating at the

slope toe, or along the slope face) - Increasing the load at the crest of a slope

The Cities of Waco and Woodway have Escarpment Zone Ordinances that

address construction operations in these areas, and particularly where the Austin Chalk and South Bosque formations meet on a slope. LFE understands that the ordinances do not govern public works, but LFE believes the information in these ordinances can be helpful in planning for this project. These ordinances can be downloaded at the following links:


https://library.municode.com/tx/waco/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeI

d=PTIICOOR_CH9ESRE_S9-1DE https://library.municode.com/tx/woodway/codes/code_of_ordinances?n

odeId=COOR_CH17SU_S17-24ESZOGESEARREUR 5.0 LIMITATIONS Limitations: This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client and their

designated project design team. Preparation of the report has been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by reputable geotechnical engineers in the same locality. No warranties, express or implied, are intended or made.

As stated in the attachment titled ‘Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report,” the subsurface conditions are interpreted from samples taken only at the boring locations. During construction, variations will be encountered, and will require interpretation by LFE to verify the adequacy of the geotechnical findings. Other limitations and considerations are discussed in the attachment and are a part of this report.

LFE does not provide environmental services, and this investigation did not

include environmental testing or evaluation. LFE does not know whether environmental services may be appropriate or required for this project. An environmental professional should be retained to evaluate whether such services are appropriate and/or necessary, and to provide such services when so deemed.

6.0 APPENDIX

Site Location Map – Plate 1 Boring Location Sketch – Plates 2A, B, and C Laboratory Test Results – Plate 3 Explanation of Boring Log Symbols and Terms Boring Logs Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report

SITE LOCATION MAP

CLOICE CREEK LIFT STATION WACO, TEXAS

LFE PROJECT NO. W19-050, Report 2

PLATE

1

Project Location

BORING LOCATION MAP


LFE PROJECT NO. W19-050, REPORT 2

PLATE

2A

B – 3

B – 8

B – 6

B – 4

B – 2

BORING LOCATION MAP



PLATE

2B

B – 10

B – 13

B – 12

B – 9

BORING LOCATION MAP



PLATE

2C

B – 20

B – 14

B – 18

B – 16

B – 15

B – 17

B – 19

B-2 0.0 - 2.0 14B-2 2.0 - 4.0 61 21 40 90 18B-2 4.0 - 6.0 18B-2 6.0 - 8.0 16 113.5 8.6 8.8B-2 8.0 - 10.0 54 20 34 83 19B-2 10.0 - 12.0 7B-2 13.0 - 15.0 46 17 29 99 15 118.3 15.0 3.5B-2 18.5 - 19.8 18B-3 0.0 - 1.5 8B-3 1.5 - 3.0 46 17 29 35 5B-3 4.0 - 6.0 11 112.2 9.7 3.9B-3 6.0 - 8.0 51 19 32 87 23B-3 8.0 - 10.0 5B-3 10.0 - 12.0 26 13 13 15 5B-3 13.0 - 14.5 16 5B-3 18.0 - 19.5 11 12B-3 23.0 - 24.5 58 21 37 92 20B-3 28.5 - 30.0 20B-3 33.5 - 35.0 58 21 37 97 22B-3 38.5 - 40.0 18B-4 0.0 - 2.0 13B-4 2.0 - 4.0 45 16 29 84 10B-4 4.0 - 6.0 9 117.6 18.4 1.8B-4 6.0 - 8.0 24 4B-4 8.5 - 10.0 32 16 16 23 5B-4 10.0 - 11.5 27 6B-4 13.0 - 14.5 65 25B-4 18.5 - 20.0 60 20 40 97 20B-4 23.5 - 25.0 21B-4 28.5 - 30.0 56 20 36 98 19B-4 33.0 - 34.5 17B-4 38.0 - 38.8 21B-4 43.0 - 72.2 2.0B-4 47.0 - 36.3 2.0B-4 53.0 - 61.1 2.3B-4 58.0 - 72.7 2.0B-4 63.0 - 88.6 1.8B-4 67.0 - 8.1 2.6B-4 72.0 - 25.5 3.4B-4 78.0 - 136.6 1.6B-4 82.5 - 180.6 1.9B-4 86.5 - 106.8 1.7

LiquidLimit

UnconfinedCompressive

Strength(tsf)

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex

Project: Cloice Creek Lift Station and Sewer Line

Project Number: W19-050

Summary of Laboratory Results

MoistureContent

(%)

PercentPassingNo. 200Sieve

SampleDepth

(ft.)

BoringNo.

Strain atFailure

(%)

Unit DryWeight

(pcf)

Plate 3

B-6 0.0 - 1.5 9B-6 2.0 - 4.0 67 20 47 23 5B-6 4.0 - 6.0 27 92.8 3.4 6.8B-6 6.0 - 8.0 94 29B-6 8.0 - 10.0 68 25 43 91 28B-6 10.0 - 12.0 22 104.2 5.7 14.0B-6 13.0 - 15.0 50 20 30 93 19B-6 18.0 - 20.0 21 103.2 2.9 8.3B-6 23.0 - 25.0 49 16 33 12 6 119.4 1.8 8.3B-6 28.0 - 29.5 17B-6 33.0 - 34.5 65 20 45 99 22B-6 38.5 - 40.0 20B-6 43.5 - 45.0 55 20 35 95 15B-6 48.5 - 48.9 20B-6 53.5 - 55.0 61 20 41 99 20B-6 58.5 - 60.0 20B-6 63.5 - 64.7 22B-6 67.5 - 85.4 3.0B-6 72.5 - 108.8 2.1B-6 77.5 - 138.9 1.8B-6 82.5 - 134.6 1.7B-6 86.5 - 126.7 2.0B-8 0.0 - 2.0 15B-8 2.0 - 4.0 62 20 42 93 14B-8 4.0 - 6.0 14 115.8 21.8 3.4B-8 6.0 - 8.0 15B-8 8.0 - 10.0 68 23 45 92 16B-8 10.0 - 12.0 16 111.7 17.3 8.3B-8 13.0 - 15.0 65 20 45 96 19B-8 18.0 - 20.0 58 19 39 86 22 101.2 6.1 7.3B-8 23.0 - 25.0 61 22 39 37 13B-8 28.0 - 30.0 19 109.8 7.8 3.0B-9 0.0 - 2.0 5B-9 2.0 - 4.0 53 20 33 50 9B-9 4.0 - 6.0 17B-9 6.0 - 8.0 78 24 54 75 15 113.2 11.0 3.6B-9 8.0 - 10.0 23B-10 0.0 - 2.0 15B-10 2.0 - 4.0 64 22 42 92 16 115.2 34.8 5.5B-10 4.0 - 6.0 17B-10 6.0 - 8.0 53 22 31 90 22B-10 8.5 - 10.0 68 22 46 97 31

LiquidLimit


Strength(tsf)

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex




MoistureContent

(%)


SampleDepth

(ft.)

BoringNo.

Strain atFailure

(%)

Unit DryWeight

(pcf)

Plate 3

B-12 0.0 - 2.0 6B-12 2.0 - 4.0 46 19 27 74 10B-12 4.0 - 6.0 67 24 43 66 11B-12 6.0 - 7.5 73 13B-12 8.0 - 10.0 66 24 42 84 27B-12 10.0 - 11.5 24B-12 13.5 - 15.0 46 19 27 59 10B-13 0.0 - 1.5 12B-13 2.0 - 3.5 67 22 45 81 15B-13 4.0 - 5.5 8B-13 6.0 - 7.5 62 22 40 86 24B-13 8.0 - 10.0 81 27 54 86 25B-14 0.0 - 1.5 43 20 23 80 11B-14 2.0 - 2.8 11B-14 4.0 - 4.5 55 12B-14 6.0 - 6.3 9B-15 0.0 - 1.5 60 23 37 90 13B-15 2.0 - 3.4 84 14B-15 4.0 - 4.4 13B-15 6.0 - 6.3 12B-15 8.5 - 52 12B-15 9.5 - 9.8 13B-16 0.0 - 0.8 69 9B-16 6.5 - 88.0 1.5B-16 12.5 - 55.6 1.1B-16 17.5 - 72.2 1.9B-16 22.5 - 112.1 1.9B-17 0.0 - 2.0 60 21 39 68 9B-17 2.0 - 4.0 7B-17 4.0 - 5.5 45 20 25 44 7B-17 6.0 - 6.4 13B-17 8.0 - 8.3 11B-17 11.0 - 49.8 1.5B-17 14.5 - 79.6 1.7B-17 22.5 - 90.4 2.0B-18 0.0 - 2.0 46 19 27 63 7B-18 2.0 - 3.3 34 18 16 71 13B-18 4.0 - 4.4 13B-18 6.0 - 61 13B-18 8.0 - 8.2 12B-18 12.5 - 120.3 1.7B-18 16.5 - 31.2 2.0

LiquidLimit


Strength(tsf)

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex




MoistureContent

(%)


SampleDepth

(ft.)

BoringNo.

Strain atFailure

(%)

Unit DryWeight

(pcf)

Plate 3

B-18 23.0 - 23.8 1.1B-19 0.0 - 1.2 5B-19 2.0 - 2.2 4B-19 4.0 - 4.4 14B-19 6.0 - 6.4 68 12B-19 8.0 - 8.3 12B-19 11.0 - 65.5 2.6B-19 17.0 - 83.4 1.5B-19 23.0 - 90.4 1.5B-20 0.0 - 1.0 2B-20 1.0 - 2.5 52 19 33 35 16B-20 2.5 - 4.0 16B-20 4.0 - 4.4 44 12B-20 6.0 - 6.8 14B-20 8.0 - 8.4 59 15B-20 12.5 - 62.4 1.7B-20 17.0 - 84.8 1.2B-20 22.0 - 86.9 1.7

LiquidLimit


Strength(tsf)

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex




MoistureContent

(%)


SampleDepth

(ft.)

BoringNo.

Strain atFailure

(%)

Unit DryWeight

(pcf)

Plate 3

CLIENT CDM Smith

PROJECT NUMBER W19-050

PROJECT NAME Church Road and Cloice Creek Lift Stations

PROJECT LOCATION Waco, TX

ABBREVIATIONSTVPIDUCppm

----

TORVANEPHOTOIONIZATION DETECTORUNCONFINED COMPRESSIONPARTS PER MILLION

LIQUID LIMIT (%)PLASTIC INDEX (%)MOISTURE CONTENT (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)NON PLASTICPERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVEPOCKET PENETROMETER (TSF)

LLPIWDDNP-200PP

-------

Bag Sample

Split Spoon

Shelby Tube

SAMPLER SYMBOLSLITHOLOGIC SYMBOLS(Unified Soil Classification System)

CH: USCS High Plasticity Clay

CHS: USCS SANDY FAT CLAY

CL: USCS Low Plasticity Clay

CLAYEY SAND AND GRAVEL: USCSClayey Sand

CLS: USCS Low Plasticity Sandy Clay

FILL: Fill (made ground)

SHALY CLAY: Shale and Clay

WELL CONSTRUCTION SYMBOLS

KEY TO SYMBOLS

Water Level at TimeDrilling, or as Shown

Water Level After 24Hours, or as Shown

Water Level at End ofDrilling, or as Shown

KE

Y T

O S

YM

BO

LS -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 8

/28

/19

08:

44 -

S:\G

INT

PR

OJE

CT

S\W

19-0

50, C

LOIC

E C

RE

EK

LIF

T S

TA

TIO

N A

ND

SE

WE

R L

INE

.GP

J

Langerman Foster Engineering CompanyWaco and Harker Heights (Killeen), TexasPh: 254-235-1048 www.LFECTX.com

20-43-50/4"

113

118

468.0

466.0

458.2

8.8

3.5

8.6

15.0

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

3.5

2.5

2.0

4.5+

61

54

46

21

20

17

90

83

99

14

18

18

16

19

7

15

18

40

34

29

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

A

ST

A

SS

FAT CLAY; dark gray to gray

--- with sand

CLAYEY GRAVEL; gray to tan, with sand

LEAN CLAY; gray

--- hard seam or layer

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

Remarks:

Approximate Surface Elevation 478 feet

Boring was drilled without drilling fluid. Groundwater was initiallymeasured about 12.8 feet below ground surface (BGS). After about 10minutes, groundwater was measured about 12.8 feet BGS. At the endof the day groundwater was measured about 16 feet BGS. After 24hours groundwater was measured about 9.7 BGS.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

19.8 ft.

9/18/19

9/18/19

C.Dickey

31.475728

-97.278597

Completion Depth:Date Started:Completed:Logged by:Latitude:Longitude:

PAGE 1 OF 1BORING NO. B-2

CLIENT CDM Smith


PROJECT NAME Cloice Creek Lift Station and Sewer Line

PROJECT LOCATION Waco, Texas

LAT

& L

ON

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

1/1

9/19

16:

18 -

Z:\

GIN

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\W19

-050

, CLO

ICE

CR

EE

K R

OU

ND

2.G

PJ


12-11-14(25)

13-12-12(24)

8-7-10(17)

12-28-19(47)

12-28-19(47)

15-26-24(50)

17-23-28(51)

23-25-43(68)

112

487.5

483.0

481.0

467.0

449.0

3.99.74.5+

3.5

46

51

26

58

58

17

19

13

21

21

35

87

15

16

11

92

97

8

5

11

23

5

5

5

12

20

20

22

18

29

32

13

37

37

SS

SS

A

ST

ST

ST

ST

A

SS

A

SS

A

SS

A

SS

A

SS

A

SS

LEAN CLAY; brown to tan

GRAVELLY CLAY; tan, with sand - posible fill

FAT CLAY; dark brown

SAND and GRAVEL; brown, with clay or silt,varying granular content

CLAYEY SHALE; dark gray to gray

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

Remarks:


Boring was drilled without drilling fluid. Groundwater was initiallymeasured about 18.4 feet below ground surface (BGS). After about 10minutes, groundwater was measured about 16.7 feet BGS. At the endof the day groundwater was measured about 9 feet BGS. After 24hours groundwater was measured about 16.7 BGS.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


40 ft.

9/18/19

9/18/19

C.Dickey

31.475268

-97.277362



CLIENT CDM Smith




LAT

& L

ON

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

1/1

9/19

16:

18 -

Z:\

GIN

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\W19

-050

, CLO

ICE

CR

EE

K R

OU

ND

2.G

PJ


100(80)

100(100)

7-13-9(22)

6-10-11(21)

1-2-4(6)

12-16-27(43)

13-18-30(48)

16-25-41(66)

19-35-50(85)

32-50/4"

118475.0

467.0

465.0

442.5

1.8

2.0

2.0

18.4

72.2

36.3

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

45

32

60

56

16

16

20

20

84

24

23

27

65

97

98

13

10

9

4

5

6

25

20

21

19

17

21

29

16

40

36

ST

ST

ST

ST

ASS

SS

A

SS

A

SS

A

SS

A

SS

A

SS

A

SSA

RC

RC

LEAN CLAY; dark brown to brown, with sand

CLAYEY GRAVEL; brown, with sand



SHALE; gray, with limestone layers(predominantly shale)

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

(Continued Next Page)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

Remarks:


Boring was drilled about 40 feet before using water for coring.Groundwater was initially measured about 12.2 feet below groundsurface (BGS). After about 10 minutes, groundwater was measuredabout 11.8 feet BGS.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


90 ft.

9/19/19

9/19/19

C.Dickey

31.475136

-97.276666



CLIENT CDM Smith




LAT

& L

ON

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

1/1

9/19

16:

18 -

Z:\

GIN

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\W19

-050

, CLO

ICE

CR

EE

K R

OU

ND

2.G

PJ


72(72)

100(100)

100(94)

100(82)

100(48)

100(20)

100(46)

92(48)

421.0

411.0

391.0

2.3

2.0

1.8

2.6

3.4

1.6

1.9

1.7

61.1

72.7

88.6

8.1

25.5

136.6

180.6

106.8

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

SHALE; gray, with limestone layers(predominantly shale) (continued)

LIMESTONE; gray, with shale seams(predominantly limestone)

LIMESTONE; gray, broken, with shale seamsand layers

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

Remarks:



ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

50

60

70

80

90

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


90 ft.

9/19/19

9/19/19

C.Dickey

31.475136

-97.276666



CLIENT CDM Smith




LAT

& L

ON

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

1/1

9/19

16:

18 -

Z:\

GIN

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\W19

-050

, CLO

ICE

CR

EE

K R

OU

ND

2.G

PJ


8-3-4(7)

17-18-24(42)

13-19-27(46)

12-19-26(45)

19-32-49(81)

50/5"

93

104

103

119

480.0

478.0

474.0

464.0

460.0

454.0

6.8

14.0

8.3

8.3

3.4

5.7

2.9

1.8

2.5

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.5

3.5

2.0

1.5

67

68

50

49

65

55

20

25

20

16

20

20

23

94

91

93

12

99

95

9

5

27

29

28

22

19

21

6

17

22

20

15

20

47

43

30

33

45

35

SSA

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

A

ST

A

ST

A

ST

A

SS

A

SS

A

SS

A

SS

A

SS

ASPHALT and GRAVEL BASE; tan (old road)

CLAYEY GRAVEL; dark gray to gray


FAT CLAY; gray to olive - brown

FAT CLAY; tan

GRAVEL; tan, with sand and clay


--- hard layer

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

(Continued Next Page)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

Remarks:



ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


90 ft.

9/24/19

9/24/19

C.Dickey

31.475335

-97.275737



CLIENT CDM Smith




LAT

& L

ON

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

1/1

9/19

16:

18 -

Z:\

GIN

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\W19

-050

, CLO

ICE

CR

EE

K R

OU

ND

2.G

PJ


90(82)

98(96)

80(80)

100(86)

100(22)

14-27-40(67)

19-28-39(67)

22-45-50/2"417.0

404.0

397.0

392.0

3.0

2.1

1.8

1.7

2.0

85.4

108.8

138.9

134.6

126.7

61 20 99 20

20

22

41

A

SS

A

SS

A

SSA

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

CLAYEY SHALE; dark gray to gray (continued)

LIMESTONE; light gray to gray

LIMESTONE; light gray, with shaly seams andlayers

LIMESTONE; light gray, broken, with shalyseams and layers

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

Remarks:



ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

50

60

70

80

90

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


90 ft.

9/24/19

9/24/19

C.Dickey

31.475335

-97.275737



CLIENT CDM Smith




LAT

& L

ON

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

1/1

9/19

16:

18 -

Z:\

GIN

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\W19

-050

, CLO

ICE

CR

EE

K R

OU

ND

2.G

PJ


116

112

101

110

477.0

462.0

457.0

455.0

3.4

8.3

7.3

3.0

21.8

17.3

6.1

7.8

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

3.0

3.5

4.5+

62

68

65

58

61

20

23

20

19

22

93

92

96

86

37

15

14

14

15

16

16

19

22

13

19

42

45

45

39

39

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

A

ST

A

ST

A

ST

A

ST


FAT CLAY; gray to olive - gray

CLAYEY GRAVEL; gray to tan

FAT CLAY; dark gray

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

Remarks:


Boring was advanced 30 feet using dry drilling techniques.Groundwater was not observed.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

20

30

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


30 ft.

9/18/19

9/18/19

C.Dickey

31.475213

-97.275174



CLIENT CDM Smith




LAT

& L

ON

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

1/1

9/19

16:

18 -

Z:\

GIN

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\W19

-050

, CLO

ICE

CR

EE

K R

OU

ND

2.G

PJ


113

568.0

564.0

3.611.0

4.5+

4.5+

3.0

2.0

1.5

53

78

20

24

50

75

5

9

17

15

23

33

54

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

SANDY FAT CLAY; dark gray to gray, with gravel

FAT CLAY; reddish tan to gray, with sand

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

Remarks:



ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


10 ft.

8/22/19

8/22/19

C.Dickey

31.474513

-97.270945



CLIENT CDM Smith




LAT

& L

ON

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

1/1

9/19

16:

18 -

Z:\

GIN

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\W19

-050

, CLO

ICE

CR

EE

K R

OU

ND

2.G

PJ


6-7-10(17)

115

558.0

554.0

550.0

5.534.8

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

64

53

68

22

22

22

92

90

97

15

16

17

22

31

42

31

46

ST

ST

ST

ST

ASS

FAT CLAY; dark brown to tan

FAT CLAY; tan

FAT CLAY; reddish tan, with white (chalkdeposits)

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

Remarks:



ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


10 ft.

8/22/19

8/22/19

C.Dickey

31.476093

-97.267306



CLIENT CDM Smith




LAT

& L

ON

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

1/1

9/19

16:

18 -

Z:\

GIN

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\W19

-050

, CLO

ICE

CR

EE

K R

OU

ND

2.G

PJ


11-10-11(21)

25-11-12(23)

46-47-49(96)

550.0

544.0

538.0537.0

4.5+

4.5+

2.0

46

67

66

46

19

24

24

19

74

66

73

84

59

6

10

11

13

27

24

10

27

43

42

27

ST

ST

ST

SSA

ST

SS

A

SS

FAT CLAY; dark brown to brown

FAT and LEAN CLAY; tan, with varying granularcontent

FAT CLAY; gray to dark gray, with sand


RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

Remarks:



ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


15 ft.

8/22/19

8/22/19

C.Dickey

31.478006

-97.26355



CLIENT CDM Smith




LAT

& L

ON

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

1/1

9/19

16:

18 -

Z:\

GIN

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\W19

-050

, CLO

ICE

CR

EE

K R

OU

ND

2.G

PJ


4-5-5(10)5-4-5(9)

4-3-1(4)

1-2-3(5)

609.03.5

67

62

81

22

22

27

81

86

86

12

15

8

24

25

45

40

54

SSA

SSA

SSA

SSA

ST

FAT CLAY; brown to tan, with sand

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

Remarks:



ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


10 ft.

8/22/19

8/22/19

C.Dickey

31.482421

-97.24695



CLIENT CDM Smith




LAT

& L

ON

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

1/1

9/19

16:

18 -

Z:\

GIN

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\W19

-050

, CLO

ICE

CR

EE

K R

OU

ND

2.G

PJ


3-5-4(9)

31-50/3"

50/6"

50/4"

50/4"50/3"

717.0

710.0

43 20 80

55

11

11

12

9

23SSA

SSA

SSA

SSA

SSA

SSA

LEAN CLAY; brown to tan, with limestonefragments

SEVERELY WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, amixture of broken limestone and limestonederived gravel, sand, silt, and clay, with limestoneseams and layers

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

Remarks:



ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


10 ft.

8/22/19

8/22/19

C.Dickey

31.484448

-97.235674



CLIENT CDM Smith




LAT

& L

ON

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

1/1

9/19

16:

18 -

Z:\

GIN

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\W19

-050

, CLO

ICE

CR

EE

K R

OU

ND

2.G

PJ


3-4-6(10)

29-23-50/5"50/5"

50/4"

50/6"

50/4"

712.0

704.0

60 23 90

84

52

13

14

13

12

12

13

37SSA

SSA

SSA

SSA

SSA

SSA

FAT CLAY; dark brown to brown


RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

Remarks:



ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


10 ft.

8/22/19

8/22/19

C.Dickey

31.480582

-97.232952



CLIENT CDM Smith




LAT

& L

ON

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

1/1

9/19

16:

18 -

Z:\

GIN

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\W19

-050

, CLO

ICE

CR

EE

K R

OU

ND

2.G

PJ


90(58)

100(96)

100(76)

100(78)

37-50/4"708.5

701.0

684.0

1.5

1.1

1.9

1.9

88.0

55.6

72.2

112.1

69 9SS

A

RC

RC

RC

RC

SANDY LEAN CLAY; tan, with gravelWEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, broken, withclayey seams and layers

LIMESTONE; light gray, with tan seams andlayers

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

Remarks:


Boring was drilled about 5 feet before using water for coring.Groundwater was not observed in the boring while dry drilling.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

20P

OC

KE

T P

EN

.(t

sf)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


25 ft.

8/21/19

8/21/19

C.Dickey

31.477145

-97.23099



CLIENT CDM Smith




LAT

& L

ON

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

1/1

9/19

16:

18 -

Z:\

GIN

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\W19

-050

, CLO

ICE

CR

EE

K R

OU

ND

2.G

PJ


80(60)

40(22)

90(82)

12-19-34(53)50/5"

50/3"

704.0

700.0

698.0

694.0

681.0

1.5

1.7

2.0

49.8

79.6

90.4

4.5+

4.5+

60

45

21

20

68

44

9

7

7

13

11

39

25

ST

ST

SSA

SSA

SSA

RC

RC

RC

SANDY FAT CLAY; dark brown to brown, withgravelCLAYEY GRAVEL; tan, with sand

SEVERELY WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, amixture of broken limestone and limestonederived gravel, sand, silt, and clay, with limestoneseams and layersWEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, broken, withclayey seams and layers


--- broken from 15 to 20 feet

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

Remarks:



ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

20P

OC

KE

T P

EN

.(t

sf)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


25 ft.

8/21/19

8/21/19

C.Dickey

31.476313

-97.23043



CLIENT CDM Smith




LAT

& L

ON

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

1/1

9/19

16:

18 -

Z:\

GIN

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\W19

-050

, CLO

ICE

CR

EE

K R

OU

ND

2.G

PJ


92(56)

100(42)

100(42)

18-34-50/4"50/5"

50/2"

711.0

707.0

703.0

693.0

688.0

1.7

2.0

1.1

120.3

31.2

23.8

46

34

19

18

63

71

61

7

13

13

13

12

27

16

ST

SSA

SSA

SSA

RC

RC

RC

SANDY LEAN CLAY; brown to tan, with gravel


WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, broken, withclayey seams and layers

WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, broken


RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

Remarks:



ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

20P

OC

KE

T P

EN

.(t

sf)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


25 ft.

8/20/19

8/20/19

C.Dickey

31.472175

-97.228891



CLIENT CDM Smith




LAT

& L

ON

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

1/1

9/19

16:

18 -

Z:\

GIN

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\W19

-050

, CLO

ICE

CR

EE

K R

OU

ND

2.G

PJ


96(64)

100(88)

100(94)

18-20-50/2"50/2"

50/5"

50/5"

50/4"

709.0

701.0

696.0

685.0

2.6

1.5

1.5

65.5

83.4

90.4

68

5

4

14

12

12

SSA

SSA

SSA

SSA

SSA

RC

RC

RC

LEAN CLAYEY GRAVEL; tanSEVERELY WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, amixture of broken limestone and limestonederived gravel, sand, silt, and clay, with limestoneseams and layers

WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, broken, withclayey seams and layers

LIMESTONE; gray

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

Remarks:



ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

20P

OC

KE

T P

EN

.(t

sf)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


25 ft.

8/20/19

8/20/19

C.Dickey

31.469093

-97.227323



CLIENT CDM Smith




LAT

& L

ON

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

1/1

9/19

16:

18 -

Z:\

GIN

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\W19

-050

, CLO

ICE

CR

EE

K R

OU

ND

2.G

PJ


100(48)

100(96)

100(86)

23-6-6(12)

6-5-50(55)50/5"

35-50/4"

50/5"

704.4

701.0

695.0

690.0

680.0

1.7

1.2

1.7

62.4

84.8

86.9

52 19 35

44

59

2

16

1612

14

15

33

A

SS

SSSSA

SSA

SSA

RC

RC

RC

3" Asphalt over 4" BaseCLAYEY GRAVEL; dark brown to tan, with sand


WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, broken

LIMESTONE; gray

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

Remarks:



ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

20P

OC

KE

T P

EN

.(t

sf)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


25 ft.

8/20/19

8/20/19

C.Dickey

31.466205

-97.22628



CLIENT CDM Smith




LAT

& L

ON

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

1/1

9/19

16:

18 -

Z:\

GIN

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\W19

-050

, CLO

ICE

CR

EE

K R

OU

ND

2.G

PJ


Geotechnical-Engineering ReportImportant Information about This

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered exposure to problems associated with subsurface conditions at project sites and development of them that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed herein, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.

Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services Provided for this ReportGeotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or affected by construction activities.

The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations. Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions.

Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, and At Specific TimesGeotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer

will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client.

Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical-engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project.

Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it: • for a different client;• for a different project or purpose;• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of

the original site); or• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it;

e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.

Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems.

Read this Report in FullCostly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and refer to the report in full.

You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer About ChangeYour geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect:

• the site’s size or shape;• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation,

function or weight of the proposed structure and the desired performance criteria;

• the composition of the design team; or • project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept

responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.

Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional OpinionsBefore construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.

This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-DependentThe recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.

This Report Could Be MisinterpretedOther design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of the design team, to:

• confer with other design-team members;• help develop specifications;• review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and

specifications; and• be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.

You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction-phase observations.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and GuidanceSome owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note

conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.

Read Responsibility Provisions CloselySome client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not CoveredThe personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not obtained your own environmental information about the project site, ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find environmental risk-management guidance.

Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and MoldWhile your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.

Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written

permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent

Telephone: 301/565-2733e-mail: [email protected] www.geoprofessional.org

geotechnical investigation report no. 2 cloice... · geotechnical investigation – report no. 2...

Documents