PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
FREDERICKSBURG, TEXAS
 

City of Fredericksburg
Fredericksburg, Texas
Report No. 04.36141034

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STUDY

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
FREDERICKSBURG, TEXAS

Prepared for:

CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG
Fredericksburg, Texas

Submitted by:

FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC.

January 2015
Report No. 04.36141034

CONTENTS
PAGE

INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................... 1 

AUTHORIZATION ......................................................................................................................... 1 

PURPOSE AND SCOPE ............................................................................................................. 1 

FIELD INVESTIGATION .............................................................................................................. 2 

LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................................ 3 

GENERALIZED SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...................................................... 3 

Site Physiography.............................................................................................................. 3 
Strata Descriptions ............................................................................................................ 4 
Site Geology ...................................................................................................................... 4 
Stratigraphy and Engineering Properties ........................................................................... 4 
Groundwater ...................................................................................................................... 5 

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION EVALUATION............................................................................ 5 

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ..... 6 

Vertical Movements ...........................................................................................................6 
Structural Pad Preparation ................................................................................................ 6 
Shallow Spread (Continuous and Isolated) Footings ........................................................ 7 
Mat Foundations ................................................................................................................ 8 
Grid-Beam Stiffened Slabs-on-Grade ................................................................................ 9 
Shallow Foundation Subgrade Observations .................................................................... 9 
Drilled Shafts ................................................................................................................... 10 

PRELIMINARY LATERAL EARTH PARAMETERS ................................................................. 11 

PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 12 

Flexible Pavement ........................................................................................................... 12 
Rigid Pavement ...............................................................................................................12 
Pavement Drainage ......................................................................................................... 13 
Report No. 04.36141034

PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION REGARDING SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL .................... 13 

Corrosion of Steel ............................................................................................................13 
Degradation of Concrete ................................................................................................. 14 

PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS .............................. 15 

Soil Moduli for Buried Flexible Pipe ................................................................................. 15 
Trench Safety .................................................................................................................. 15 
Site Grading and Excavation Potential ............................................................................ 16 
Dewatering ...................................................................................................................... 16 
Below Grade Structures .................................................................................................. 17 
Construction Monitoring................................................................................................... 17 
Supplemental Studies...................................................................................................... 17 

CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................................. 17 

ILLUSTRATIONS
PLATES
VICINITY MAP ............................................................................................................................. 1
PLAN OF BORINGS ........................................................................................................ 2a & 2b
LOGS OF BORINGS ............................................................................................................. 3 - 7
KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON BORING LOGS ............................................. 8
Report No. 04.36141034

INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The City of Fredericksburg is planning improvements to the existing wastewater treatment facility
located at 1460 East Main Street in Fredericksburg, Texas. The approximate site location is
shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. HDR is providing engineering design services, including
structural and civil design. Fugro was retained by the City of Fredericksburg to provide
preliminary geotechnical engineering services.

The purpose of this initial program of borings was to characterize the site for preliminary design.
The exact footprints (locations and sizes), finished slab elevations, and structure movement
tolerances have not been provided. Following is a list of items to be constructed as part of the
improvement project that require geotechnical considerations. Specific borings drilled for each
structure are included in the list below.
 Administrative Building (one-story building with a footprint on the order of 2,000 sq ft),
borings B-1 and B-2;
 Expansion to Mechanical Dewatering Facility (existing facility concrete foundation and
metal building), boring B-3;
 Chemical Storage Facility (new building), borings B-4 and B-5;
 Miscellaneous Concrete Pad Foundations;
 Shade structures; and
 Flexible and Rigid Pavement.
Other Items requiring geotechnical input include: buried piping, electrical utilities, manholes,
vaults, and drainage structures. Maximum anticipated mat foundation/footing bearing pressure
will be on the order of 3,000 to 4,000 psf, line loads on the order of 3,000 pound per linear foot,
and column loads on the order of 12 to 16 kips.

AUTHORIZATION

This study was performed in general accordance with the scope of work outlined in Fugro’s
Proposal No. 04.36141034, dated August 4, 2014. The work was authorized by Mr. Kent Myers,
City Manager of the City of Fredericksburg, on August 27, 2014.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purposes of this study were to 1) obtain subsurface information to identify geotechnical and
geologic conditions at the boring locations, 2) provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations
for foundation design and construction, 3) provide preliminary pavement thickness design and

-1-
Report No. 04.36141034

construction recommendations, and 4) provide preliminary construction recommendations and

considerations.

These purposes were accomplished through a three phase study including: 1) a field
investigation for evaluating general subsurface conditions at the boring locations and obtaining
representative samples for classification and testing, 2) a laboratory testing program to aid in soil
classification and to establish engineering properties of the strata encountered, and 3) analyses
of field and laboratory data to develop preliminary geotechnical design and construction
recommendations.

Field sampling, laboratory testing, soil classifications and strata descriptions were in general
accordance with methods, procedures, and practices set forth by the American Society for
Testing and Materials, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, current edition, where applicable.

FIELD INVESTIGATION

The subsurface exploration program consisted of five 18.7- to 24.8-ft deep borings, designated as
B-1 through B-5. The locations of the borings are illustrated on a Google Earth image, Plate 2a,
and a scaled site plan, Plate 2b, which was provided by HDR. The borings locations were
selected by others and were located and staked in the field prior to our arrival on-site. It should
be noted that borings B-3 was moved to get to a flatter area to drill and boring B-4 was moved
due to underground utilities. The approximate locations where the borings were drilled are shown
on Plates 2a and 2b. It should be noted that boring B-3 is not shown at the correct location on
the plan provided by HDR.

The borings were drilled with a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with the following equipment:
1) continuous flight augers for advancing the holes dry and recovering disturbed samples (ASTM
D1452); 2) push-tube samplers for obtaining undisturbed samples of cohesive strata (ASTM
D1587); 3) split-barrel samplers and drive weight assembly for obtaining representative samples
and measuring the penetration resistance (N-values) of non-cohesive soil strata (ASTM D1586);
and 4) double-tube wireline core barrels equipped with carbide bits for obtaining nominal 2-inch
diameter rock cores (ASTM D2113). The borings were advanced without the use of drilling fluids.

Samples were generally obtained at about 2-ft intervals to a depth of about 10 ft, and at 5-ft
intervals thereafter. After recovery, each sample was removed from the sampler and visually
classified by our field engineer. Representative portions of each sample were then packaged,
sealed, and transported to Fugro's San Antonio laboratory for testing. At the completion of the
borings, the boreholes were sounded for groundwater using a weighted measuring tape. Depth
to water measurements were recorded on the field logs. The borings were backfilled with soil
cuttings and bentonite chips.
-2-
Report No. 04.36141034

During drilling and sampling, a record of field observations was maintained in the form of field
logs describing the visual identification of the subsurface materials encountered and other
pertinent field data. These logs were later edited to incorporate information obtained from
laboratory evaluation and testing. The boring logs for borings B-1 through B-5 are presented on
Plates 3 through 7, respectively. A key to terms and symbols used on the boring logs is
presented on Plate 8.

Pocket penetrometer and penetration resistance SPT N-values were recorded in the field. The
pocket penetrometer values, in kips per square foot (ksf), and the SPT N-values, in blows per foot
(bpf), are shown on the logs. The latitudes and longitudes are presented on the boring logs,
along with ground surface elevations obtained from the topographic plan provided by HDR.

LABORATORY TESTING

The laboratory testing program included identification and classification testing of the strata
encountered. Soil classification tests, including Atterberg limit determinations (ASTM D4318) and
partial grain-size analyses (ASTM D422), were conducted on representative samples of the soil
strata. Water content determinations (ASTM D2216) were performed on selected samples in
which classification tests were performed. One unconsolidated-undrained (UU) triaxial
compression test (ASTM D2850) was performed to evaluate the undrained shear strength; water
content and unit dry weight (ASTM D7263) were measured as routine portions of the strength
test. It should be noted that only one sample remained intact after sampling for strength testing.
The results of the laboratory classification and strength tests are presented on the boring logs,
Plates 3 through 7.

The laboratory testing program also included testing to assist in the evaluation of the corrosion
potential of the on-site soils. Analytical tests included: pH (ASTM G51), soluble chloride
(ASTM D512), and soluble sulfate (ASTM D516). Electrical resistivity (ASTM G57) tests were
also performed. These test results are summarized later in this report in the section entitled Soil
Corrosion Potential.

GENERALIZED SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Site Physiography
The site is an existing wastewater treatment plant, with various structures and paved and
unpaved driveways. The areas where we drilled were covered with short grasses at the time of
drilling. Barons Creek generally runs north-south to the east of the existing wastewater treatment
plant. The topography generally slopes down to the southeast from an elevation of about 1,630

-3-
Report No. 04.36141034

to 1,620 ft in the areas of the plant for the proposed improvements. The topography is more
specifically discussed below in the areas for the proposed primary structures.
 The area proposed for the administration building (B-1 and B-2) is relatively flat, with
ground surface elevations ranging from about 1,627 to 1,629 feet.
 The area proposed for the expansion to the mechanical dewatering facility (B-3)
slopes down to the east from an elevation about 1,627 to 1,621 feet.
 The area proposed for the chemical storage facility slopes down to the southeast from
an elevation of about 1,621 to 1,618 feet.

Strata Descriptions
Descriptions of strata made in the field at the time the borings were drilled were modified in
accordance with results of laboratory tests and visual evaluation in the laboratory. All recovered
soil samples were evaluated, classified and described in accordance with ASTM D2487 the
“Unified Soil Classification System” and ASTM D2488. Classifications of the soils and finalized
descriptions of soil strata are shown on the attached boring logs.

Site Geology
Based on available geologic information (Llano Geologic Map, 1979 Geotechnical Report
prepared by Frank G. Bryant & Associates, Inc., and 1994 Report prepared by Trinity Engineering
Testing Corporation) the site is underlain by the Hensell Sand formation. This formation typically
consists of sand, silt and clay over conglomerate, siltstone and/or claystone.

Stratigraphy and Engineering Properties

Subsurface conditions at the site can be best understood by a review of the five boring logs
presented on Plates 3 through 7. A brief summary of the subsurface conditions is provided in the
following paragraphs for the three areas of the plant investigated.

Administrative Building, Borings B-1 and B-2. At the boring B-1 and B-2 locations, 4 to 6 ft of
brown to tan sandy lean clay was encountered overlying tan to light brown with some reddish
brown silty clayey sand and clayey sand. The lean clays have measured plasticity indices of 12,
18 and 36, and percentages of the material passing the No. 200 sieve of 61, 61 and 57. The lean
clays have pocket penetrometer values between 2.3 and 4.5 tsf+ and an SPT N-value of 23 bpf,
indicating a very stiff to hard consistency. The silty clayey and clayey sands have measured
plasticity indices of 4, 5 and 25 and percentages of the material passing the No. 200 sieve of 19,
42 and 15. The sands have SPT N-values ranging from 13 bpf to over 50 bpf, indicating a
medium dense to very dense density.

-4-
Report No. 04.36141034

Expansion to Mechanical Dewatering Facility, Borings B-3. At the boring B-3 location, 2 ft of
brown silty sand was encountered over dark reddish brown to tan clayey sand that extended to a
depth of about 18 ft, where tan poorly graded sand with clay and gravel was encountered and
extended to the boring completion depth of 24.8 feet. Measured plasticity indices varied from
non-plastic to 22 and percentages of the material passing the No. 200 sieve ranged from 9 to 39.
The percentage of gravel was on the order of 20 to 40 percent below the 8-ft depth. SPT N-
values ranged from 9 bpf to over 50 bpf, indicating a loose to very dense density.

Chemical Storage Facility, Borings B-4 and B-5. At the boring B-4 and B-5 locations, 6 to 8 ft
of dark brown to tan silty sand was encountered overlying a tan to dark reddish brown and light
gray clayey sand and well graded sand with silt and gravel, which extended to the boring
completion depths. Measured plasticity indices varied from non-plastic to 27 and percentages of
the material passing the No. 200 sieve ranged from 9 to 49. The percentage of gravel was less
than 30 percent. SPT N-values ranged from 5 bpf to over 50 bpf, indicating a loose to very dense
density.

Groundwater
All five borings were advanced dry. Groundwater was not encountered during dry advancement
of borings B-1 through B-3. At the boring B-4 and B-5 locations, groundwater was encountered
at depths of 17.8 and 17.3 ft during dry advancement, respectively. The presence of
groundwater should be anticipated. Amounts of water will depend on antecedent rainfall and
location of site drainage features.

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION EVALUATION

As previously mentioned, the exact footprints (locations and sizes), finished slab elevations, and
acceptable structure movement tolerances have not been provided. Based on the general
structural information provided for the proposed structures discussed at the beginning of this
report and the nature of the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations, the
structures can likely be supported on shallow foundations. Shallow spread footings, mat
foundations, and/or grid-beam stiffened slabs-on-ground could be used to support the structures.
Drilled shafts may be used to support lightly loaded structures subjected to large lateral forces
(shade structures).

-5-
Report No. 04.36141034

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

The following sections present a discussion regarding potential vertical movements, preliminary
recommendations for structural pad preparation, shallow spread (continuous and isolated)
footings, mat foundations, grid-beam stiffened slabs-on-grade, shallow foundation subgrade
observations, and drilled shafts.

Vertical Movements
Potential vertical movement can be related to 1) plastic clay soils that tend to shrink and swell
with changes in moisture content, and 2) soft or compressible soils that settle or consolidate
when subjected to surcharge loads. A discussion regarding movements associated with
shrink/swell is provided below and discussions regarding settlement of the various shallow
foundation alternatives are discussed in each section.

The soils encountered at the five boring locations generally have a low shrink/swell potential.
The upper couple feet at the boring B-1 and B-2 locations have a moderate to high potential for
volumetric change with moisture fluctuations1. Preliminary estimates of vertical soil movement at
each boring location were computed using the TxDOT Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) method (Tex-
124-E)2. The estimated potential vertical movements at the five boring locations vary from less
than 1 inch to about 1-1/2 inches using a depth of seasonal moisture content change of 12 feet.
Grading of the site, finished slab elevations, foundation type and final loading conditions will all
affect the estimated potential vertical movements.

Structural Pad Preparation

1. Within the footprint of the proposed structures and for a distance 3 ft outside the
footprints, remove and dispose of all organics, fill material, deleterious materials, and
at least 6 inches of the surficial soil. Depending on the planned finished slab elevation
of the Administration Building, an additional 1 to 2 ft of surficial soil may need to be
removed to reduce the potential vertical movement to about 1 inch.
2. Scarify at least 6 inches of the cut soil subgrade and recompact to a minimum of
95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined using the Texas Department of
Transportation (TxDOT) Test Method Tex-113-E. Hold water contents within 2
percent of the optimum water content.

1
Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H., (1974) Foundation Engineering, Second Edition, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York, Pg. 337.
2
The State of Texas, Texas Department of Transportation, Materials and Test Division, Manual of Testing
Procedures, Volume 1, Test Method TEX-124-E, Rev. January 1, 1978.
-6-
Report No. 04.36141034

3. Proof roll the subgrade in accordance with TxDOT Standard Specifications Item 216,
Proof Rolling. Undercut soft/loose areas and replace with compacted select fill. The
proof rolling operation should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical
engineer.
4. Bring the structural pads to grade with select fill (crushed rock) generally conforming
to the following gradation and plasticity:
Retained on 2-1/2” screen 0%
Retained on 3/4” screen 5% - 50%
Retained on No. 4 sieve 35% - 75%
Retained on No. 40 sieve 50% - 90%
Plasticity Index between 5 - 15
5. Compact select fill to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined
using TxDOT Test Method Tex-113-E. Hold water contents within 2 percent of the
optimum water content, and maintain compacted lift thicknesses to six inches or less.
If the fill thickness exceeds 5 ft, consideration should be given to compacting all the
select fill to 100 percent of the maximum dry density.
6. If moisture migration through the slab is a potential problem, place a capillary moisture
barrier/drainage layer (minimum thickness of four inches) atop the compacted select
fill. The material should consist of free-draining, clean, crushed stone with sizes
ranging mostly between ¼ and ½ inch. A material conforming to ASTM C 33, Grade
67 is recommended. The purpose of this layer is to break the transmission of capillary
moisture to the underside of the slab.
7. For closed-in buildings, place a vapor barrier with sufficient strength and durability to
resist puncture during reinforcing steel and concrete placement beneath the concrete
slab. Placement of the vapor barrier should be in accordance with manufacturer’s
recommendations.

Shallow Spread (Continuous and Isolated) Footings

Spread footings should be founded on properly placed select fill and/or relatively undisturbed
native soil at least 2 to 3 ft below the final ground surface. Spread footings may be sized using
an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 to 3,000 psf. The specific allowable bearing pressure will
depend on the location on the site, size, shape and depth of the footings and associated
earthwork at the site. Eccentricity should also be considered. The vector summation of forces
should remain in the central one third of the footing. The minimum continuous and isolated
footing widths should be at least 2 and 3 ft, respectively.

Horizontal loads acting on the footings will be resisted by friction between the foundation material
and the base of the footing and by passive resistance of the soil adjacent to the footing. For

-7-
Report No. 04.36141034

design purposes, the resistance due to passive soil pressure should be neglected. For concrete
foundations poured in good contact with select fill or native soil a coefficient of friction of 0.36 to
0.47 may be used for sliding resistance. The coefficient of friction does not include a factor of
safety.

Detailed settlement analyses for spread footings were beyond our preliminary scope. However,
due to the granular nature of the subsurface soils settlement will occur over a relatively short time
period, weeks. We estimate total settlements for typical footing sizes (less than about 6 ft wide)
subjected to the recommended bearing pressures will be on the order of 1 inch.

Mat Foundations
Mats should be founded on properly placed select fill or relatively undisturbed native soil at least
2 ft below the final ground surface. Mats may be designed using allowable bearing pressures in
the range of 2,000 to 4,000 psf, depending on size and acceptable allowable vertical movement.
Preliminary mat design should also consider the following:
1. Potential vertical movements will be a function of the structural fill pad thickness (if
any), the sustained surcharge pressures, and final grade in relation to existing grade.
2. Mats may be designed using a modulus of subgrade reaction on the order of 75 to
125 pci. The modulus value should be adjusted to reflect the actual foundation size.3
3. Eccentricity should also be considered. The vector summation of forces should
remain in the central one third of the mat.
4. During excavation for mats, any loose soils should be removed from the bottom of the
excavation. The excavation bottoms should be observed by a geotechnical engineer
of record or his representative prior to the placement of concrete.

Horizontal loads acting on the foundations will be resisted by friction between the foundation
material and the base of the foundation and by passive resistance of the soil adjacent to the
foundation. For design purposes, the resistance due to passive soil pressure should be
neglected due to potential shrinkage of the soil away from the foundation. For concrete
foundations poured in good contact with either select fill or native soil, an allowable coefficient of
friction of 0.36 to 0.47 may be used for sliding resistance. These values do not include a safety
factor.

Detailed settlement analyses for mat foundations were beyond our preliminary scope. However,
due to the granular nature of the subsurface soils settlement will occur over a relatively short time

3
Terzaghi, K. “Evaluation of Coefficients of Subgrade Reaction,” Geotechnique, London, 1955, Vol. 5, No. 4,
pp. 297-326.
-8-
Report No. 04.36141034

period, weeks. Settlement will be a function of mat size, finished slab elevation, and applied
pressure.

Grid-Beam Stiffened Slabs-on-Grade

The structural engineer should design grid-beam stiffened slabs-on-grade including: beam depth,
spacing and reinforcement, and the slab thickness and reinforcement, based on the following soil
parameters.
1. Beams should be founded on either properly placed select fill and/or relatively
undisturbed native soil at least 2 to 3 ft below the final ground surface. The beams
should be sized for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 to 2,500 psf. Beams
widths should be at least 12 inches. Ensure that any concentrated loads are centered
at the intersection of beams.
2. If the slab-on-ground design requires a modulus of subgrade reaction, use 75 to
125 pci.

Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRI) and Building Research Advisory Board (B.R.A.B.) parameters
were requested in the request for proposal. WRI parameters were presented in a manual
developed for the WRI entitled “Design of Slab-On-Ground Foundations” (August 1981) and are
discussed in Chapter 18, Division III of the UBC. BRAB parameters were obtained from the
Board’s Report No. 33 to the Federal Housing Administration entitled “Criteria for Selection and
Design of Residential Slabs-on-Ground” (1968). The values provided below are based on the
existing subsurface conditions at the five boring locations.

Parameter WRI BRAB

Effective Plasticity Index 6 to 18 6 to 18
Climate Rating, Cw 18 18
Soil-Climate Support Index, 1-C 0.00 to 0.03 NA
Soil-Climate Support Index, C NA 0.97 to 1.00

Shallow Foundation Subgrade Observations

The bottom of the excavations for footings, mats and/or beams should expose relatively
undisturbed native soil or properly placed select fill. Any loose or disturbed materials
encountered at the bottom of the excavation should be removed. In addition, there should not be
any free water standing in the excavation at the time of concrete placement. The exposed
bearing subgrade should be observed by the geotechnical engineer of record, prior to placement
of concrete.

-9-
Report No. 04.36141034

Drilled Shafts
Drilled shafts could be used to support lightly loaded structures subjected to large lateral forces
(shade structures). Preliminary straight-sided drilled shaft design parameters are provided below:
1. The structural loads should be carried on drilled shafts bottomed at least 10 ft below
the existing and/or final ground surface, whichever results in the lower elevation. The
specific minimum depth will depend on the area of the site.
2. The shafts should have a minimum diameter of 18 to 24 inches.
3. The shafts should be designed using an allowable end bearing capacity on the order
of 4 to 6 ksf.
4. The area of the shaft reinforcement, should extend from the top to the bottom of the
shafts, and should not be less than 0.5 percent of the gross area of the shaft. Shaft
reinforcement design should consider tensile (up lift) and lateral loads.
5. The structural capacities of the drilled shafts should be checked for allowable stresses
in the concrete, total downward axial loads, tension forces, lateral forces, and
moments produced by dead plus probable maximum live loads.
6. Maintain a minimum center-to-center spacing between drilled shafts (including existing
shafts) of at least three shaft diameters. If the minimum spacing cannot be
maintained, the geotechnical engineer should be retained to consider the group effect
of closely spaced shafts.
7. Maximum total vertical movement of drilled shafts designed and constructed in
accordance with these recommendations should be on the order of ½ inch.
8. Contract documents should provide for the use of temporary casing for proper
installation of drilled shafts should detrimental groundwater or caving soil conditions
be encountered.

The lateral capacity of the drilled shafts may be evaluated using the following preliminary
recommendations:
 ignore the strength of the soil in the upper 3 to 4 ft,
 use a unit weight for the soil of 110 to 120 pcf, and
 use a passive earth pressure coefficient of 3.0, which is based on an estimated friction
angle of 30 degrees.

- 10 -
Report No. 04.36141034

PRELIMINARY LATERAL EARTH PARAMETERS

The deformation condition imposed by a wall on the soil it retains has a significant influence on
the coefficient of horizontal earth pressure. The two general deformation conditions are “yielding”
and “nonyielding”. Yielding walls are those that move enough to allow the retained soil to reach a
state of limit equilibrium. The active state of limit equilibrium is approached as the wall moves
away from the retained soil. Nonyielding walls are those that do not move or move very little
usually because of restraint at the top so that they are not free to tilt. Since deformation is
prevented, the state of limit equilibrium is not approached, the shear strength of the soil is not
developed and the earth pressure remains equal to the at-rest pressure.

The type of backfill also has an important influence on the coefficient of horizontal earth pressure.
A clean, granular, free-draining material is the preferred backfill. Additionally, the accumulation of
water in the backfilled cuts adjacent to the structure walls will influence the horizontal earth
pressure. The high permeability of clean, granular, free-draining materials combined with
adequate drainage above the water table prevents the buildup of hydrostatic pressure. Below the
water table, the pressure is composed of the hydrostatic pressure and the horizontal component
of earth pressure calculated using the submerged unit weight of the soil.

The following table includes: a) angles of internal friction, and b) total unit weights, for free-
draining backfill and a select backfill material. If drained conditions are used, provisions must be
included in the design to fully drain the backfill. Select backfill is not considered to be a free
draining material.

Material Total Unit Weight Internal Friction

Type (pcf) Angle (degrees)
* Free-Draining Backfill 115 35
* Select Backfill 130 25
* Material and placement recommendations follow this table.

1. The free-draining backfill should be a washed, crushed, coarse-grained material with

sizes ranging mostly between ¼ and ½ inch, and no more than 5 percent passing the
No. 200 sieve. An acceptable gradation would be 67 Stone ASTM C 33. A geotextile
filter fabric should be placed between the free-draining backfill and the in-situ
materials.
2. The free-draining backfill should be placed in 6-inch thick lifts in a dry condition and
vibrated in place with a minimum of four complete over lapping passes, with a
vibratory plate compactor until no further densification is achieved.

- 11 -
Report No. 04.36141034

3. The free-draining backfill should be capped with 12 inches of lean clay and/or clayey
sand soils. Compact the lean clay and/or clayey sand soils to at least 95 percent of
the maximum dry density determined using TxDOT Test Method Tex-114-E. Hold
compacted lift thicknesses to 6 inches or less and water contents within 0 to +3
percent of the optimum water content. A filter fabric should be placed between the
free-draining backfill material and the natural clays including the clay cap.
4. The select backfill should be in conformance with Item 4 on Page 7 of this report.
5. Compact select fill to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined
using TxDOT Test Method Tex-113-E. Hold water contents within 2 percent of the
optimum water content, and maintain compacted lift thicknesses to six inches or less.

PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Preliminary pavement thickness design recommendations are provided for both flexible and rigid
pavement in the following sections. The pavement sections were developed using the AASHTO
Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures (1993)4 and assumed 18-kip equivalent single axle
loads (ESAL) over a 20-year design life.

Flexible Pavement
Preliminary recommended thicknesses of crushed limestone base material (CLBM) and hot mix
asphaltic concrete (HMAC) are set forth in the following table for the selected 18-kip ESAL and
anticipated subgrade conditions.

18-Kip CLBM Thickness HMAC Thickness

ESALs (inches) (inches)
10,000 10 to 12 2
200,000 15 to18 2–3

Construction of the flexible pavement should proceed in accordance with the 2004 TxDOT
Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets and Bridges.

Rigid Pavement
Preliminary recommended thicknesses of crushed limestone base material (CLBM) and
Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP) for an assumed traffic loading are set forth
in the following table.

4
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement
Structures, 1993. Washington, D.C.
- 12 -
Report No. 04.36141034

18-kip CLBM Thickness CRCP Thickness

ESAL (inches) (inches)
200,000 4 to 6 6

The CRCP should be reinforced in accordance with TxDOT standard details. Construction of the
rigid pavement should proceed in accordance with the 2004 TxDOT Standard Specifications.

Pavement Drainage
It should be noted that control of surface drainage and groundwater is important to the
performance and life of pavements. Infiltration of water into the pavement subgrade and
pavement structure will result in premature loss of serviceability. Adequate drainage provisions
should be included in the pavement design. Additionally, the placement of curbs, islands and
irrigation systems should be carefully planned in a manner that will not lead to ponding and
saturation of pavement base materials that extend into island areas.

PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION REGARDING SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL

Steel and concrete elements in contact with soil are subject to degradation due to corrosion or
chemical attack. Therefore, buried steel and concrete elements should be designed to resist
corrosion and degradation based on accepted practices. General discussions regarding the
corrosion of steel and the degradation of concrete with respect to the results of the analytical
tests are provided in the following sections of this report.

The laboratory testing program included pH, soluble chloride, soluble sulfate, and electrical
resistivity. A summary of the analytical laboratory and electrical resistivity test results is
presented in the following table.

Soluble Soluble
Sample Electrical Chloride Sulfate
Boring Depth Resistivity Content Content
Number (feet) pH (ohm-cm) (ppm) (ppm)
B-1 2–4 9.1 1,967 < 100 < 100
B-2 0–2 7.9 1,874 < 100 < 100
B-3 4 – 5.5 8.2 2,582 < 100 < 100

Corrosion of Steel
Corrosion is a major factor in the life of steel elements in contact with soil. Corrosion is caused
by migration of electrons from the steel into the surrounding soil. Three measurable soil
properties that indicate the corrosion potential for steel in contact with soil are: 1) soluble chloride,
- 13 -
Report No. 04.36141034

2) pH, and 3) electrical resistivity. It is generally accepted that corrosion of steel is most likely to
occur in environments that have chloride ions (even in low concentrations) and low pH.

The following table presents some general guidelines concerning the corrosion potential of soil on
steel pipe as a function of soluble chloride and electrical resistivity. If the pH is less than 7, the
soil is acidic and corrosive conditions are indicated5.

Soluble Chloride Concentration6 Electrical Resistivity7 Corrosion

(ppm) (ohm-cm) Potential
> 500 0 –1,000 Very Severe
100 – 500 1,000 – 2,000 Severe
25 – 100 2,000 – 5,000 Moderate
10 – 25 5,000 – 10,000 Mild
----- 10,000 + Very Mild

Each variable should be used independently of the others when evaluating soil corrosion
potential. For example, it is not necessary to have both a resistivity between 0 and 1,000 ohm-
cm and a pH less than 7 to indicate a very high corrosion potential.

The measured pH values ranged from 7.9 to 9.1, which indicates the soils have a low corrosive
potential; the measured soluble chloride contents were less than 100 ppm, which indicates the
soils could have very mild to moderate corrosion potential; and the measured electrical resistivity
values ranged from 1,874 to 2,582 ohm-cm, which indicate the soils have a moderate to severe
corrosion potential. Based on the results of our preliminary analyses, the soils at the site appear
to exhibit a moderate to severe tendency to corrode buried steel, such as underground steel
piping. A Corrosion Engineer should review the test results discussed herein when designing
appropriate methods of protecting buried steel.

Degradation of Concrete
The degradation of concrete is caused by chemical agents in the soil or groundwater that react
with concrete to either dissolve the cement paste or precipitate larger compounds which cause
cracking and flaking. The concentration of water-soluble sulfates in the soils is a good indicator
of the potential for chemical attack of concrete. The soluble sulfate content in soil can be used to
evaluate the need for protection of concrete based on the following table.

5
Johnson Division, UOP Inc., (1975), Ground Water and Wells, Saint Paul, Minnesota, pg. 194.
6
Department of the Navy, Bureau of Yards and Docks, Design Manual, Civil Engineering, NAVDOCKS DM-5, pg. 5-
9-53.
7
Palmer, J. F., “Soil Resistivity Measurements and Analysis,” Materials Performance, Vol. 13, January 1974.
- 14 -
Report No. 04.36141034

Water Soluble Sulfate Content Water Soluble Sulfate Content Severity of Potential
In Soil8, (percent) In Soil, (ppm) Exposure
> 2.0 > 20,000 Class 3
0.2 – 2.0 2,000 – 20,000 Class 2
0.1 – 0.2 1,000 – 2,000 Class 1
0.0 – 0.1 0 – 1,000 Class 0

The measured soluble sulfate contents were less 100 ppm, which indicate the soils have a
Class 0 exposure potential for the degradation of concrete.

PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS

Soil Moduli for Buried Flexible Pipe

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations, laboratory test results
and correlations9 for various soils, a native soil moduli of 400 to 600 psi may be used. The
effective soil modulus, E’, may be calculated using the following equations10. It should be noted
that the following parameters are required to calculated E’: width of trench at top of pipe, outside
diameter of pipe, and pipe embedment material.
E’ = zeta * E’b where
zeta = 1.44 / (f + (1.44 – f) * E’b / E’n)
f = (B / d – 1) / (1.154 + 0.444 (B / d – 1))
f = pipe/trench width coefficient
B = width of trench at top of pipe
d = outside diameter of pipe
E’b = modulus of soil reaction for the bedding material (psi)
E’n = modulus of soil reaction for the in-situ soil (psi)
E’ = effective soil modulus (psi)

Trench Safety
Excavations for the construction of footings, mat foundations, ringwall foundations, ponds,
utilities, etc. should be designed in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal trenching
regulations, including the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
requirements for excavations presented in 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart P, Excavations. The

8
American Concrete Institute, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, 2009, Part 1, Materials and General Properties of
Concrete, Section 201.2R-24.
9
Howard, A.K., Modulus of Soil Reaction Values for Buried Flexible Pipe, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, January 1977, page 34.
10
30 TAC 317 Design Criteria for Sewage Systems (1994), 317.2 Sewage Collection Systems, Exhibit A.
- 15 -
Report No. 04.36141034

design of construction slopes and temporary shoring are the sole responsibility of the contractor.
The suggestions set forth herein are for estimating purposes, and do not, in any way, change the
sole responsibility of the contractor for design and implementation.

Based on our interpretation of the OSHA regulations and the subsurface conditions indicated in
our borings, both Type B (cohesive) and Type C (cohesionless) soils are present at this site. If
the soils become submerged, they should be considered Type C soils. The OSHA regulations do
not generally require shallow excavations to depths of 4 ft or less to be sloped back or braced.
However, if sloughing and caving is experienced, we recommend the slopes should be cut back
as required for Type C soil. Excavations deeper than 4 ft are required to be braced or sloped
back at 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1H:1V) for Type B soils and 1.5H:1V for Type C soils. Flatter
slopes or bracing should be used if sloughing or raveling is observed. Sloping and benching for
excavations greater than 20-ft deep shall be designed by a registered professional engineer.

Site Grading and Excavation Potential

Grading around the structures should be such that future ponding or standing water around the
structures does not occur. All surface drainage measures should be designed to positively direct
water well away from all structures. At a minimum, the ground surface surrounding structures
should be sloped at 3 percent away from the structures for a distance of at least 10 ft from each
structure. Excavation through the on-site soil should proceed without significant difficulty with
conventional earth excavating equipment.

Dewatering
The design of dewatering systems and groundwater control in normal practice is the responsibility
of the contractor. This is appropriate since water control affects construction operations, e.g.
excavation and scheduling. However, specifications are necessary to ensure the support
properties of subsoil strata are not reduced and adjacent structures are not endangered.

The following technical specification11 regulating dewatering is suggested: “Control of

groundwater shall be accomplished in a manner that will preserve the strength of the foundation
soils, will not cause instability of the excavated slopes, and will not result in damage to existing
structures. Where necessary to this purpose, the water will be lowered in advance of excavation
by wells, wellpoints, or similar methods. Open pumping will not be permitted if it results in boils,
loss of fines, softening of the subgrade, or slope instability. Wells and wellpoints will be installed
with suitable screen and filters so that pumping of fines does not occur. Discharge will be
arranged to facilitate sampling by the engineer.”

11
Fang (1991), Chapter 7, “Dewatering Groundwater Control” by Powers, J.P., p. 244.
- 16 -
Report No. 04.36141034

Below Grade Structures

After construction of below grade structures, the groundwater level could rise to the ground
surface within the backfilled excavations if not properly and permanently drained. The resulting
buoyancy potential should be accounted for in the design of the structure where required. The
ultimate uplift capacity of mat foundations is usually limited to the weight of the foundation plus
the weight of any soil directly above the foundation. If additional uplift capacity is required,
alternate methods can be used. The calculated ultimate uplift capacity should be reduced by an
appropriate factor of safety to compute the allowable uplift resistance.

Construction Monitoring
It is recommended that the Geotechnical Engineer of record, or a qualified representative, be
present on-site during construction to observe, monitor construction activities and perform quality
control tests. Construction monitoring performed by qualified personnel independent of the
Contractor is recommended because the performance of foundations and other structures
constructed during this project will be directly related to the Contractor’s adherence to the
recommendations presented in this report and to the specifications prepared by the Designer.
Additionally, unanticipated soil and/or groundwater conditions may be encountered during
construction. Qualified geotechnical personnel observing construction on-site can monitor
construction activities and may aid in recognizing unanticipated subsurface conditions and assist
in reconciling these conditions with design recommendations.

Supplemental Studies
It is recommended that after the locations, size and depths of the structures are finalized, and the
locations of the new pavements are determined those details be reviewed by the design team
along with this preliminary report to develop requirements for the final geotechnical investigation.
Additional field and laboratory testing may or may not be required.

CONDITIONS

The professional services that form the basis for this report has been performed using that
degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable
geotechnical engineers practicing in the same locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made
as to the professional advice set forth. Fugro’s scope of work does not include the investigation,
detection, or design related to the presence of any biological pollutants. The term ‘biological
pollutants’ includes, but is not limited to, mold, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and the
byproducts of any such biological organisms.

Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on data obtained at the boring locations
only. Subsurface variations may exist between the boring locations and at areas not explored by
- 17 -
Report No. 04.36141034

borings. Statements in this report as to subsurface variation over given areas are intended only
as estimations from the data obtained at specific boring locations. In addition, the condition of the
soils may change subsequent to our field exploration. Significant variations in subsurface
conditions or changed soil conditions may require changes to our conclusions and
recommendations. Observations during construction are recommended to check for variations in
subsurface conditions and possible changed conditions.

The results, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are directed at, and
intended to be utilized within the scope of work contained in this report. This report is not
intended to be used for any other purposes. Fugro Consultants, Inc. makes no claim or
representation concerning any activity or condition falling outside the specified purposes to which
this report is directed, said purposes being specifically limited to the scope of work as defined in
said agreement. Inquiries as to said scope of work or concerning any activity or condition not
specifically contained therein should be directed to Fugro Consultants, Inc. for a determination
and, if necessary, further investigation.

This report was prepared for the sole and exclusive use by the client, as an instrument of service.
This report shall remain the property of Fugro Consultants, Inc. No third party may use or rely
upon the information provided in this report without our express written consent. We assume no
responsibility for the unauthorized use of this report by other parties and for purposes beyond the
stated project objectives and scope limitations.
-- ... --

- 18 -
ILLUSTRATIONS
Report No. 04.36141034

SITE LOCATION

VICINITY MAP
Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
1460 East Main Street
Fredericksburg, Texas

PLATE 1
Report No. 04.36141034

B-2
B-1

B-5

B-4

B-3

PLAN OF BORINGS
Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
1460 East Main Street
Fredericksburg, Texas

PLATE 2
Report No. 04.36141034

PLAN OF BORINGS
Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
1460 East Main Street
Fredericksburg, Texas
TO SCALE) PLATE 2b
 LOG OF BORING NO. B-1
Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
1460 East Main Street
Fredericksburg, Texas
REPORT NO. 04.36141034

POCKET PEN, tsf

PASSING NO.

PASSING NO.

WEIGHT, PCF
INDEX (PI), %

200 SIEVE, %
CONTENT, %
REC/RQD, %

PLASTICITY

UNDRAINED

STRENGTH
4 SIEVE, %
DEPTH, FT

SAMPLES

UNIT DRY
LAYER
SYMBOL

Blows/ft.

LIMIT, %
WATER

LIQUID

SHEAR
STRATUM DESCRIPTION

KSF
ELEV./
DEPTH,
SURF. ELEVATION: 1628.7 ft± FT
P = 2.5 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, very stiff to hard 19 48 36 100 57

P = 4.5+ - tan below 2 ft

N = 23 7 31 18 98 61
5
1622.7
SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM), tan, medium dense, 6.0
N = 22
with gravel and calcareous nodules

N = 28

10

1615.7
CLAYEY SAND (SC), tan, dense to very dense, with 13.0
N = 44
gravel

15
FUGRO STD SA (SOIL KSF NW) 04.36141034 BLOGS.GPJ SAN ANTONIO DATA TEMPLATE.GDT 10/10/14

- reddish brown below 18 ft

N = 61
8 40 25 96 15
1608.7
20
20.0
Note: Boring was advanced dry and groundwater was
not encountered.

25

COMPLETION DEPTH, FT: 20.0 KEY:

DATE DRILLED: 9-8-14
LONGITUDE: 98°50'52.18" W
Fugro Consultants, Inc. LATITUDE: 30°15'15.82" N
N = Standard Penetration Test, bpf
P = Pocket Penetrometer, tsf
U = Unconfined
Q = Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial PLATE 3
 LOG OF BORING NO. B-2
Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
1460 East Main Street
Fredericksburg, Texas
REPORT NO. 04.36141034

POCKET PEN, tsf

PASSING NO.

PASSING NO.

WEIGHT, PCF
INDEX (PI), %

200 SIEVE, %
CONTENT, %
REC/RQD, %

PLASTICITY

UNDRAINED

STRENGTH
4 SIEVE, %
DEPTH, FT

SAMPLES

UNIT DRY
LAYER
SYMBOL

Blows/ft.

LIMIT, %
WATER

LIQUID

SHEAR
STRATUM DESCRIPTION

KSF
ELEV./
DEPTH,
SURF. ELEVATION: 1628.0 ft± FT
P = 2.3 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, very stiff to hard,
with roots

P = 4.5+ 6 27 12 94 61

1624.0
N = 13 SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM), tan to light brown, 4.0
5 medium dense to very dense, with gravel

N = 26

N = 27
7 18 5 99 42
10

N = 22

15
FUGRO STD SA (SOIL KSF NW) 04.36141034 BLOGS.GPJ SAN ANTONIO DATA TEMPLATE.GDT 10/10/14

- reddish brown below 16 ft

1609.3 3 14 4 89 19
50/2"
18.7
Note: Boring was advanced dry and groundwater was
20 not encountered.

25

COMPLETION DEPTH, FT: 18.7 KEY:

DATE DRILLED: 9-8-14
LONGITUDE: 98°50'51.8" W
Fugro Consultants, Inc. LATITUDE: 30°15'16.13" N
N = Standard Penetration Test, bpf
P = Pocket Penetrometer, tsf
U = Unconfined
Q = Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial PLATE 4
 LOG OF BORING NO. B-3
Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
1460 East Main Street
Fredericksburg, Texas
REPORT NO. 04.36141034

POCKET PEN, tsf

PASSING NO.

PASSING NO.

WEIGHT, PCF
INDEX (PI), %

200 SIEVE, %
CONTENT, %
REC/RQD, %

PLASTICITY

UNDRAINED

STRENGTH
4 SIEVE, %
DEPTH, FT

SAMPLES

UNIT DRY
LAYER
SYMBOL

Blows/ft.

LIMIT, %
WATER

LIQUID

SHEAR
STRATUM DESCRIPTION

KSF
ELEV./
DEPTH,
SURF. ELEVATION: 1626.5 ft± FT
SILTY SAND (SM), brown 7 NP NP 100 25
P = 4.5+

1624.5
P = 4.5+ CLAYEY SAND (SC), dark reddish brown to reddish 2.0 23 79 3.9(Q)
brown, medium dense, weakly cemented, with
calcareous deposits
N = 26 9 34 22 100 39
5

- with gravel below 6 ft

N = 20

1618.5
CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), tan, loose to 8.0
N = 18
medium dense, weakly cemented, with calcareous
deposits
10

N=9
6 29 18 78 22
15
FUGRO STD SA (SOIL KSF NW) 04.36141034 BLOGS.GPJ SAN ANTONIO DATA TEMPLATE.GDT 10/10/14

1608.5
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL 18.0
N = 33
(SP-SC), tan, dense to very dense

20

25
45
50/3" 1601.7 9 23 8 61 9
25 24.8
Note: Boring was advanced dry and groundwater was
not encountered.

COMPLETION DEPTH, FT: 24.8 KEY:

DATE DRILLED: 9-8-14
LONGITUDE: 98°50'52.45" W
Fugro Consultants, Inc. LATITUDE: 30°15'12.29" N
N = Standard Penetration Test, bpf
P = Pocket Penetrometer, tsf
U = Unconfined
Q = Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial PLATE 5
 LOG OF BORING NO. B-4
Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
1460 East Main Street
Fredericksburg, Texas
REPORT NO. 04.36141034

POCKET PEN, tsf

PASSING NO.

PASSING NO.

WEIGHT, PCF
INDEX (PI), %

200 SIEVE, %
CONTENT, %
REC/RQD, %

PLASTICITY

UNDRAINED

STRENGTH
4 SIEVE, %
DEPTH, FT

SAMPLES

UNIT DRY
LAYER
SYMBOL

Blows/ft.

LIMIT, %
WATER

LIQUID

SHEAR
STRATUM DESCRIPTION

KSF
ELEV./
DEPTH,
SURF. ELEVATION: 1619.0 ft± FT
P = 1.8 SILTY SAND (SM), dark brown 11 NP NP 99 25

P = 2.5 - tan below 2 ft

P = 1.0 - fine roots to 4 ft 15 16 2 98 30

5
1613.0
N = 13 CLAYEY SAND (SC), tan, loose to medium dense 6.0

N=9
13 19 9 91 40
10

- very dense, with gravel below 13 ft

N = 94
10 40 27 82 49
15
FUGRO STD SA (SOIL KSF NW) 04.36141034 BLOGS.GPJ SAN ANTONIO DATA TEMPLATE.GDT 10/10/14

- light gray and dark reddish brown below 18 ft

N = 55

1599.0
20
20.0
Note: Boring was advanced dry and groundwater was
encountered at a depth of 17.8 feet.

25

COMPLETION DEPTH, FT: 20.0 KEY:

DATE DRILLED: 9-9-14
LONGITUDE: 98°50'49.12" W
Fugro Consultants, Inc. LATITUDE: 30°15'13.31" N
N = Standard Penetration Test, bpf
P = Pocket Penetrometer, tsf
U = Unconfined
Q = Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial PLATE 6
 LOG OF BORING NO. B-5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
1460 East Main Street
Fredericksburg, Texas
REPORT NO. 04.36141034

POCKET PEN, tsf

PASSING NO.

PASSING NO.

WEIGHT, PCF
INDEX (PI), %

200 SIEVE, %
CONTENT, %
REC/RQD, %

PLASTICITY

UNDRAINED

STRENGTH
4 SIEVE, %
DEPTH, FT

SAMPLES

UNIT DRY
LAYER
SYMBOL

Blows/ft.

LIMIT, %
WATER

LIQUID

SHEAR
STRATUM DESCRIPTION

KSF
ELEV./
DEPTH,
SURF. ELEVATION: 1620.2 ft± FT
P = 1.3 SILTY SAND (SM), dark brown, loose to medium
dense, with gravel

5 16 2 98 27

N = 11

- light reddish brown below 6 ft

N=5

1612.2
WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL 8.0
N = 14
(SW-SM), tan, medium dense
3 NP NP 71 9
10
1609.2
CLAYEY SAND (CL), dark reddish brown, medium 11.0
dense to very dense, with gravel

N = 27

15
FUGRO STD SA (SOIL KSF NW) 04.36141034 BLOGS.GPJ SAN ANTONIO DATA TEMPLATE.GDT 10/10/14

- light gray and dark reddish brown below 18 ft

14
32
50/4" 1600.4 15 39 27 97 32
20 19.8
Note: Boring was advanced dry and groundwater was
encountered at a depth of 17.3 feet.

25

COMPLETION DEPTH, FT: 19.8 KEY:

DATE DRILLED: 9-9-04
LONGITUDE: 98°50'48.93" W
Fugro Consultants, Inc. LATITUDE: 30°15'13.75" N
N = Standard Penetration Test, bpf
P = Pocket Penetrometer, tsf
U = Unconfined
Q = Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial PLATE 7
 TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON BORING LOGS FOR SOIL
SOIL TYPES SAMPLER TYPES
CH, fat SC, clayey GC, clayey CL, lean Thin-Walled Tube
clays sands gravels clays

SM, silty GM, silty ML, silts SW, well Auger Sample
sands gravels graded

GW, well Fill, SP, poorly- GP, poorly Standard

graded unclassified graded sands graded Penetration
gravels gravels
Test
SOIL GRAIN SIZE
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE

6” 3” 3/4” 4 10 40 200
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
152 76.2 19.1 4.76 2.00 0.420 0.074 0.002

SOIL GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

(2)
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS CONDITION OF GRANULAR SOILS
(2)
UNDRAINED
(3)
CONSISTENCY SHEAR STRENGTH NUMBER OF BLOWS NUMBER OF BLOWS RELATIVE
Kips Per Sq. Ft. PER FT., N PER FT., N DENSITY
Very Soft Less Than 0.25 Less Than 2 0-4 Very Loose
Soft 0.25 to 0.50 2 to 4 4-10 Loose
Firm 0.5 to 1.00 4 to 8 10-30 Medium
Stiff 1.00 to 2.00 8 to 16 30-50 Dense
Very Stiff 2.00 to 4.00 16 to 32 Over 50 Very Dense
Hard greater than 4.00 greater than 32
(1) (1)
STRUCTURE MOISTURE
DESCRIPTION CRITERIA
Dry -No water evident in sample; fines less than plastic
Stratified Alternating layers of varying material limit.
or color with layers at least 6 mm Moist -Sample feels damp; fines near the plastic limit
thick. Wet -Sample bears free water; fines greater than liquid
limit
Laminated Alternating layers of varying material
or color with the layers less than 6 -Free water first observed during drilling.
mm thick. -Final water measurement at completion of boring.
Fissured Breaks along definite planes of
(1)
fracture with little resistance to INCLUSIONS
fracturing
Parting -Inclusion <1/8” thick extending through sample.
Slickensided Fissured Fracture planes appear polished or Seam -Inclusion 1/8” to 3” thick extending through
glossy, sometimes striated.
sample.
Blocky Cohesive soil that can be broken Layer -Inclusion >3” thick extending through sample.
down into small angular lumps which Trace -<5% of sample.
resist further breakdown. Few -5% to 10% of sample.
Little -10% to 25 % of sample.
Lensed Inclusions of small pockets of Some -30% to 45% of sample.
different soils

REFERENCES: Information on each boring log is a compilation of subsurface conditions and soil and rock
1) ASTM D 2488 classifications obtained from the field as well as from laboratory testing of samples. Strata have
2) Peck, Hanson, and Thornburn, (1974), been interpreted by commonly accepted procedures. The stratum lines on the logs may be
Foundation Engineering. transitional and approximate in nature. Water level measurements refer only to those observed
3) Das, Braja M., (2002), Principles of at the times and places indicated, and may vary with time, geologic condition or construction
th
Geotechnical Engineering, 5 Edition activity.

PLATE 8