re: geotechnical engineering services report beaumont

www.intertek.com/building

Professional Service Industries, Inc. 3730 Dacoma Street, Houston, TX 77092

Phone: (713) 224-2047 Fax: (713) 682-2665

Carlson Consulting Engineers, Inc 7068 Ledgestone Commons Bartlett, TN 38133 Attn: Mr. Corey Orman

Phone: 901.384.0404 (Ext 141) Email: [email protected]

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Services Report Beaumont Trails Apartment Spindletop Square Road and North 13th Street Beaumont, Texas PSI Project Number: 0286-2297

Dear Mr. Orman: Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI), an Intertek company, is pleased to submit our Geotechnical Engineering Services Report for the referenced project. This report includes the results of field and laboratory testing, and recommendations for foundation and pavement design, as well as general site preparation. We appreciate the opportunity to perform these geotechnical services and look forward to continued participation during the design and construction phases of this project. If you have any questions pertaining to this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us. For Professional Service Industries, Inc. TX Registered Engineering Firm: F-3307

Ahmed Neamah, P.E.

Project Engineer

mailto:[email protected]

Project Number: 286-2297 Beaumont Trail Apartment

Beaumont, Texas September 10, 2020


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 PROJECT INFORMATION ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................................................................. 1

2 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 3 2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION ......................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING ..................................................................................................................... 3

3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 SOIL PROFILE .................................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION .......................................................................................................... 4 3.3 GROUNDWATER INFORMATION ...................................................................................................... 5

4 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 6 4.1 SOIL SHRINK-SWELL POTENTIAL ...................................................................................................... 6 4.2 SITE PREPARATION ........................................................................................................................... 7 4.3 SHALLOW FOUNDATION DESIGN ..................................................................................................... 8 4.4 SLAB-ON-GRADE DESIGN ................................................................................................................. 8 4.5 DRILLED AND UNDERREAMED PIER ................................................................................................. 9 4.6 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 10

4.6.1 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE PREPARATION ........................................................................ 10 4.6.2 PAVEMENT DESIGN...................................................................................................... 10 4.6.3 CIVIL AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................... 12

5 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................................... 13 5.1 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS/WEATHER RELATED .......................................................................... 13 5.2 DRAINAGE CONCERNS ................................................................................................................... 13 5.3 EXCAVATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 13

6 REPORT LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 14 APPENDIX SITE LOCATION PLAN……………………………………….…………………………………………………..………………………………..PLATE 1A BORING LOCATION PLAN…………………………………………………………………………………………………….………..…….…PLATE 1B LOGS OF BORINGS …………………………………………………………………………………..……………..……….PLATES 2 THROUGH 10 KEY TO LOG TERMS AND SYMBOLS…………………..…………………………………………………….………………………………PLATE 11

Project Number: 286-2297 Beaumont Trails Apartment


Page 1


1 PROJECT INFORMATION

Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI) has completed geotechnical services for the Beaumont Trails Apartment project in Beaumont, Texas. Our geotechnical services were performed in general accordance with PSI proposal number 286-318153 dated August 7, 2020. Mr. Corey Orman, with Carlson Consulting Engineers, Inc, authorized our scope by signing Proposal and Agreement for Professional Services on August 10, 2020.

1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The proposed site is located at south west corner to the intersection of Spindletop Square and North 13th Street in Beaumont, Texas. A site location plan is presented on Plate 1A in the Appendix. At the time of the field exploration, the site is covered with grass and trees. All-Terrain Vehicle mounted-drill rig was utilized during drilling operations.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project information was provided by Mr. Corey Orman. PSI understands that the proposed project consists construction of a 59,784 square foot three-story wood framed building and associated paved parking and drive lanes. PSI understands that shallow spread footing is preferred foundation system for this project. Detailed structural loading information was not available at the time of this report. Based on our experience with similar buildings, this report is based on:

➢ Columns Loads: 100 kips or less ➢ Wall Load: Less than 2 kips per linear foot

Based on provided grading plan, the existing grade within footprint of the building ranges from about +22 feet to +24 feet and the finish grade for the building is planned to be at about +27 feet. Therefore, fill operation of about 2 to 5 feet is expected within the building pad. The geotechnical recommendations presented in this report are based on the available project information, site location, laboratory testing, and the subsurface materials, as well as the assumptions stated in this report. If any of the noted information is incorrect, PSI should be informed in writing so that we may amend the recommendations presented in this report if appropriate and if desired by the client. PSI will not be responsible for the implementation of its recommendations when it is not notified of changes in the project.

1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

The purpose of this geotechnical study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site to facilitate foundation design recommendations for the proposed building. The geotechnical services for this project involved the collection of subsurface data, laboratory testing, and the development of geotechnical recommendations. The scope of services included drilling and sampling a total of nine (9) soil borings to depths ranging from 10 to 50 feet below the existing ground surface.



Page 2


This report briefly presents available project information, outlines the testing procedures, describes the site and subsurface conditions, and presents the following:

➢ Description of subsurface conditions and groundwater information; ➢ Boring logs with laboratory test results; ➢ Discussion about swell/shrink potential & recommendations to reduce PVR to 1 inch; ➢ Site preparation recommendations; ➢ Foundations recommendations and estimate of foundation settlements, ➢ Pavement recommendations, and ➢ Discussions of other factors which may impact construction and performance of the proposed

construction. The scope of services for this geotechnical study did not include an environmental assessment for determining the presence or absence of wetlands, or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, bedrock, surface water, groundwater, or air on or below, or around this site. Any statements in this report or on the boring logs regarding odors, colors, and unusual or suspicious items or conditions are strictly for informational purposes. An Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is advisable prior to construction. A geologic fault study to evaluate the possibility of surface faulting at this site was beyond the scope of this project. Should you desire a detailed fault study, please contact PSI.



Page 3


2 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROGRAM

2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION

The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling a total of nine (9) soil borings, to depths ranging from 10 to 50 feet below existing grade as summarized in Table 2.1 and as presented on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 1B, in the Appendix.

Table 2.1: Summary of Soil Borings

Project Area Soil Borings Depth (feet)

Apartment Building B-01 and B-05 50

B-02 through B-04 20

Pavement Area P-01 through P-04 10

The borings were drilled with All Terrain Vehicle-mounted drilling equipment utilizing solid flight augers and wet rotary. Soil samples were routinely obtained during the drilling process. Drilling and sampling techniques were accomplished generally in accordance with ASTM D 1587 and ASTM D 1856 procedures. The depth to groundwater, when encountered in the borings, was measured during the drilling operations. After the completion of drilling operations, the boreholes were backfilled with soil cuttings. The samples were identified according to the project number, boring number and depth, and placed in polyethylene plastic wrapping to protect against moisture loss. In addition, undisturbed samples were wrapped in aluminum foil prior to placing in the plastic wrapping. The samples were then transported to PSI’s laboratory for further observation, classification, and testing.

2.2 LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory testing of selected soil samples was performed in general accordance with ASTM procedures and included the following:

• Classification (ASTM D 2487/D 2488)

• Moisture Content (ASTM D 2216)

• Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)

• Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve (ASTM D 1140)

• Unit Weight of Soil (ASTM D 7263)

• Unconfined Compressive Strength Test (ASTM D 2166)

• Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Test (ASTM D 2850) The samples that were not altered by laboratory testing will be retained for 60 days from the date of this report and then will be discarded without further notice. Laboratory test data along with detailed descriptions of the soils can be found on the Logs of Borings, Plates 2 through 10 in the Appendix. A key to terms and symbols used on the logs is presented on Plate 11 located in the Appendix.



Page 4


3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 SOIL PROFILE

Based on the soil borings and laboratory test results, a generalized subsurface profile was developed and are summarized in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 – Generalized Subsurface Profile

Depth Range (feet) Description

0-23* Fat Clay (CH), Lean Clay (CL), Sandy Lean Clay (CL), Lean Clay with Sand (CL); firm to hard

23-28 Silty Sand (SM), Clayey Sand (SC); medium dense

28-38 Fat Clay (CH); stiff

38-50** Silty Sand (SM), Clayey Sand (SC); medium dense to very dense

*Clayey Sand (SC) was encountered in boring B-01 at depth of 18 to 28 feet. **Silt (ML) was encountered in boring B-05 at depth of 38 to 43 feet.

The above soil profile is of generalized nature to highlight the major subsurface stratification features and material characteristics. The boring logs included in the Appendix should be reviewed for specific information at individual boring locations. These records include soil descriptions, stratification, locations of the samples, and laboratory test data. The stratification shown on the boring logs represents the conditions only at the actual boring locations. Variations may occur and should be expected between and away from boring locations. The stratification represents the approximate boundary between subsurface materials and the actual transition may be more distinct or gradual. Water level observations made during field operations are shown on the boring logs where encountered.

3.2 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION

The soil borings at the project site was extended to a depth of about 50 feet below the existing grades. Based on regional geological mapping and PSI’s experience with the area, PSI anticipates that the site conditions are consistent with the characteristics of Site Class D – Stiff Soil as defined in Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-10, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures”. The associated site coefficients for the general site area were obtained from the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEA) web page https://seismicmaps.org/ and are presented in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Seismic Site Coefficients

Period (sec)

Mapped MCE Spectral Response

Acceleration (g) Site Coefficients

Adjusted MCE Spectral

Response Acceleration (g)

Design Spectral

Response Accelerati

on (g) 0.2 Ss 0.083 Fa 1.6 SMS 0.133 SDS 0.089

1.0 S1 0.045 Fv 2.4 SM1 0.107 SD1 0.072

MCE = Maximum Considered Earthquake

https://seismicmaps.org/



Page 5


The Site Coefficients, Fa and Fv presented in the above table were also obtained from the noted (SEA) webpage, as a function of the site classification and mapped spectral response acceleration at the short (Ss) and 1‐second (S1) periods.

3.3 GROUNDWATER INFORMATION

Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 12 to 15 feet during the drilling operations as presented in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 – Groundwater Depths Measured During Drilling

Boring No. Depth of Groundwater (feet) Below

Existing Ground Surface

B-01 and B-05 Precluded due to wet rotary

B-02 12

B-03 15

B-04 12

P-01 through P-04 Not Encountered

It is possible that seasonal variations (temperature, rainfall, etc.) will cause fluctuations in the groundwater level. Additionally, perched water may be encountered in discontinuous zones within the overburden soil. It is recommended that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the site at the time of the construction activities to determine the impact, if any, on the construction procedures.



Page 6


4 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 SOIL SHRINK-SWELL POTENTIAL

The results of laboratory plasticity tests indicate that the near surface soils at this site have a high potential for shrink or swell. The soils have a tendency to swell when soil moisture increases and shrink when the soil moisture decreases. The amount of potential movement due to shrink and swell with soil moisture variations can be estimated using the Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) value. In designing a foundation system, the structural engineer should consider these potential movements from shrinking-swelling soils. PVR estimates are based on an assumed depth known as the “Active Depth” where changes in soil moisture could occur due to seasonal variations. The PVR estimates should be considered approximate probable estimates based on industry standard practice and experience, and the movements predicted herein should not be construed as absolute values that could occur in the field. The active depth in this area is about seven (7) feet. For the proposed site, a PVR value of about 3 inches was estimated for the site using the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) TEX-124-E method. This method uses the uniform percent swell through the entire active depth. This method is considered appropriate for extreme soil moisture variations such as extreme rainfall variations in this area. For the proposed site, to reduce the PVR to one (1) inch or less, it is recommended that at least 4 feet of low plasticity structural fill be placed between the natural soils and the final grade. This thickness can be achieved through excavation and replacement, placement of new fill over the existing soils, or combination thereof. The structural fill should be placed within the plan area of the structure and to a distance of at least five (5) feet beyond the perimeter of the structure. Poor drainage and water infiltration to the foundation soils for an extended period can be detrimental to the floor slab and foundation. Excessive wetting of soil (due to accumulation of water), or, excessive drying (due to the presence of large trees, etc.) could possibly result in greater PVR values than those estimated herein as the moisture variations could occur down to deeper depths; or, the moisture variations can be greater than those inherently assumed by the methods mentioned above. We recommend that the moisture-related problems be corrected immediately as they can be detrimental to the foundation and floor slab. It is common to assume the differential movement to be about half the value of the PVR. This is based on the assumption that a certain amount of moisture variation may occur beneath the plan area of the floor slab. It is possible that under extreme moisture variation conditions, the differential movements could be equal to, or even double, the value of PVR. Swelling or shrinkage occurs in soils due to changes in moisture content. Ponding of water around the slab may result in reduction of soil strength, thereby causing adverse and damaging movements. It is important to control the possibility of moisture changes by following precautions shown below:

• Direct surface runoff away from structures by sloping the subgrade away from the slabs.

• Extend paving or other impervious coverings, such as sidewalks, to the slab edge.



Page 7


• Extend roof drain downspouts so that the discharge is at least 5 feet from the slab.

• Avoid placing trees or shrubs adjacent to slab.

• Avoid excessive drying of soil around the slab.

• Repair any leaking underground utility or irrigation lines as soon as identified.

4.2 SITE PREPARATION

It is recommended that the grass, trees, topsoil, existing roots, organic material, and other miscellaneous debris be removed from the site and wasted. Voids left by tree removal should be backfilled with properly compacted structural fill soils. For the proposed site, to reduce the PVR to one (1) inch or less, it is recommended that at least 4 feet of low plasticity structural fill be placed between the natural soils and the final grade. This thickness can be achieved through excavation and replacement, placement of new fill over the existing soils, or combination thereof. The structural fill should be placed within the plan area of the structure and to a distance of at least five (5) feet beyond the perimeter of the structure. Based on the provided finish floor elevation we anticipate that the site will be raised 3 to 5 feet within the building pad areas. After stripping and excavating to the required undercut depth, the exposed soil should be proof-rolled to locate any soft or loose areas. Proof-rolling can be performed in accordance with Item 216 of TxDOT Specification. Soils that are observed to rut or deflect under the moving load should be undercut and replaced with properly compacted structural fill. The proof-rolling and undercutting activities should be witnessed by a PSI representative and should be performed during a period of dry weather. After proof-rolling and undercutting have been completed, any necessary fill placement may begin. The first layer of fill should be placed in a relatively uniform horizontal lift and be adequately keyed into the subgrade soils. Structural fill materials should be sands/sandy clay soils free of organic or other deleterious materials, have a maximum clay lump size of less than three inches, and have a liquid limit not greater than 35 and a plasticity index less than 20. Structural fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698. Structural fill should be placed in maximum lifts of eight inches of loose material and should be compacted within the range of zero to three percentage (0% to +3%) points above the optimum moisture content value. If water must be added, it should be uniformly applied and thoroughly mixed into the soil by disking or scarifying. Each lift of structural fill should be tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to the placement of subsequent lifts. Care should be taken to apply compactive effort throughout the fill and fill scope areas. The moisture content and the degree of compaction of the structural fill soils should be maintained until the construction of the structures within the area. It is extremely important to establish and maintain good and positive drainage with the construction area as soon as practical. Wet or saturated near surface soils could pose significant difficulties during earthwork operations. This good and positive collection and drainage of surface water should be maintained throughout the construction period.



Page 8


4.3 SHALLOW FOUNDATION DESIGN

Provided the site preparation recommendations are followed, the proposed structure can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on structural fill and/or natural soils. Foundations should be placed at least 2 Feet below the finish grade and can be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf for dead load plus transient live loads or 2,000 psf for dead plus sustained live loads, whichever results in a larger bearing area. Minimum footing dimension for column footing should be at least 30-inches and for continuous wall footing should be at least 18 inches. Spread footings with a width no larger than 8 feet, designed as described above, should experience a total settlement of less than one inch. If a cluster of closely spaced footings (i.e., if the center to center spacing of the footings is less than two times the width of the footing) are planned, PSI should be contacted to calculate the amount of settlement. The base adhesion/frictional resistance and the passive soil resistance will resist the horizontal loads on shallow foundations. For transient loading conditions, an ultimate base adhesion resistance of 550 psf and an ultimate passive resistance of 2,000 psf can be used. For sustained loading conditions, a frictional co-efficient of 0.36 and an ultimate passive resistance of 280 psf per foot depth is recommended. A minimum factor of safety of 2.0 is recommended to arrive at the allowable values. Passive resistance from the upper two (2) feet of soil should be neglected. Also, the passive resistance of any un-compacted fill material should be neglected. The uplift resistance of a shallow foundation formed in an open excavation will be limited to the weight of the foundation concrete and the soil above it. For design purposes, the ultimate uplift resistance can be based on effective unit weights of 120 and 150 pcf for soil and concrete, respectively above the water table. We recommend that buoyant unit weights of 60 pcf and 90 pcf be utilized in the case of submergence. These values should be reduced by an appropriate factor of safety. The foundation excavations should be observed by a PSI representative prior to steel or concrete placement to assess that the foundation materials can support the design loads and are consistent with the materials discussed in the report. Soft or loose soil zones, if encountered at the bottom of the shallow footing excavations, should be removed and replaced with properly compacted fill as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. After opening, isolated spread footing excavations should be observed and concrete placed as quickly as possible to avoid exposure of the footing bottoms to wetting and drying. Surface run-off water should be drained away from the excavations and not be allowed to pond. If possible, the foundation concrete should be placed during the same day the excavation is made. If it is required that footing excavations be left open for more than one day, they should be protected to reduce evaporation or entry of moisture.

4.4 SLAB-ON-GRADE DESIGN

As stated in section 4.2 Site Preparation, we recommend 4 feet of structural fill be placed between the floor slab and the natural soil. Provided the site work outlined is performed, the floor slab can be grade supported. For subgrade prepared as recommended and properly compacted, an estimated subgrade modulus of 125 pounds per cubic inch (pci) can be used in the grade slab design based on a 1-foot x 1-foot plate load test.



Page 9


4.5 DRILLED AND UNDERREAMED PIER

The proposed Building can also be supported on drilled and underreamed piers. The piers should be placed at a depth of 9 feet below the existing ground surface bearing on the firm to stiff clay soils. Individual piers bearing in the stiff clays can be designed for a maximum allowable net bearing pressure of 3,900 psf for total dead plus live loads and 2,600 psf for dead plus sustained live loads, whichever results in a larger bearing area. A single isolated pier with a bell diameter of about eight (8) feet or less and designed as discussed should experience a settlement on the order of one-half inch or less. However, if a cluster of closely spaced piers is planned PSI should be contacted to calculate the amount of settlement. Once the foundation sizes and configuration are finalized, PSI should be contacted in estimating the amount of settlement. For the construction of the underream or bell, a maximum bell diameter to shaft diameter ratio of 2 to 1 is recommended with the bell angle to the horizontal not less than 60°. Trial piers can be installed prior to production piers to check the constructability of belled piers and to establish the proper size of the bell. Piers extending through expansive soils are potentially subjected to vertical uplift loads, should the soils become moist or wet and swell. For this reason, each pier should be designed with sufficient steel reinforcement to resist the tensile stresses caused by the uplift forces of the expansive soil. Piers placed within natural swelling soils at this site should be checked for reinforcement with a tension load of 11d kips, where d is the diameter of the pier in feet. The reinforcement of the pier should be checked for this tension load alone neglecting any dead loads on the pier. The uplift capacity of drilled and underreamed piers can be determined from the following semi-empirical relationship: Qu = Nu *Su * π *(D2 – d2)/4 Where: Qu = ultimate uplift capacity, tons

Nu = 3.5*(H/D) 9 Su = Undrained Shear Strength, tons per square feet D = diameter of underream or bell, feet d = diameter of shaft, feet H = depth to base of bell below ground surface, feet For bells excavated within the natural clay, the value of Undrained Shear Strength, “Su” in the above equation can be taken as 0.65 tons per square foot. The computed ultimate value should be reduced by a factor of safety of 2.0 for transient and wind loads and 3.0 for sustained loads The lateral loads on shallow drilled and underreamed piers can be resisted by passive resistance of the soil. The allowable passive resistance of the natural soil may be taken 3,600 psf. The allowable value includes a factor of safety of 2.0. Determination of the lateral load carrying capacity using the passive earth pressure does not predict the lateral pier-head load versus pier-head deflection behavior of the drilled pier. It is recommended that the passive resistance from the upper two feet of soil be neglected. Also, the passive resistance from any uncompacted fill material should be neglected.



Page 10


The successful completion of drilled-and-underreamed excavations will depend, to a large extent, on the suitability of the drilling and underreaming equipment together with the skill of the operator. The sequence of operations should be scheduled so that each underream can be completed, reinforcing steel placed and the concrete poured in a continuous, rapid and orderly manner to reduce the time that the excavation is open. Underream excavations and the bearing area should be clear and be free of loose materials prior to placement of concrete. Placement of concrete in the excavations should commence immediately after the underream excavation is completed. A PSI representative should verify that the underream installation procedures meet specifications. Installation of the piers can be carried out in general accordance with the guidelines provided in the Drilled Shaft Manual, Publication No. FHWA-IS-99-025.

4.6 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

4.6.1 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE PREPARATION

PSI recommends that the existing subgrade be proof-rolled as recommended in the Site Preparation section of this report. Any soft or loose soils identified by the proof-rolling should be undercut and replaced with compacted structural fill. PSI recommends that at least the upper six inches of the natural clay soils should be lime stabilized. We anticipate that at least the upper six inches of the soils would require a lime application of about 4% to 6%, expressed as a percent of the dry weight of the soil to be treated. In order to determine the exact percentage of lime addition, lime series testing should be performed in accordance with ASTM D 6276 or TxDOT test method TEX-121-E. Lime stabilization should be performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of Item 260 of the TxDOT Specification. Lime stabilized subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698 within zero to three percentage points of the optimum moisture content. It should be realized that stabilizing subgrade soils to a depth of 6 inches significantly improves the life of the pavement. Due to grading considerations, if at least 12 inches of sandy clay structural fill is provided below, the pavement materials stabilization is not necessary. The degree of compaction and moisture content of the subgrade soils should be maintained till the subgrade is paved. 4.6.2 PAVEMENT DESIGN

AASHTO design methodology could be used to design the pavements. According to AASHTO design methodology, the pavement design thickness considers pavement performance, traffic, subgrade soils, pavement materials, environment, drainage, and reliability. Traffic includes several types of vehicles with various magnitudes of axle loads that may be subjected to the pavement during its service life. The design involves a traffic analyses that converts various types of vehicles with various magnitudes axle loads to a number of 18-kip equivalent single axle load repetitions. The design engineer should perform the traffic analyses to compute the number of ESALs repetitions that would be subjected to the pavement during its service life or design life. Based on the computed ESALs, an economical and appropriate pavement can be designed accordingly.



Page 11


In order to design a pavement, the subgrade soil conditions and anticipated levels of traffic must be known. The subgrade soils are evaluated based on our limited testing. The anticipated traffic on the proposed pavement is not known at this time. Based on our previous experience with similar facilities, the traffic for the proposed pavement could include lightly loaded cars/pick-up trucks, delivery vans or trucks and occasional 18-wheeler truck traffic. Based on AASHTO design methodology and our experience with similar projects in the local area, we are providing pavement thickness for both rigid pavement and flexible pavement systems in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 respectively. The tables include pavement sections corresponding to generic traffic levels (total ESALs). In general, pavement thicknesses corresponding to the lower traffic conditions may be considered for parking areas, while the higher traffic conditions may be considered for driveways, exit, and entry lanes and frequently used areas. Pavements within trash pick-up areas should be Portland cement concrete with at least 7 inches in thickness.

Table 4.1 – Rigid Pavement Design Thickness

Pavement Material(s)

Life Expectancy, ESALs

Light Duty 116,000

Heavy Duty 200,000

Design Thickness (in.)

Portland Cement Concrete 5.0 6.0

Subgrade or Subbase As Discussed Previously

Table 4.2 – Flexible Pavement Design Thickness

Pavement Material(s)

Life Expectancy, ESALs

Light Duty 15,000

Heavy Duty 75,000

Approximate Structural Number, SN = Σ ai * ti

1.6 2.3

Design Thickness (in.)

Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete Item 340. TxDOT – Type D

2.0 3.0

Crushed Limestone Base Item 247. TxDOT – Type A, Grade 1

6.0 8.0

Subgrade or Subbase As Previously Discussed,

The final pavement sections should be adjusted by the project Civil Engineer based the actual design traffic loading criteria for the project when that information becomes available. PSI can assist with the final pavement section design if requested. Proper finishing of concrete pavement requires the use of appropriate construction joints to reduce the potential for cracking. Construction joints should be designed in accordance with the current Portland Cement Association and the American Concrete Institute guidelines. Joints should be sealed to reduce the potential for water infiltration into pavement joints and subsequent infiltration into the supporting soils. Load transfer devices at the pavement joints should be designed in accordance with accepted codes. The concrete should have a



Page 12


minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi at 28 days. The concrete should also be designed with 5±1 percent of entrained air to improve workability and durability. Normal periodic maintenance will be required. 4.6.3 CIVIL AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS

Related civil design factors such as drainage, cross-sectional configurations, surface elevations, and environmental factors, which will significantly affect the service life of the pavement, must be included in the preparation of the construction drawings and specifications. Concrete pavement slabs should be provided with adequate steel reinforcement. Proper finishing of concrete pavements requires the use of sawed and sealed joints. Joint spacing is recommended at 15-foot intervals for plain concrete. Dowel bars should be used to transfer loads at the transverse joints. Surface water infiltration to the pavement subgrade layers may soften the subgrade soils. Considering several factors in the pavement design can reduce surface infiltration. To summarize, the following are some of the factors that need to be emphasized in order to maintain proper drainage.

• Appropriate slopes should be provided.

• Joints should be properly sealed and maintained.

• Side drains or sub drains along a pavement section may be provided.

• Proper pavement maintenance programs such as sealing surface cracks and immediate repair of distressed pavement areas should be adopted.

• During and after the construction, site grading should be kept in such a way that the water drains freely off the site and off any prepared or unprepared subgrade soils. Excavations should not be kept open for a long period of time.



Page 13


5 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

PSI should be retained to provide observation and testing of construction activities involved in the foundations, earthwork, and related activities of this project. PSI cannot accept any responsibility for any conditions that deviate from those described in this report, nor for the performance of the foundations if not also engaged in providing construction observation and testing for this project.

5.1 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS/WEATHER RELATED

During wet weather periods and/or poor site drainage, an increase in the moisture content of the soil can cause a significant reduction in the soil strength and support capabilities. Soils that become wet might be slow to dry and thus significantly retard the progress of grading and compaction activities. It will, therefore, be advantageous to perform earthwork and foundation construction activities during dry weather.

5.2 DRAINAGE CONCERNS

Water should not be allowed to collect in foundation excavations or on prepared subgrade of the construction area either during or after construction. Undercut or excavated areas should be sloped toward one corner to facilitate the removal of any collected rainwater, groundwater, or surface runoff. Positive site surface drainage should be provided to reduce the infiltration of surface water around the perimeter of the foundation. The grades should be sloped away from the foundation and surface drainage, and roof drainage should be collected and discharged such that water is not permitted to infiltrate and/or accumulate within the foundation or any backfill areas.

5.3 EXCAVATIONS

In Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 209 (October 1989), the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its "Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, Subpart P". This document was issued to better ensure the safety of workmen entering trenches or excavations. It is mandated by this federal regulation that excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement excavation or footing excavations, etc. be constructed in accordance with the new OSHA guidelines. It is our understanding that these regulations are being strictly enforced and if they are not closely followed, the owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial penalties. The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain the stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractor's "competent person", as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926.650 to 652 should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures. 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. We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. PSI does not assume responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's or other party’s compliance with local, state, and federal safety or other regulations.



Page 14


6 REPORT LIMITATIONS

The information submitted in this report is based on the available subsurface information obtained by PSI and project details furnished by client representatives for the proposed project. If there are any revisions or changes to the plans for this project, including the nature, design or location of the project or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction, PSI should be notified in writing immediately to determine if changes in the foundation recommendations are required. If PSI is not notified in writing of such changes, PSI will not be responsible for the impact of those changes on the project. The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications, or professional advice contained herein have been made in accordance with generally accepted professional Geotechnical Engineering practices in the local area. No other warranties are implied or expressed. This report should not be redistributed, copied, or reproduced in any part, without the written consent of PSI. PSI is not responsible for any claims, damages, or liability associated with the interpretation or re-use of the subsurface data or engineering analysis or the conclusions or recommendations of others based on the findings and recommendations presented herein. After the plans and specifications are more complete, the Geotechnical Engineer should be retained and provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications to check that our engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated into the design documents. At that time, it may be necessary to submit supplemental recommendations. If PSI is not retained to perform these functions, PSI will not be responsible for the impact of those conditions on the project. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Carlson Consulting Engineers, Inc for the specific application to the Beaumont Trails Apartment building to be located in Beaumont, Texas.


APPENDIX

PLATE 1A

BEAUMONT TRAILS APARTMENT

SITE LOCATION PLAN

PSI REPORT NO: 286-2297SPINDLETOP SQUARE ROAD, BEAUMONT,

TEXAS

SITE LOCATION

N

BORING LOCATION PLAN

BEAUMONT TRAILS APARTMENTSPINDLETOP SQUARE ROAD, BEAUMONT,

TEXASPSI REPORT NO: 286-2297

PLATE 1B

N

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION

B-01

B-02

B-03

B-04

P-02

P-04

P-03

B-05P-01

35

46

16

17

51

63

8

13

11

17

18

31

FAT CLAY (CH), FIRM TO STIFF, GRAY

- tan, 6 to 10 feet

- with calcareous nodules, 6 to 8 feet

- with ferrous nodules, 8 to 10 feet


CLAYEY SAND (SC), MEDIUM DENSE, BROWN

- gray, 23 to 25 feet

FAT CLAY (CH), STIFF, LIGHT GRAY

CLAYEY SAND (SC), MEDIUM DENSE, BROWN

SILTY SAND (SM), DENSE, BROWN

96

96

CH

SC

CH

SC

SM

95 26

27

26

26

30

24

29

34

27

19

25

25

20

APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION: feet

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

BEAUMONT TRAILS APARTMENTS

PLATE NO: 2 (Page 1 of 1)

UU

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

% P

AS

SIN

GN

o. 2

00 S

IEV

E

N-B

LOW

S/F

T.

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

UC TV

DEPTH OF BORING: 50 FEET INITIAL GROUND WATER: PRECLUDED DUE TO WET ROTARY

SHEAR STRENGTH

(tons/square foot)

Geotechnical Consulting Services3730 Dacoma StreetHouston, Texas 77092

COORDINATE (X) OR EASTING:COORDINATE (Y) OR NORTHING:

PSI Project No.: 286-2297TYPE OF BORING: WET ROTARY

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES:

PL PI0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

SA

MP

LES

DATE DRILLED: 8/15/20 FINAL GROUND WATER: PRECLUDED DUE TO WET ROTARY

LL

LOG OF BORING B-01

SPINDLETOP SQUARE ROAD, BEAUMONT, TEXAS

DE

PT

H,

FT

.

SO

IL T

YP

E

HP

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T(p

cf)

LATITUDE:LONGITUDE:

BO

RIN

GLO

G_H

OU

ST

ON

- H

OU

ST

ON

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

- 9

/9/2

0 21

:40

- C

:\US

ER

S\N

AR

EE

N.P

ER

AM

\DE

SK

TO

P\2

86\2

86-2

297

BE

AU

MO

NT

TR

AIL

S A

PA

RT

ME

NT

S, B

EA

UM

ON

T, T

EX

AS

\4. L

OG

\286

-229

7.G

PJ

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

34

39

22

22

56

61

9

35

FAT CLAY (CH), FIRM TO STIFF, BROWN


SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), HARD, BROWN

100

CH

CL

95

18

18

24

28

23

21

24


US

CS

SY

MB

OL



UU

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

% P

AS

SIN

GN

o. 2

00 S

IEV

E

N-B

LOW

S/F

T.

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

UC TV

DEPTH OF BORING: 20 FEET INITIAL GROUND WATER: 12 FEET DURING DRILLING

SHEAR STRENGTH

(tons/square foot)



PSI Project No.: 286-2297TYPE OF BORING: AUGER TO 20 FEET

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES:

PL PI0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

SA

MP

LES

DATE DRILLED: 8/15/20 FINAL GROUND WATER: 8 FEET UPON COMPLETION

LL

LOG OF BORING B-02


DE

PT

H,

FT

.

SO

IL T

YP

E

HP

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T(p

cf)

LATITUDE:LONGITUDE:

BO

RIN

GLO

G_H

OU

ST

ON

- H

OU

ST

ON

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

- 9

/9/2

0 21

:40

- C

:\US

ER

S\N

AR

EE

N.P

ER

AM

\DE

SK

TO

P\2

86\2

86-2

297

BE

AU

MO

NT

TR

AIL

S A

PA

RT

ME

NT

S, B

EA

UM

ON

T, T

EX

AS

\4. L

OG

\286

-229

7.G

PJ

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

37

21

19

16

56

3723

31

FAT CLAY (CH), FIRM TO STIFF, BROWN


LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL), VERY STIFF TOHARD, BROWN

103

CH

CL74

26

24

22

26

19

22

24


US

CS

SY

MB

OL



UU

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

% P

AS

SIN

GN

o. 2

00 S

IEV

E

N-B

LOW

S/F

T.

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

UC TV


SHEAR STRENGTH

(tons/square foot)




SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES:

PL PI0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

SA

MP

LES

DATE DRILLED: 8/18/20 FINAL GROUND WATER: 8 FEET UPON COMPLETION

LL

LOG OF BORING B-03


DE

PT

H,

FT

.

SO

IL T

YP

E

HP

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T(p

cf)

LATITUDE:LONGITUDE:

BO

RIN

GLO

G_H

OU

ST

ON

- H

OU

ST

ON

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

- 9

/9/2

0 21

:40

- C

:\US

ER

S\N

AR

EE

N.P

ER

AM

\DE

SK

TO

P\2

86\2

86-2

297

BE

AU

MO

NT

TR

AIL

S A

PA

RT

ME

NT

S, B

EA

UM

ON

T, T

EX

AS

\4. L

OG

\286

-229

7.G

PJ

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

41

47

20

23

61

70

16

21

FAT CLAY (CH), STIFF TO VERY STIFF, DARKBROWN

- light gray, 2 to 4 feet

- with calcareous nodules and ferrous nodules, 6 to 10feet

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL), VERY STIFF, LIGHTBROWN

100

CH

CL

21

16

25

25

35

24

24


US

CS

SY

MB

OL



UU

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

% P

AS

SIN

GN

o. 2

00 S

IEV

E

N-B

LOW

S/F

T.

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

UC TV


SHEAR STRENGTH

(tons/square foot)




SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES:

PL PI0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

SA

MP

LES

DATE DRILLED: 8/18/20 FINAL GROUND WATER: NOT MEASURED UPON COMPLETION

LL

LOG OF BORING B-04


DE

PT

H,

FT

.

SO

IL T

YP

E

HP

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T(p

cf)

LATITUDE:LONGITUDE:

BO

RIN

GLO

G_H

OU

ST

ON

- H

OU

ST

ON

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

- 9

/9/2

0 21

:40

- C

:\US

ER

S\N

AR

EE

N.P

ER

AM

\DE

SK

TO

P\2

86\2

86-2

297

BE

AU

MO

NT

TR

AIL

S A

PA

RT

ME

NT

S, B

EA

UM

ON

T, T

EX

AS

\4. L

OG

\286

-229

7.G

PJ

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

45

NP

16

NP

61

NP

21

11

14

55

56

FAT CLAY (CH), STIFF TO VERY STIFF, DARKBROWN



CLAYEY SAND (SC), BROWN

LEAN CLAY (CL), FIRM, LIGHT GRAY

SILTY SAND (SM), MEDIUM DENSE, GRAY, withsea shells

FAT CLAY (CH), STIFF, LIGHT GRAY

SANDY SILT (ML), STIFF BROWN

SILTY SAND (SM), VERY DENSE, BROWN

107

96

92

CH

SC

CL

SM

CH

ML

SM

69

12

15

21

24

22

24

26

32

33

23

24

19

20


US

CS

SY

MB

OL



UU

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

% P

AS

SIN

GN

o. 2

00 S

IEV

E

N-B

LOW

S/F

T.

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

UC TV

DEPTH OF BORING: 50 FEET INITIAL GROUND WATER: PRECLUDED DUE TO WET ROTARY

SHEAR STRENGTH

(tons/square foot)



PSI Project No.: 286-2297TYPE OF BORING: WET ROTARY

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES:

PL PI0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

SA

MP

LES

DATE DRILLED: 8/18/20 FINAL GROUND WATER: PRECLUDED DUE TO WET ROTARY

LL

LOG OF BORING B-05


DE

PT

H,

FT

.

SO

IL T

YP

E

HP

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T(p

cf)

LATITUDE:LONGITUDE:

BO

RIN

GLO

G_H

OU

ST

ON

- H

OU

ST

ON

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

- 9

/9/2

0 21

:40

- C

:\US

ER

S\N

AR

EE

N.P

ER

AM

\DE

SK

TO

P\2

86\2

86-2

297

BE

AU

MO

NT

TR

AIL

S A

PA

RT

ME

NT

S, B

EA

UM

ON

T, T

EX

AS

\4. L

OG

\286

-229

7.G

PJ

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

301343Fill: Lean Clay, Brown

FAT CLAY (CH), SOFT TO STIFF, DARK GRAY



FILL

CH

97 15

28

25

25

34


US

CS

SY

MB

OL



UU

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

% P

AS

SIN

GN

o. 2

00 S

IEV

E

N-B

LOW

S/F

T.

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

UC TV

DEPTH OF BORING: 10 FEET INITIAL GROUND WATER: NOT ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING

SHEAR STRENGTH

(tons/square foot)




SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES:

PL PI0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

SA

MP

LES

DATE DRILLED: 8/18/20 FINAL GROUND WATER: NOT ENCOUNTERED UPON COMPLETION

LL

LOG OF BORING P-01


DE

PT

H,

FT

.

SO

IL T

YP

E

HP

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T(p

cf)

LATITUDE:LONGITUDE:

BO

RIN

GLO

G_H

OU

ST

ON

- H

OU

ST

ON

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

- 9

/9/2

0 21

:40

- C

:\US

ER

S\N

AR

EE

N.P

ER

AM

\DE

SK

TO

P\2

86\2

86-2

297

BE

AU

MO

NT

TR

AIL

S A

PA

RT

ME

NT

S, B

EA

UM

ON

T, T

EX

AS

\4. L

OG

\286

-229

7.G

PJ

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

501868

FAT CLAY (CH), FIRM TO VERY STIFF, BROWN,with root fibers, 0 to 2 feet



CH22

27

25

23

27


US

CS

SY

MB

OL



UU

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

% P

AS

SIN

GN

o. 2

00 S

IEV

E

N-B

LOW

S/F

T.

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

UC TV


SHEAR STRENGTH

(tons/square foot)




SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES:

PL PI0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

SA

MP

LES


LL

LOG OF BORING P-02


DE

PT

H,

FT

.

SO

IL T

YP

E

HP

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T(p

cf)

LATITUDE:LONGITUDE:

BO

RIN

GLO

G_H

OU

ST

ON

- H

OU

ST

ON

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

- 9

/9/2

0 21

:40

- C

:\US

ER

S\N

AR

EE

N.P

ER

AM

\DE

SK

TO

P\2

86\2

86-2

297

BE

AU

MO

NT

TR

AIL

S A

PA

RT

ME

NT

S, B

EA

UM

ON

T, T

EX

AS

\4. L

OG

\286

-229

7.G

PJ

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

331649LEAN CLAY (CL), STIFF, DARK BROWN, with rootfibers, 0 to 2 feet

FAT CLAY (CH), FIRM, BROWN



CL

CH

19

29

27

23

27


US

CS

SY

MB

OL



UU

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

% P

AS

SIN

GN

o. 2

00 S

IEV

E

N-B

LOW

S/F

T.

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

UC TV


SHEAR STRENGTH

(tons/square foot)




SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES:

PL PI0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

SA

MP

LES


LL

LOG OF BORING P-03


DE

PT

H,

FT

.

SO

IL T

YP

E

HP

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T(p

cf)

LATITUDE:LONGITUDE:

BO

RIN

GLO

G_H

OU

ST

ON

- H

OU

ST

ON

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

- 9

/9/2

0 21

:40

- C

:\US

ER

S\N

AR

EE

N.P

ER

AM

\DE

SK

TO

P\2

86\2

86-2

297

BE

AU

MO

NT

TR

AIL

S A

PA

RT

ME

NT

S, B

EA

UM

ON

T, T

EX

AS

\4. L

OG

\286

-229

7.G

PJ

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

401656

FAT CLAY (CH), STIFF TO VERY STIFF, BROWN

- dark gray, 4 to 6 feet


CH

96

15

16

22

24

24


US

CS

SY

MB

OL



UU

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

% P

AS

SIN

GN

o. 2

00 S

IEV

E

N-B

LOW

S/F

T.

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

UC TV


SHEAR STRENGTH

(tons/square foot)




SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES:

PL PI0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

SA

MP

LES


LL

LOG OF BORING P-04


DE

PT

H,

FT

.

SO

IL T

YP

E

HP

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T(p

cf)

LATITUDE:LONGITUDE:

BO

RIN

GLO

G_H

OU

ST

ON

- H

OU

ST

ON

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

- 9

/9/2

0 21

:40

- C

:\US

ER

S\N

AR

EE

N.P

ER

AM

\DE

SK

TO

P\2

86\2

86-2

297

BE

AU

MO

NT

TR

AIL

S A

PA

RT

ME

NT

S, B

EA

UM

ON

T, T

EX

AS

\4. L

OG

\286

-229

7.G

PJ

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

GRAVEL SAND SILT LEAN CLAY FAT CLAY PEAT NO AUGER SHELBY SPLIT

SAMPLE SAMPLE TUBE SPOON

MODIFIERS

STONE GRAVELY SANDY SILTY CLAYEY MISC. NO ROCK 2" SHELBY TXDOT

(SEE TEXT ON LOG) RECOVERY CORE TUBE CONE

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM - ASTM D 2487

VERY SOFT

SOFT

FIRM

STIFF

VERY STIFF

HARD

RELATIVE DENSITY - GRANULAR SOILS

> 50 OR 50+

DEGREE OF PLASTICITY OF MOISTURE CONDITION CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS

COHESIVE SOILS COHESIVE SOILS AFTER TERZAGHI (1948)

ABBREVIATIONS

HP - HAND PENETROMETER UC - UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST

TV - TORVANE UU - UNCONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL

MV - MINIATURE VANE CU - CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED

NOTE: PLOT INDICATES SHEAR STRENGTH AS OBTAINED BY ABOVE TESTS

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE(S)

6" 3" 3/4" 4 10 200

GRAVEL SAND

152 76.2 19.1 4.76 2.0 0.42 0.074 0.002

GRAIN SIZE IN MM

PLATE NO: 11

SOIL TYPE SAMPLER TYPE

CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS

Visible free water

SWELL POTENTIAL

5 TO 9

10 TO 29

NONE

LOW

Absence of moisture,

dusty, dry to touch

Damp but no visible

water

DRY

MOIST

FIRM

STIFF

KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON LOGS

SILT OR CLAY

HIGH

VERY HIGH

PLASTICITY INDEX

0 TO 4

MEDIUM

CONDITION

30 TO 40

> 40

FINAL GROUND WATER LEVEL

2 TO 4

> 30

VERY SOFT

DEGREE OF

PLASTICITYDESCRIPTION

SHEAR STRENGTH

CONSISTENCY

0.25 TO 0.5

< 2

0 TO 4

0.5 TO 1.0

> 2.0 OR 2.0+

1.0 TO 2.0

CONSISTENCY N-VALUE (BLOWS/FOOT)

N-VALUE (BLOWS/FOOT)

CONSISTENCY IN TONS/FT2

0 TO 0.125

0.125 TO 0.25

30 TO 50

BOULDERS

NONE OR SLIGHT

LOW

MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

CLASSIFICATION OF GRANULAR SOILS

VERY STIFF

HARD

SOFT

COARSE MEDIUMCLAY

4 TO 8

15 TO 30

INITIAL GROUND WATER

LEVEL

8 TO 15

4 TO 20

20 TO 30

VERY DENSE

COBBLESFINE

40

COARSE FINE

VERY LOOSE

LOOSE

MEDIUM DENSE

DENSE

WET

.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Pla

sti

cit

y I

nd

ex

Liquid Limit

CH

MH OR OH

ML OR OL

CL

CL-ML

. .. . .. . .

re: geotechnical engineering services report beaumont

Documents