Upload
dinhbao
View
225
Download
8
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
GILLETTE TRUNKLINE (TUAM, SMITH, & ELGIN SEGMENTS)
DRAINAGE AND PAVING IMPROVEMENTS
WBS NO. M-410290-0004-4
HOUSTON, TEXAS
Reported to:
HR Green, Inc.
Houston, Texas
by
Aviles Engineering Corporation
5790 Windfern
Houston, Texas 77041
713-895-7645
REPORT NO. G166-12C
August 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. i
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 General ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Soil Borings .................................................................................................................................... 2
3.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 4
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 4
4.1 Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................................................. 5
4.2 Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................... 9
4.3 Subsurface Variations .................................................................................................................. 9
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 10
5.1 Geotechnical Parameters for Underground Utilities ............................................................... 10
5.2 Installation of Storm Sewers by Open-Cut Method ................................................................ 11
5.2.1 Loadings on Pipes ................................................................................................................ 11
5.2.2 Trench Stability .................................................................................................................... 12
5.2.3 Bedding and Backfill............................................................................................................ 15
5.3 Tunneling and Its Influence on Adjacent Structures .............................................................. 15
5.3.1 Loadings on Pipes ................................................................................................................ 16
5.3.2 Tunnel Access Shafts ........................................................................................................... 16
5.3.3 Tunnel Face Stability during Construction .......................................................................... 18
5.3.3.1 General ................................................................................................................................................................ 18
5.3.3.2 Anticipated Ground Behavior ............................................................................................................................. 19
5.3.3.3 Influence of Tunneling on Existing Structures .................................................................................................... 20
5.3.4 Measures to Reduce Distress from Tunneling ..................................................................... 21
5.3.5 Monitoring Existing Structures ............................................................................................ 22
5.4 Manholes and Junction Boxes ................................................................................................... 22
5.4.1 Allowable Bearing Capacity ................................................................................................ 23
5.4.2 Uplift Resistance .................................................................................................................. 23
5.4.3 Lateral Earth Pressures ......................................................................................................... 23
5.4.4 Manhole Backfill Material ................................................................................................... 24
5.5 Pavement Reconstruction ........................................................................................................... 24
5.5.1 Rigid Pavement .................................................................................................................... 26
5.5.2 Reinforcing Steel .................................................................................................................. 27
5.5.3 Pavement Subgrade Preparation .......................................................................................... 27
5.6 Select Fill ...................................................................................................................................... 28
6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................... 28
6.1 Site Preparation .......................................................................................................................... 28
6.2 Groundwater Control ................................................................................................................. 28
6.3 Construction Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 30
6.4 Monitoring of Existing Structures ............................................................................................. 30
7.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 30
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Plate A-1 Vicinity Map
Plate A-2 Boring Location Plan
Plates A-3 to A-16 Boring Logs
Plate A-17 Key to Symbols
Plate A-18 Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes
Plate A-19 Terms Used on Boring Logs
Plate A-20 ASTM & TXDOT Designation for Soil Laboratory Tests
Plates A-21 to A-25 Summary of Lab Data
APPENDIX B Plates B-1 to B-4 Generalized Soil Profiles
Plates B-5 to B-7 Piezometer Installation Details
APPENDIX C
Plates C-1 to C-4 Recommended Geotechnical Design Parameters
Plate C-5 Load Coefficients for Pipe Loading
Plate C-6 Live Loads on Pipe Crossing Under Roadway
APPENDIX D
Plate D-1 Critical Heights of Cuts in Nonfissured Clays
Plate D-2 Maximum Allowable Slopes
Plate D-3 A Combination of Bracing and Open Cuts
Plate D-4 Lateral Pressure Diagrams for Open Cuts in Cohesive Soil-Long Term Conditions
Plate D-5 Lateral Pressure Diagrams for Open Cuts in Cohesive Soil-Short Term Conditions
Plate D-6 Lateral Pressure Diagrams for Open Cuts in Sand
Plate D-7 Bottom Stability for Braced Excavation in Clay
Plate D-8 Tunnel Behavior and TBM Selection
Plate D-9 Relation between the Width of Surface Depression and Depth of Cavity for
Tunnels
Plate D-10 Methods of Controlling Ground Water in Tunnel and Grouting Material Selection
Plate D-11 Buoyant Uplift Resistance for Buried Structures
APPENDIX E Plates E-1 to E-2 Well Installation and Plugging Reports
APPENDIX F
Plates F-1 to F-2 DARWin Pavement Analysis
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The report submitted herein presents the results of Aviles Engineering Corporation’s (AEC) geotechnical
investigation for the City of Houston’s (COH) proposed Gilette Trunkline (Tuam, Smith, & Elgin
Segments) Drainage and Paving Improvements - Design Package C, in Houston, Texas (Houston Key Map
493P and T). Based on drawings provided by HR Green, the project alignments are located along Tuam
from Helena to Louisiana, along Smith from Drew to Elgin, along Elgin from Bagby to Milam, along
Milam from Elgin to W. Alabama, and along W. Alabama from Milam to Spur 527. The proposed
improvements include: (i) installation of 8 foot by 8 foot concrete box and 54 to 108 inch diameter concrete
pipe storm sewers by open cut method; (ii) installation of 84 inch diameter concrete pipe storm sewer by
tunnel method along W. Alabama crossing beneath Spur 527; (iii) installation of storm sewer manholes and
junction boxes; and (iv) reconstruction of existing roadway pavement with new concrete pavement. Based
on drawings (dated April 8, 2015) provided by HR Green, the invert depth of the storm sewers along the
alignment varies from 12.2 to 20.7 feet.
1. Subsurface Soil Conditions: A generalized subsurface profile along the storm sewer alignments are
presented on Plates B-1 through B-4, in Appendix B. Based on Borings B-12 through B-23,
subsurface soil conditions along the project alignments generally consist of approximately very soft
to hard fat/lean clay (CH/CL) interbedded with firm to stiff silty clay (CL-ML), underlain by loose
to very dense silty/clayey sand (SM/SP-SM/SC) to the boring termination depths.
2. Subsurface Soil Properties: The subsurface clayey soils have low to very high plasticity, with liquid
limits (LL) ranging from 23 to 77, and plasticity indices (PI) ranging from 6 to 53. The cohesive
soils encountered are classified as “CL-ML”, “CL”, and “CH” type soils and granular soils were
classified as “SP-SM”, “SM”, and “SC” in accordance with ASTM D 2487.
3. Groundwater Conditions: Groundwater was encountered in Borings B-12, B-13, B-16, B-17, B-19,
and B-23 at a depth of 18 to 37 feet below grade during drilling and was subsequently observed at a
depth of 16.4 to 31.0 feet drilling was complete. Groundwater along the alignment may be
pressurized. Groundwater was not encountered in Borings B-14, B-15, B-18, B-20 through B-22,
and G147-11 B-58A. A detailed description of ground water readings is presented on Table 4 in
Section 4.1 of this report.
4. Hazardous Materials: Hydrocarbon odors were detected in Boring B-13 from the ground surface to
a depth of 2 feet, and from a depth of 33 to 25 feet, in Boring B-20 from a depth of 8 to 16 feet, and
previously from Boring G147-11 B-58A from the ground surface to 2 feet, and from 10 to 22 feet.
For the remaining borings, no signs of visual staining or odors were encountered during field
drilling or during processing of the soil samples in the laboratory.
5. Design parameters and recommendations for installation of storm sewers by open cut method are
presented in Section 5.2 of this report.
6. Design parameters and recommendations for installation of storm sewers by tunnel method are
presented in Section 5.3 of this report.
6. Design parameters and recommendations for installation of manholes and junction boxes by open
cut method are presented in Section 5.4 of this report.
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (cont.)
7. Design parameters and recommendations for concrete pavement are presented in Section 5.5 of this
report.
This Executive Summary is intended as a summary of the investigation and should not be used without the
full text of this report.
1
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
GILLETTE TRUNKLINE (TUAM, SMITH, & ELGIN SEGMENTS)
DRAINAGE AND PAVING IMPROVEMENTS
WBS NO. M-410290-0004-4
HOUSTON, TEXAS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
The report submitted herein presents the results of Aviles Engineering Corporation’s (AEC) geotechnical
investigation for the City of Houston’s (COH) proposed Gilette Trunkline (Tuam, Smith, & Elgin
Segments) Drainage and Paving Improvements - Design Package C, in Houston, Texas (Houston Key Map
493P and T). A vicinity map is presented on Plate A-1, in Appendix A. Based on drawings provided by
HR Green, the project alignments are located along Tuam from Helena to Louisiana, along Smith from
Drew to Elgin, along Elgin from Bagby to Milam, along Milam from Elgin to W. Alabama, and along W.
Alabama from Milam to Spur 527. The proposed improvements include: (i) installation of 8 foot by 8 foot
concrete box and 54 to 108 inch diameter concrete pipe storm sewers by open cut method; (ii) installation
of 84 inch diameter concrete pipe storm sewer by tunnel method along W. Alabama crossing beneath Spur
527; (iii) installation of storm sewer manholes and junction boxes; and (iv) reconstruction of existing
roadway pavement with new concrete pavement. Based on drawings (dated April 8, 2015) provided by HR
Green, the invert depth of the storm sewers along the alignment varies from 12.2 to 20.7 feet.
1.2 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this geotechnical investigation is to evaluate the subsurface soil conditions along the
alignment and develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction of storm
sewers by open cut and tunnel method, as well as street reconstruction, including pavement thickness and
subgrade preparation. The scope of this geotechnical investigation is summarized below:
1. Drilling and sampling thirteen geotechnical borings, ranging from 30 to 40 feet below existing grade;
2. Soil laboratory testing on selected soil samples;
3. Engineering analyses and recommendations for the installation of storm sewers, manholes, and
junction boxes by open cut method, including loadings on pipes, bedding, lateral earth pressure
parameters, trench stability, and backfill requirements;
2
4. Engineering analyses and recommendations for the installation of storm sewers by tunnel method,
including tunnel access shafts, reaction walls, and tunnel stability
5. Engineering analyses and recommendations for the design of rigid pavement, including pavement
thickness and subgrade preparation;
6. Construction recommendations for installation of storm sewers, manholes, and junction boxes by
open cut and tunnel method, as well as rigid pavements.
2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
2.1 Soil Borings
The boring layout and depths were selected by AEC in general accordance with Chapter 11 of the 2011
COH Infrastructure Design Manual (IDM), based on preliminary information provided by HR Green on
August 27, 2012. The subsurface exploration in January 2013 originally consisted of drilling and sampling
a total of eleven soil borings (Borings B-12 through B-22) ranging from 30 to 40 feet below existing grade.
After updated plan and profile drawings were provided to AEC, Borings B-21A and B-23 were drilled in
January and March 2015, respectively. The boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan on
Plate A-2, in Appendix A. Total drilling footage is 415 feet. AEC has also included Boring G147-11 B-
that was performed for the COH Avondale Waterline Improvements project, WBS No. S-000035-0127-4, to
provide coverage of the proposed storm sewer alignment along Westheimer Road at the intersection of
Bagby Street. Boring locations were surveyed after completion of drilling. Boring survey data is presented
in the boring logs. The boring designations and depths and corresponding utility invert depths are presented
in Table 1 below.
The borings for this project were labeled starting from Boring B-12 because at the onset of the project in
August 2012, AEC was informed by HR Green that the project alignment was to begin at the intersection of
Allen Parkway and Gillette Street and end at the intersection of Alabama Street and Milam Street. As a
result, AEC performed Borings B-1 through B-22 along the original project alignment; however, after the
borings were completed, AEC was informed that the original project alignment was later divided into three
separate projects. As a result, Borings B-1 through B-4 were performed for the “Montrose Area and
Midtown Drainage and Pavement Sub-Project II”, WBS No. M-000290-0002-3, while Borings B-5 through
B-11 were performed for the “Gillette Trunkline (Genesee Segment) Drainage and Paving Improvements,
WBS No. M-410290-0003-3”.
3
Table 1. Boring Number, Station, and Depth
Boring/PZ
No.
Boring/PZ
Depth (ft) Station (Baseline)
Boring
Surface
Elevation (ft)
Invert Elevation at
Boring (ft)
Maximum
Invert Depth
in Boring (ft)
B-12 35 6+42.83 (Tuam) 50.18 29.5 (8’x8’ RCB) 20.7
B-13 40 11+31.29 (Tuam) 49.26 28.9 (8’x8’ RCB) 20.4
B-14 30 16+20.69 (Tuam) 46.98 29.3 (8’x8’ RCB) 17.7
B-15 30 22+80.71 (Tuam) 45.23 29.8 (8’x8’ RCB) 15.4
B-16 30 13+98.64 (Smith) 45.44 None -
B-17/PZ-4 30/30 8+21.46 (Smith) 45.16 31.8 (72” RCP) 13.4
B-18 30 3+58.52 (Smith) 45.46 32.0 (72” RCP) 13.5
B-19 35 10+77.00 (Elgin) 44.72 32.5 (72” RCP) 12.2
B-20 30 14+26.22 (Milam) 44.39 28.3 (108” RCP) 16.1
B-21A 30 10+14.40 (Milam) 44.97 28.9 (108” RCP) 16.1
B-21/PZ-5 30/30 7+00.31 (Milam) 46.27 29.3 (108” RCP) 17.0
B-22 30 1+69.77 (Milam) 46.77 30.0 (108” RCP) 16.8
B-23/PZ-6 35/30 1+49.95 (W.
Alabama) 46.79 32.4 (84” RCP) 14.4
G147-11
B-58A 25 202+50* (Bagby) 46* 33.4 (72” RCP) 12.6*
Note: (*) Boring survey data not available; station and surface elevation were estimated by AEC.
Existing pavement at the borings was first cut with a core barrel prior to field drilling. The field drilling
was performed with a truck-mounted drilling rig primarily using dry auger method, and then using wet
rotary method once water-bearing granular soils were encountered or the borings began to cave in.
Undisturbed samples of cohesive soils were obtained from the borings by pushing 3-inch diameter thin-
wall, seamless steel Shelby tube samplers in general accordance with ASTM D 1587. Granular soils were
sampled with a 2-inch split-barrel sampler in accordance with ASTM D 1586. Standard Penetration Test
resistance (N) values were recorded for the granular soils as “Blows per Foot” and are shown on the boring
logs. Strength of the cohesive soils was estimated in the field using a hand penetrometer. The undisturbed
samples of cohesive soils were extruded mechanically from the core barrels in the field and wrapped in
aluminum foil; all samples were sealed in plastic bags to reduce moisture loss and disturbance. The
samples were then placed in core boxes and transported to the AEC laboratory for testing and further study.
Borings B-17, B-21, and B-23 were converted to piezometers upon completion of drilling. Borings B-12
through B-16, B-18 through B-21A, and B-22 were grouted with cement-bentonite upon completion of
4
drilling and the existing pavement was patched with non-shrink grout.
3.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
Soil laboratory testing was performed by AEC personnel. Samples from the borings were examined and
classified in the laboratory by a technician under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer. Laboratory
tests were performed on selected soil samples in order to evaluate the engineering properties of the
foundation soils in accordance with applicable ASTM Standards. Atterberg limits, moisture contents,
percent passing a No. 200 sieve, and dry unit weight tests were performed on typical samples to establish
the index properties and confirm field classification of the subsurface soils. Strength properties of cohesive
soils were determined by means of unconfined compression (UC) and undrained-unconsolidated (UU)
triaxial tests performed on undisturbed samples. The test results are presented on the boring logs. Details
of the soils encountered in the borings (including Boring G147-11 B-58A) are presented on Plates A-3
through A-16, in Appendix A. A key to the boring logs, classification of soils for engineering purposes,
terms used on boring logs, and reference ASTM Standards for laboratory testing are presented on Plates A-
17 through A-20, in Appendix A. A summary of the lab data is presented on Plates A-21 through A-25, in
Appendix A.
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS
Based on our site visit, Tuam Street between Helena Street and Louisiana Street is a four lane asphalt road,
in average to very poor condition. Smith Street from Drew Street to Elgin Street is a one-way five lane
concrete roadway in good condition. Elgin Street from Bagby Street to Milam Street is a five lane (with
median turning lane) concrete roadway in poor to very poor condition. Milam Street from Elgin Street to
W. Alabama Street is a one-way four lane concrete roadway in good condition. A summary of pavement
types encountered in our borings is presented on Table 2.
Table 2. Existing Pavement Encountered at Pavement Borings
Boring
No. Street Pavement Section
B-12 Tuam 5.5” asphalt, 12.5” sand and gravel
B-13 Tuam 8.5” asphalt, 11.5” stabilized sand and gravel
B-14 Tuam 4” asphalt, 6” concrete
5
Boring
No. Street Pavement Section
B-15 Tuam 9” asphalt
B-16 Smith 9.5” concrete, 9.5” stabilized sand with gravel and shell
B-17 Smith 10” concrete, 12” stabilized sand with gravel and shell
B-18 Smith 10” concrete, 9” stabilized sand with shell and gravel
B-19 Elgin 9.5” concrete, 5” wood planks
B-20 Milam 9.5” concrete, 12.5” stabilized sand with gravel and shell
B-21A Milam 9.5” concrete
B-21 Milam 9.5” concrete, 8.5” stabilized sand with gravel and shell
B-22 Milam 9.5” concrete, 2” stabilized sand and gravel
B-23 W. Alabama 6.3” concrete, 6.5” stabilized shell
G147-11
B-58A Westheimer 10” concrete, 2” asphalt
4.1 Subsurface Conditions
A generalized subsurface profile along the storm sewer alignments are presented on Plates B-1 through B-4,
in Appendix B. Soil strata encountered in our borings are summarized below:
Boring Depth (ft) Description of Stratum
B-12 0 - 1.5 Pavement and Base: <see Table 2>
1.5 - 10 Stiff to very stiff, Fat Clay (CH)
10 - 23 Very stiff to hard, Lean Clay w/Sand (CL)
23 - 35 Stiff to hard, Lean Clay (CL)
B-13 0 - 1.7 Pavement and Base: <see Table 2>
1.7 - 12 Stiff to very stiff, Fat Clay (CH)
12 - 27 Very stiff to hard, Lean Clay w/Sand (CL), with sand pockets
27 - 32 Clayey Sand (SC)
32 - 37 Hard, Sandy Lean Clay (CL), with fat clay pockets, silt partings, and sand
pockets
37 - 40 Very stiff, Lean Clay (CL), with abundant silt partings
B-14 0 - 0.8 Pavement and Base: <see Table 2>
0.8 - 12 Stiff to very stiff, Fat Clay (CH), with slickensides
12 - 27 Stiff to hard, Lean Clay w/Sand (CL)
27 - 30 Hard, Fat Clay (CH)
B-15 0 - 0.8 Pavement and Base: <see Table 2>
0.8 - 4 Very stiff, Fat Clay (CH)
4 - 10 Very stiff, Lean Clay w/Sand (CL)
6
Boring Depth (ft) Description of Stratum
B-11 (cont.) 10 - 12 Stiff, Sandy Lean Clay (CL), with silt partings
12 - 30 Very stiff to hard, Lean Clay (CL)
B-16 0 - 1.6 Pavement and Base: <see Table 2>
1.6 - 16 Stiff to hard, Fat Clay w/Sand (CH), with slickensides
16 - 22 Medium dense, Poorly Graded Sand w/Silt (SP-SM)
22 - 30 Very stiff to hard, Fat Clay (CH), with slickensides
B-17 0 - 1.8 Pavement and Base: <see Table 2>
1.8 - 2 Fill: stabilized Fat Clay w/Sand (CH), with gravel
2 - 10 Very stiff, Fat Clay w/Sand (CH)
10 - 12 Stiff, Sandy Lean Clay (CL), with sand seams
12 - 14 Clayey Sand (SC)
14 - 23 Medium dense to very dense, Silty Sand (SM)
23 - 27 Very stiff, Fat Clay (CH)
27 - 30 Stiff to very stiff, Sandy Lean Clay (CL), with sand and silt pockets
B-18 0 - 1.2 Pavement and Base: <see Table 2>
1.2 - 8 Stiff to very stiff, Fat Clay w/Sand (CH), with slickensides
8 - 12 Stiff to very stiff, Sandy Silty Clay (CL-ML)
12 - 16 Stiff, Silty Clay w/Sand (CL-ML)
16 - 27 Very stiff to hard, Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
27 - 35 Medium dense to dense, Silty Sand (SM)
B-19 0 - 1.2 Pavement and Base: <see Table 2>
1.2 - 8 Stiff to very stiff, Fat Clay w/Sand (CH), with slickensides
8 - 12 Stiff to very stiff, Sandy Silt Clay (CL-ML)
12 - 16 Stiff, Silty Clay w/Sand (CL-ML)
16 - 27 Very stiff to hard, Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
27 - 35 Medium dense to dense, Silty Sand (SM)
B-20 0 - 1.8 Pavement and Base: <see Table 2>
1.8 - 2 Fill: stabilized, Fat Clay (CH), with gravel
2 - 8 Very stiff, Fat Clay (CH)
8 - 22 Stiff to hard, Lean Clay w/Sand (CL)
22 - 30 Very stiff to hard, Lean Clay (CL)
B-21 0 - 1.5 Pavement and Base: <see Table 2>
1.5 - 2 Fill: stabilized, Fat Clay w/Sand (CH), with gravel
2 - 6 Stiff to very stiff, Fat Clay w/Sand (CH)
6 - 12 Stiff to very stiff, Lean Clay (CL)
12 - 14 Very stiff, Fat Clay w/Sand (CH), interlayered with sandy silt
14 - 18 Firm to stiff, Lean Clay w/Sand (CL), with abundant silt partings
18 - 22 Very stiff, Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
22 - 30 Hard, Fat Clay w/Sand (CH)
7
Boring Depth (ft) Description of Stratum
B-21A 0 - 0.8 Pavement and Base: <see Table 2>
0.8 - 4 Fill: stiff to very stiff, Fat Clay w/Sand (CH)
4 - 8 Very stiff, Fat Clay (CH)
8 - 22 Firm to very stiff, Lean Clay w/Sand (CL)
22 - 30 Hard, Fat Clay (CH), with slickensides
B-22 0 - 1 Pavement and Base: <see Table 2>
1 - 10 Stiff to very stiff, Fat Clay w/Sand (CH)
10 - 12 Stiff, Sandy Lean Clay (CL), with silt partings
12 - 16 Very stiff, Fat Clay (CH), with silt seams, interlayered with silt and sand
16 - 18 Stiff, Lean Clay (CL), interlayered with silt and sand
18 - 21 Very stiff, Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
21 - 30 Very stiff to hard, Fat Clay (CH), with slickensides
B-23 0 - 1.1 Pavement and Base: <see Table 2>
1.1 - 6 Very stiff, Fat Clay w/Sand (CH)
6 - 8 Very stiff, Lean Clay w/Sand (CL)
8 - 14 Very soft to hard, Fat Clay (CH), with slickensides
14 - 16 Stiff, Sandy Silty Clay (CL-ML), with silty sand seams and pockets
16 - 35 Stiff to hard, Lean Clay (CL), with slickensides
G147-11 0 - 1 Pavement and Base: <see Table 2>
B-58A 1 - 10 Very stiff to hard, Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
10 - 18 Loose to medium dense, Silty Sand (SM)
18 - 25 Very stiff to hard, Lean Clay w/Sand (CL)
A summary of granular and soft/weak soils encountered in the borings is presented in Table 3. For the
purposes of this report, AEC considers firm to stiff cohesive soils with abundant silt partings and/or seams
as granular soils.
Table 3. Granular and Weak/Soft Soils Encountered in Borings
Boring Depth to Granular
and Weak/Soft Soil (ft) Soil Type
B-13 27 to 32 Clayey Sand (SC)
B-16 16 to 22 Medium dense, Poorly Graded Sand w/Silt (SP-SM)
B-17 12 to 14
14 to 23
Clayey Sand (SC)
Medium dense to very dense, Silty Sand (SM)
B-18 12 to 16 Medium dense to dense, Poorly Graded Sand w/Silt (SP-SM)
B-19 8 to 16
27 to 35
Stiff to very stiff, Sandy Silty Clay (CL-ML)
Medium dense to dense, Silty Sand (SM)
B-23 8 to 14 Very soft to firm, Fat Clay (CH), with abundant silt seams
8
Boring Depth to Granular
and Weak/Soft Soil (ft) Soil Type
G147-11
B-58A 10 to 18 Loose to medium dense, Silty Sand (SM)
Subsurface Soil Properties: The subsurface clayey soils have low to very high plasticity, with liquid limits
(LL) ranging from 23 to 77, and plasticity indices (PI) ranging from 6 to 53. The cohesive soils
encountered are classified as “CL-ML”, “CL”, and “CH” type soils and granular soils were classified as
“SP-SM”, “SM”, and “SC” in accordance with ASTM D 2487. High plasticity clays can undergo
significant volume changes due to seasonal changes in moisture contents. “CH” soils undergo significant
volume changes due to seasonal changes in soil moisture contents. “CL” type soils with lower LL (less
than 40) and PI (less than 20) generally do not undergo significant volume changes with changes in
moisture content. However, “CL” soils with LL approaching 50 and PI greater than 20 essentially behave
as “CH” soils and could undergo significant volume changes. Slickensides were encountered in the fat
clays.
Groundwater Conditions: Groundwater was encountered in Borings B-12, B-13, B-16, B-17, B-19, and B-
23 at a depth of 18 to 37 feet below grade during drilling and was subsequently observed at a depth of 16.4
to 31.0 feet drilling was complete. Groundwater along the alignment may be pressurized. Groundwater
was not encountered in Borings B-14, B-15, B-18, B-20 through B-22, and G147-11 B-58A. After
completion of drilling, Borings B-17, B-21, and B-23 were converted to piezometers. Piezometer
installation details are presented on Plates B-5 through B-7, in Appendix B. Detailed groundwater levels
are summarized in Table 4. PZ installation and plugging reports are presented in Appendix E.
Table 4. Groundwater Depths below Existing Ground Surface
Boring/
PZ No.
Date
Drilled
Boring/PZ
Depth (ft)
Groundwater
Depth in Boring
(ft)
Boring Cave in
Depth (ft)
Groundwater
Depth in
Piezometer (ft)
B-12 1/22/13 35 27 (Drilling)
28.3 (15 min.) - -
B-13 1/23/13 40 37 (Drilling)
31.0 (15 min.) - -
B-14 1/23/13 30 Dry (Drilling) - -
B-15 1/23/13 30 Dry (Drilling) - -
B-16 1/23/13 30 18 (Drilling)
16.4 (15 min.) - -
9
Boring/
PZ No.
Date
Drilled
Boring/PZ
Depth (ft)
Groundwater
Depth in Boring
(ft)
Boring Cave in
Depth (ft)
Groundwater
Depth in
Piezometer (ft)
B-17/PZ-4 1/24/13 30/30 18 (Drilling)
17.6 (15 min.) 17.6 (15 min.)
17.9 (1/31/13)
21.5 (2/26/13)
B-18 1/24/13 30 Dry (Drilling) - -
B-19 1/24/13 35 28 (Drilling)
19.5 (15 min.) - -
B-20 1/25/13 30 Dry (Drilling) - -
B-21A 1/27/15 30 Dry (Drilling) - -
B-21/PZ-5 1/25/13 30/30 Dry (Drilling) - 25.2 (1/31/13)
22.0 (2/26/13)
B-22 1/25/13 30 Dry (Drilling) - -
B-23/PZ-6 3/30/15 35/30
25 (Drilling)
25.6 (15 min.)
22.5 (1 day)
25.6 (15 min.) 22.5 (4/3/15)
16.0 (5/4/15)
G147-11
B-58A 9/21/11 25 Dry (Drilling) - -
The information in this report summarizes conditions found on the dates the borings were drilled. It should
be noted that our groundwater observations are short-term; groundwater depths and subsurface soil
moisture contents will vary with environmental variations such as frequency and magnitude of rainfall and
the time of year when construction is in progress.
4.2 Hazardous Materials
Hydrocarbon odors were detected in Boring B-13 from the ground surface to a depth of 2 feet, and from a
depth of 33 to 25 feet, in Boring B-20 from a depth of 8 to 16 feet, and previously from Boring G147-11 B-
58A from the ground surface to 2 feet, and from 10 to 22 feet. For the remaining borings, no signs of visual
staining or odors were encountered during field drilling or during processing of the soil samples in the
laboratory.
4.3 Subsurface Variations
It should be emphasized that: (i) at any given time, groundwater depths can vary from location to location,
and (ii) at any given location, groundwater depths can change with time. Groundwater depths will vary
10
with seasonal rainfall and other climatic/environmental events. Subsurface conditions may vary away from
and in between the boring locations.
Clay soils in the Houston area typically have secondary features such as slickensides and contain sand/silt
seams/lenses/layers/pockets. It should be noted that the information in the boring logs is based on 3-inch
diameter soil samples which were generally obtained continuously at intervals of 2 from the ground surface
to a depth of 20 feet in the borings, then at intervals of 5 feet thereafter to the boring termination depths of
35 to 50 feet. A detailed description of the soil secondary features may not have been obtained due to the
small sample size and sampling interval between the samples. Therefore, while a boring log shows some
soil secondary features, it should not be assumed that the features are absent where not indicated on the
boring logs.
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on drawings provided by HR Green, the project alignments are located along Tuam from Helena to
Louisiana, along Smith from Drew to Elgin, along Elgin from Bagby to Milam, along Milam from Elgin to
W. Alabama, and along W. Alabama from Milam to Spur 527. The proposed improvements include: (i)
installation of 8 foot by 8 foot concrete box and 54 to 108 inch diameter concrete pipe storm sewers by
open cut method; (ii) installation of 84 inch diameter concrete pipe storm sewer by tunnel method along W.
Alabama crossing beneath Spur 527; (iii) installation of storm sewer manholes and junction boxes; and (iv)
reconstruction of existing roadway pavement with new concrete pavement. Based on drawings (dated April
8, 2015) provided by HR Green, the invert depth of the storm sewers along the alignment varies from 12.2
to 20.7 feet.
5.1 Geotechnical Parameters for Underground Utilities
Recommended geotechnical parameters for the subsurface soils along the alignment to be used for design of
storm sewers are presented on Plates C-1 through C-4, in Appendix C. The design values are based on the
results of field and laboratory test data on individual boring logs as well as our experience. It should be
noted that because of the variable nature of soil stratigraphy, soil types and properties along the alignment
or at locations away from a particular boring may vary substantially.
11
5.2 Installation of Storm Sewers by Open-Cut Method
Storm sewers installed by open-cut methods should be designed and installed in accordance with Section
02317 of the latest edition of the City of Houston Standard Construction Specifications (COHSCS).
5.2.1 Loadings on Pipes
Underground utilities support the weight of the soil and water above the crown, as well as roadway traffic
and any structures that exist above the utilities.
Earth Loads: For underground utilities to be installed using open cut methods, the vertical soil load We can
be calculated as the larger of the two values from Equations (1) and (3):
We = Cd γ Bd2 ............ Equation (1)
Cd = [1- e -2Kµ’(H/Bd)
]/(2Kµ’) ............ Equation (2)
We = γBcH ............ Equation (3)
where: We = trench fill load, in pounds per linear foot (lb/ft);
Cd = trench load coefficient, see Plate C-5, in Appendix C;
γ = effective unit weight of soil over the conduit, in pounds per cubic foot (pcf);
Bd = trench width at top of the conduit < 1.5 Bc (ft);
Bc = outside diameter of the conduit (ft);
H = variable height of fill (ft);
when the height of fill above the top of the conduit Hc >2 Bd, H = Hh (height of fill
above the middle of the conduit). When Hc < 2 Bd, H varies over the height of the
conduit; and
Kµ’ = 0.1650 maximum for sand and gravel,
0.1500 maximum for saturated top soil,
0.1300 maximum for ordinary clay,
0.1100 maximum for saturated clay.
When underground conduits are located below groundwater, the total vertical dead loads should include the
weight of the projected volume of water above the conduits.
Traffic Loads: The vertical stress on top of an underground conduit, pL (psf), resulting from traffic loads
(from a HS-20 truck) can be obtained from Plate C-6, in Appendix C. The live load on top of the
underground conduit can be calculated from Equation (4):
12
WL = pL Bc ............ Equation (4)
where: WL = live load on the top of the conduit (lb/ft);
pL = vertical stress (on the top of the conduit) resulting from traffic loads (psf);
Bc = outside diameter of the conduit, (ft);
Lateral Loads: The lateral soil pressure pl can be calculated from Equation (5); hydrostatic pressure should
be added, if applicable.
pl = 0.5 (γHh + ps) ............ Equation (5)
where: Hh = height of fill above the center of the conduit (ft);
γ = effective unit weight of soil over the conduit (pcf);
ps = vertical pressure on conduit resulting from traffic and/or construction equipment (psf).
5.2.2 Trench Stability
Cohesive soils in the Houston area contain many secondary features which affect trench stability, including
sand seams and slickensides. Slickensides are shiny weak failure planes which are commonly present in fat
clays; such clays often fail along these weak planes when they are not laterally supported, such as in an
open excavation. The Contractor should not assume that slickensides and sand seams/layers/pockets are
absent where not indicated on the logs.
The Contractor should be responsible for designing, constructing and maintaining safe excavations. The
excavations should not cause any distress to existing structures.
Trenches 20 feet and Deeper: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires
that shoring or bracing for trenches 20 feet and deeper be specifically designed by a licensed
professional engineer.
Trenches Less than 20 Feet Deep: Trench excavations that are less than 20 feet deep may be shored, sheeted
and braced, or laid back to a stable slope for the safety of workers, the general public, and adjacent
structures, except for excavations which are less than 5 feet deep and verified by a competent person to
have no cave-in potential. The excavation and trenching should be in accordance with OSHA Safety and
Health Regulations, 29 CFR, Part 1926. Recommended OSHA soil types for trench design for existing
soils can be found on Plates C-1 through C-4, in Appendix C. Fill soils are considered OSHA Class ‘C’;
13
submerged cohesive soils should also be considered OSHA Class ‘C’, unless they are dewatered first.
Critical Height is defined as the height a slope will stand unsupported for a short time; in cohesive soils, it
is used to estimate the maximum depth of open-cuts at given side slopes. Critical Height may be calculated
based on the soil cohesion. Values for various slopes and cohesion are shown on Plate D-1, in Appendix D.
Cautions listed below should be exercised in use of Critical Height applications:
1. No more than 50 percent of the Critical Height computed should be used for vertical slopes.
Unsupported vertical slopes are not recommended where granular soils or soils that will slough
when not laterally supported are encountered within the excavation depth.
2. If the soil at the surface is dry to the point where tension cracks occur, any water in the crack will
increase the lateral pressure considerably. In addition, if tension cracks occur, no cohesion should
be assumed for the soils within the depth of the crack. The depth of the first waler should not
exceed the depth of the potential tension crack. Struts should be installed before lateral
displacement occurs.
3. Shoring should be provided for excavations where limited space precludes adequate side slopes,
e.g., where granular soils will not stand on stable slopes and/or for deep open cuts.
4. All excavation, trenching and shoring should be designed and constructed by qualified
professionals in accordance with OSHA requirements.
The maximum (steepest) allowable slopes for OSHA Soil Types for excavations less than 20 feet are
presented on Plate D-2, in Appendix D.
If limited space is available for the required open trench side slopes, the space required for the slope can be
reduced by using a combination of bracing and open cut as illustrated on Plate D-3, in Appendix D.
Guidelines for bracing and calculating bracing stress are presented below.
Computation of Bracing Pressures: The following method can be used for calculating earth pressure against
bracing for open cuts. Lateral pressure resulting from construction equipment, traffic loads, or other
surcharge should be taken into account by adding the equivalent uniformly distributed surcharge to the
design lateral pressure. Hydrostatic pressure, if any, should also be considered. The active earth pressure at
depth z can be determined by Equation (6). The design soil parameters for trench bracing design are
presented on Plates C-1 through C-4, in Appendix C.
14
............ Equation (6)
where: pa = active earth pressure (psf);
qs = uniform surcharge pressure (psf);
γ, γ’ = wet unit weight and buoyant unit weight of soil (pcf);
h1 = depth from ground surface to groundwater table (ft);
h2 = z-h1, depth from groundwater table to the point under consideration (ft);
z = depth below ground surface for the point under consideration (ft);
Ka = coefficient of active earth pressure;
c = cohesion of clayey soils (psf); c can be omitted conservatively;
γw = unit weight of water, 62.4 pcf.
Pressure distribution for the practical design of struts in open cuts for clays and sands are illustrated on
Plates D-4 through D-6, in Appendix D.
Bottom Stability: In open-cuts, it is necessary to consider the possibility of the bottom failing by heaving,
due to the removal of the weight of excavated soil. Heaving typically occurs in soft plastic clays when the
excavation depth is sufficiently deep enough to cause the surrounding soil to displace vertically due to
bearing capacity failure of the soil beneath the excavation bottom, with a corresponding upward movement
of the soils in the bottom of the excavation. In fat and lean clays, heave normally does not occur unless the
ratio of Critical Height to Depth of Cut approaches one. In very sandy and silty lean clays and granular
soils, heave can occur if an artificially large head of water is created due to installation of impervious
sheeting while bracing the cut. This can be mitigated if groundwater is lowered below the excavation by
dewatering the area. Guidelines for evaluating bottom stability in clay soils are presented on Plate D-7, in
Appendix D.
If the excavation extends below groundwater, and the soils at or near the bottom of the excavation are
mainly sands or silts, the bottom can fail by blow-out (boiling) when a sufficient hydraulic head exists. The
potential for boiling or in-flow of granular soils increases where the groundwater is pressurized. To reduce
the potential for boiling of excavations terminating in granular soils below pressurized groundwater, the
groundwater table should be lowered at least 5 feet below the excavation in accordance with Section 01578
of the latest edition of the City of Houston Standard General Requirement (COHSGR).
Calcareous nodules, silt/sand seams, and fat clays with slickensides were encountered in some of the
borings. These secondary structures may become sources of localized instability when they are exposed
221 2)'( hKcKhhqp waasa γγγ +−++=
15
during excavation, especially when they become saturated. Such soils have a tendency to slough or cave in
when not laterally confined, such as in trench excavations. The Contractor should be aware of the potential
for cave-in of the soils. Low plasticity soils (silts and clayey silts) will lose strength and may behave like
granular soils when saturated.
Based on Table 1 in Section 2.1 of this report, AEC notes that some of the invert depths (i.e. 20.4 to 20.7
feet at Borings B-12 and B-13, in particular) indicated on HR Green’s drawings are fairly deep for an open
cut trench excavation, particularly in a limited space environment. Based on the invert depths presented on
Table 1 in Section 2.1 of this report and the depth to granular/weak soils and groundwater presented on
Table 3 in Section 4.1 of this report, AEC anticipates that open cut excavations will encounter
granular/soft/weak soils within the trench or pipe bedding zone in the vicinity of Borings B-13, B-17
through B-19, B-23, and G147-11 B-58A. Based on Table 4 in Section 4.1 of this report, AEC anticipates
that open cut excavations will encounter groundwater within the trench or pipe bedding zone in the vicinity
of Boring B-23. Pipe invert depths versus sand/weak soil strata and groundwater are also presented on
Plates B-1 through B-4, in Appendix B.
5.2.3 Bedding and Backfill
Trench excavation, pipe embedment material, and backfill for the proposed storm sewers should be in
general accordance with Section 02317 of the latest edition of the COHSCS. Backfill should be placed in
loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches and compacted to 95 percent of its ASTM D-698 (Standard Proctor)
maximum dry density at a moisture content ranging between optimum and 3 percent above optimum.
5.3 Tunneling and Its Influence on Adjacent Structures
The Contractor is responsible for designing, constructing, implementing, and monitoring safe tunneling
excavation and protecting existing structures in the vicinity from adverse effects resulting from
construction, and retaining professionals who are qualified and experienced to perform the tasks and who
are capable of modifying the system, as required. The following discussion provides general guidelines to
the Contractor.
16
Based on the plan and profile drawings provided by HR Green (dated October 15, 2014), a proposed 84
inch diameter concrete pipe storm sewer will be installed by tunnel method along W. Alabama, beneath
Spur 527; the alignment stations, approximate tunnel invert depths, and possible subsurface conditions are
summarized in Table 5 below.
Table 5. Subsurface Conditions in Borings within Tunnel Zones
Soil
Boring Station
Tunnel
Segment
Tunnel
Invert
Depth (ft)
Soil Types Encountered within
Tunnel Zone
Ground Water Depth below
Existing Ground Surface (ft)
Boring In Piezometer
B-22 1+69
W.
Alabama
beneath
Spur 527
16.8
6’-21’: Stiff to very stiff, Sandy
Lean Clay (CL)/Fat Clay (CH),
with interlayered sand and silt
Dry (Drilling) -
B-23 1+50
W.
Alabama
beneath
Spur 527
14.4
4’-8’: Very stiff, Lean Clay
(CL)/Fat Clay (CH)
8’-14’: Very soft to stiff, Fat Clay
(CH), with silt seams
14’-16’: Stiff, Sandy Silty Clay
(CL-ML), with silty sand seams
16’-18’: Stiff to hard, Lean Clay
(CL), with slickensides
25 (Drilling)
25.6 (15 min.)
22.5 (1 day)
22.5 (4/3/15)
16.0 (5/4/15)
Tunneling operations and placement of storm sewer inside tunnel constructed with primary liner should
comply with Sections 02426 of the latest edition of the COHSCS.
5.3.1 Loadings on Pipes
Loadings on Pipes: Recommendations for computation of loadings on pipes from HS-20 trucks are
presented in Section 5.2.1 of this report.
5.3.2 Tunnel Access Shafts
Tunnel access shafts should be constructed in accordance with Section 02400 of the latest edition of the
COHSCS. Based on Table 5 in Section 5.3 of this report, the tunnel access shaft on the east end of the W.
Alabama Street beneath Spur 527 (Boring B-22) tunnel will encounter lean/fat clay (CL/CH) with
interlayered sand and silt, while the tunnel access shaft on the west end of the W. Alabama Street beneath
Spur 527 (Boring B-23) tunnel will encounter lean/fat clay (CL/CH) and silty clay (CL-ML). Based on
17
Table 5 in Section 5.3 of this report, the groundwater will probably be below the bottom of the tunnel
access shafts.
Depending on the ground water during the time of year the access shaft construction takes place,
groundwater control may be required for the tunnel shafts. Possible ground water control measures include:
(i) deep wells with turbine or submersible pumps; (ii) educators (for silt); (iii) water-tight sheet pile cut-off
walls; or (iv) jet-grouting of sandy soils in the immediate surrounding area. Generally, the groundwater
depth should be lowered at least 5 feet below the excavation bottom (in accordance with Section 01578 of
the latest edition of the COHSGR) to be able to work on a firm surface when water-bearing granular soils
are encountered. If deep wells are used to dewater the excavation, extended and/or excessive dewatering
can result in settlement of existing structures in the vicinity. One option to reduce the risk of settlement in
these cases includes installing a series of reinjection wells around the perimeter of the construction area.
General groundwater control recommendations are presented in Section 6.2 of this report. The options for
dewatering presented here are for reference purposes only; it is the Contractor’s responsibility to take the
necessary precautions to minimize the effect on existing structures in the vicinity of the dewatering
operation.
Sheet Piling: Design soil parameters for sheet pile design are presented on Plates C-1 through C-4, in
Appendix C. AEC recommends that the sheet pile design consider both short-term and long-term
parameters; whichever is critical should be used for design. The determination of the pressures exerted on
the sheet piles by the retained soils shall consider active earth pressure, hydrostatic pressure, and uniform
surcharge (including construction equipment, soil stockpiles, and traffic load, whichever surcharge is more
critical).
Sheet pile design should be based on the following considerations:
(1) Ground water elevation at the top of the ground surface on the retained side;
(2) Ground water elevation 5 feet below the bottom of the access shaft excavation (assuming
dewatering operations using deep wells);
(3) Neglect cohesion for active pressure determination, Equation (6) in Section 5.2.2 of this report;
(4) The design retained height should extend from the ground surface to the water line tunnel invert
depth;
(5) A 300 psf uniform surcharge pressure from construction equipment or soil stockpiles should be
considered at the top of the sheet piles; loose soil stockpiles during access shaft construction
should be limited to 3 foot high or less;
18
(6) Use a Factor of Safety of 2.0 for passive earth pressure in front of (i.e. the shaft side) the sheet
piles.
Design, construction, and monitoring of sheet piles should be performed by qualified personnel who are
experienced in this operation. Sheet piles should be driven in pairs, and proper construction controls
provided to maintain alignment along the wall and prevent outward leaning of the sheet piles.
Bottom Stability: Recommendations for evaluating tunnel access shaft bottom stability are presented in
Section 5.2.2 of this report.
Reaction Walls: Reaction walls (if used) will be part of the tunnel shaft walls; they will be rigid structures
and support tunneling operations by mobilizing passive pressures of the soils behind the walls. The passive
earth pressure can be calculated using Equation (7). A factor of safety of 2.0 should be used for passive
earth pressure design. Design soil parameters are presented on Plates C-1 through C-4, in Appendix C.
pp = γzKp + 2c(Kp)½ ............ Equation (7)
where, pp = passive earth pressure (psf);
γ = wet unit weight of soil (pcf);
z = depth below ground surface for the point under consideration (ft);
Kp = coefficient of passive earth pressure;
c = cohesion of clayey soils (psf).
Due to subsurface variations, soils with different strengths and characteristics will likely be encountered at a
given location. The soil resulting in the lowest passive pressure should be used for design of the walls. The
soil conditions should be checked by geotechnical personnel to confirm the recommended soil parameters.
5.3.3 Tunnel Face Stability during Construction
5.3.3.1 General
The stability of a tunnel face is governed primarily by ground water and subsurface soil conditions, type of
tunnel machine used, and workmanship. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in our borings
and the proposed invert depths (see Table 5 in Section 5.3 of this report), we anticipate that stiff to very stiff
lean/fat clay (CL/CH) with interlayered sand and silt will be encountered within the east portion of the
19
tunnel zone of the W. Alabama tunnel (Boring B-22), and that very soft to hard lean/fat clay (CL/CH) and
stiff silty clay (CL-ML) will be encountered within the west portion of the tunnel zone of the W. Alabama
tunnel (Boring B-23). Secondary features such as sand or silt partings/seams/pockets/layers were also
encountered within the cohesive soils, and could be significant at some locations. In addition, the type and
property of subsurface soils are subject to change between borings, and may be different at locations away
from our borings.
When granular soils are encountered during construction the tunnel face can become unstable. Granular
soils below ground water will tend to flow into the excavation hole; granular soils above the ground water
level will generally not stand unsupported but will tend to ravel until a stable slope is formed at the face
with a slope equal to the angle of repose of the material in a loose state. Thus, granular soils are generally
considered unstable in an unsupported excavation face; uncontrolled flowing soil can result in large loss of
ground.
5.3.3.2 Anticipated Ground Behavior
A Stability Factor, Nt = (Pz - Pa)/Cu may be used to evaluate the stability of an unsupported bore face in
cohesive soils (N t is not applicable to granular soils), where Pz is the overburden pressure to the bore
centerline; Pa is the equivalent uniform interior pressure applied to the face; and Cu is the soil undrained
shear strength. For bore/auger operations, no interior pressure is applied. Generally, Nt values of 4 or less
are desirable as it represents a practical limit below which tunneling may be accomplished without
significant difficulty. Higher Nt values usually lead to large deformations of the soil around the bore and
problems associated with increased subsidence. It should be noted that the exposure time of the face is
most important; with time, creep of the soil will occur, resulting in a reduction of shear strength. The Nt
values will therefore increase when construction is slow.
Where granular or soft cohesive soils are encountered, the Contractor should make provisions to stabilize
the tunnel excavations. The Contractor should not base their bid on the above information alone, since
granular soils may be encountered between boring locations; the Contractor should verify the subsurface
conditions between boring locations or add a contingency.
20
We also estimated the maximum settlements [caused by volume loss if a slurry face machine (SFM) or
earth pressure balance tunnel boring machine (EPB) is NOT used] at the proposed tunnel location and the
results are included in Table 6.
Table 6. Tunnel Face Stability Factor and Estimated Settlements along Tunnel Alignment
Soil
Boring/
Station
Tunnel
Segment
Tunnel
Invert
Depth
(ft)
Anticipated Soil Types
in Tunnel Zone
Stability
Factor
Nt
Smax
(in) Note/Suggestion
B-22/
1+69
W. Alabama
beneath Spur
527
16.8
Stiff to very stiff, Sandy
Lean Clay (CL)/Fat Clay
(CH), with interlayered
sand and silt
1.5 0.17
Mixed ground
conditions, potential
swelling ground due to
very high plasticity clay
B-23/
1+50
W. Alabama
beneath Spur
527
14.4
Very soft to hard Lean
Clay (CL)/Fat Clay (CH)
Stiff, Sandy Silty Clay
(CL-ML)
3.3 0.18
Mixed ground
conditions, potential
swelling ground due to
very high plasticity clay Note: Smax = Estimated settlement along the tunnel alignment due to volume loss if slurry face machine (SFM) or EPB are not used;
not including consolidation settlement.
Based on Table 6, it should be noted that the estimated settlement at Borings B-22 and B-23 is
approximately 0.2 inches (which does not include consolidation settlement) or more, and dewatering at
these locations will also cause additional settlement due to increases in effective stress of the soil strata.
The information in this report should be reviewed so that appropriate tunneling equipment and operation
can be planned and factored into the construction plan and cost estimate. If the estimated settlement is too
high, we suggest that the tunnel construction consider the use of: (i) a SFM or EPB TBM; (ii) jet grout to
stabilize the saturated granular soils; or (iii) micro-tunneling. The choice of tunneling machine should be
selected by the Contractor. Plate D-8 in Appendix D provides a general guideline for TBM selection.
Tunnel construction should be in accordance with Section 02426 of the latest edition of the COHSCS.
5.3.3.3 Influence of Tunneling on Existing Structures
Ground Subsidence: Tunneling in soft ground often induces some degree of settlement (ground subsidence)
of the overlying ground surface. If such settlement is excessive, it may cause damage to existing structures
and services located above and/or near the tunnel zone.
21
The tunnel influence zone is assumed to extend a distance of about 2.5i from the center of the auger tunnel,
as shown on Plate D-9, in Appendix D. We estimated the resulting influence zones (extending from the
centerline of the tunnel) to range from approximately 13 feet at Borings B-22 and B-23 for the W. Alabama
tunnel; although the values of tunnel influence zone presented are rough estimates. The estimated
maximum settlements [caused by volume loss if a TBM is not used] along the tunnel alignment at the
proposed tunnel locations are included in Table 6 of this report.
AEC emphasizes that the size of the influence zone of a tunnel is difficult to determine because several
factors influence the response of the soil to tunneling operations including type of soil, ground water level
and control method, type of tunneling equipment, tunneling operations, experience of operator, and other
construction in the vicinity. Methods to prevent movement and/or distress to existing structures will require
the services of a specialty contractor.
5.3.4 Measures to Reduce Distress from Tunneling
To control tunneling face loss and reduce potential impact on existing foundations and structures, AEC
recommends the use of a steel casing (or equivalent methods) to support the tunnel excavation during tunnel
construction. Considering the ground conditions discussed in Table 6 of this report, AEC recommends that
the following tunneling operations be considered: (i) use a pressurized slurry TBM and keep the pressure at
least equal to if not greater than the combined soil and groundwater pressure in the ground at the tunnel
level; and (ii) if excessive voids occur during tunneling, the contractor should immediately and completely
grout the annular space between the steel casing and the ground at the tail of the machine, in accordance
with Section 02431 of the latest edition of the COHSCS. It should be noted that grouting may increase
friction resistance while advancing the casing and the contractor will need to address this condition as part
of his tunnel work plan. Plate D-10, in Appendix D provides a general guideline for selection of grouting
material. The tunneling machine selection, tunneling operation, and grouting (as necessary) will be the full
responsibility of the Contractor.
To reduce the potential for the tunneling to influence existing foundations or structures, we recommend that
the outer edge of the influence zone of the tunnel be a minimum of 5 feet from the outer edge of the bearing
(stress) zone of existing foundations. The bearing (stress) zone is defined by a line drawn downward from
the outer edge of an existing foundation and inclined at an angle of 45 degrees to the vertical.
22
We recommend that the following situations be evaluated on a case by case basis, where:
• tunneling cannot be located farther than the minimum distance recommended above;
• tunneling cannot be located outside the stress zone of the foundations for existing structures;
• unstable soils are encountered near existing structures;
• heavily loaded or critical structures are located close to the influence zone of the tunnels;
As an option, existing structure foundations should be protected by adequate shoring or strengthened by
underpinning or other techniques, provided that tunneling cannot be located outside the stress zone of the
existing foundations.
Disturbance and loss of ground from the tunneling operation may create surface soil disturbance and
subsidence which in turn may cause distress to existing structures (including underground utilities and
pavements) located in the zone of soil disturbance. Any open-cut excavation in the proposed tunneling
areas should be adequately shored.
5.3.5 Monitoring Existing Structures
The Contractor should be responsible for monitoring existing structures nearby and taking necessary action
to mitigate impact to adjacent structures. Existing structures located close to the proposed construction
excavations should be surveyed prior to construction and pre-existing conditions of such structures and their
vicinity be adequately recorded. This can be accomplished by conducting a pre-construction survey, taking
photographs and/or video, and documenting existing elevations, cracks, settlements, and other existing
distress in the structures. The monitoring should include establishment of elevation monitor stations, crack
gauges, and inclinometers, as required. The monitoring should be performed before, periodically during,
and after construction. The data should be reviewed by qualified engineers in a timely manner to evaluate
the impact on existing structures and develop plans to mitigate the impact, should it be necessary.
5.4 Manholes and Junction Boxes
Based on the drawings provided by HR Green, storm sewer manholes and junction boxes will have an
invert depth of 13.0 to 19.8 feet. Cast-in-place and pre-cast manhole construction should be in general
accordance with Sections 02081 and 02082 of the latest edition of the COHSCS, respectively. The
Contractor should be responsible for designing, constructing and maintaining safe excavations for the
23
proposed manholes. Manhole open-cut excavations shall be in general accordance with Section 5.2.2 of
this report. Geotechnical recommendations to guide design of manholes and junction boxes are presented
below.
5.4.1 Allowable Bearing Capacity
We assume mat foundations will be used for the manholes and junction boxes. Based on soils encountered
in our borings, a net allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 psf for dead loads and 2,200 psf for total loads,
whichever is critical should be used for mat foundations of the proposed manholes. These values include a
factor of safety of 3 for dead load and 2 for total load, respectively.
The net footing pressure may be determined by:
1. Summing the weight of the load applied to the foundation, the weight of the foundation and the
weight of soil backfill placed above the foundation.
2. Subtracting the weight of soil excavated from the foundation.
3. Dividing the result of items 1 and 2 by the base area of the foundation.
5.4.2 Uplift Resistance
The manholes should be designed to resist hydrostatic uplift. For uplift design of the underground
structures, we recommend that the water level be assumed to be at the ground surface or 100-year flood
elevation, whichever is more critical. If the dead weights of the structures are inadequate to resist uplift
forces, toe extensions of the base slabs may be constructed so that the effective weight of the soil above the
extended slabs can be utilized to resist the uplift forces. The unit buoyant weight of concrete can be taken
as 90 pcf. The minimum recommended factors of safety against uplift should be 1.1 for concrete weight,
1.5 for soil weight and 3.0 for soil friction. Design soil parameters are included on Plates C-1 through C-4,
in Appendix C. Recommended design criteria for uplift resistance are shown on Plate D-11, in Appendix
D.
5.4.3 Lateral Earth Pressures
Typically, there is no movement allowed for the walls of the manholes. Therefore, the walls should be
designed for at-rest earth pressure. The magnitudes of these pressures will depend on the type and density
24
of the backfill, surcharge on the backfill and hydrostatic pressure, if any. If the backfill is over-compacted
or if highly plastic clays are placed behind the walls, the lateral earth pressure could exceed the vertical
pressure. Typical backfill materials placed behind manhole walls in the Houston area include select fill and
cement-stabilized sand.
Lateral pressure resulting from construction equipment or other surcharge should be taken into account by
adding the equivalent uniformly distributed surcharge to the design lateral pressure. Hydrostatic pressure
should also be included, unless adequate drainage is provided behind the walls. The at-rest earth pressure at
depth z can be determined by Equation (8). The design soil parameters for earth pressure design are
presented on Plates C-1 through C-4, in Appendix C.
p0 = (qs + γ h1 + γ’ h2) K0 + γw h2 ............ Equation (8)
where, p0 = at-rest earth pressure, (psf);
qs = uniform surcharge pressure, (psf);
γ, γ’ = wet and buoyant unit weights of soil, (pcf);
h1 = depth from ground surface to ground water table, (ft);
h2 = z-h1, depth from ground water table to point under consideration, (ft);
z = depth below ground surface, (ft);
K0 = coefficient of at-rest earth pressure;
γw = unit weight of water, 62.4 pcf.
5.4.4 Manhole Backfill Material
Manhole and junction box bedding and backfill should be in accordance with the Sections 02316 and 02317
of the latest edition of the COHSCS.
5.5 Pavement Reconstruction
Based on drawings provided by HR Green, the entirety of the street alignments along Tuam Street, Smith
Street, Elgin Street, Milam Street, and W. Alabama Streets will be reconstructed with new concrete
pavement. Tuam Street from Helena Street to Bagby Street will have a curb-to-curb width of 53 feet and
will have a curb-to-curb width of 36 feet from Bagby Street to Louisiana Street. Smith Street from Elgin
Street to Tuam Street will have a curb-to-curb width of 53 feet. Elgin Street from Bagby Street to Milam
Street will have a curb-to-curb width of 53 feet. Milam Street from Elgin Street to W. Alabama will have a
25
curb-to-curb width of 45 feet. W. Alabama Street from Milam Street to Day Street will two roadways in
each direction with a grass median; each direction will have a curb-to-curb width of 26 feet. The new
pavement will be placed at or near existing grade.
Based on HR Green’s drawings, Tuam Street will have a 9 inch thick concrete pavement over an 8 inch
thick lime-stabilized subgrade, while Smith Street, Elgin Street, Milam Street, and W. Alabama Street will
have a 10 inch thick concrete pavement over an 10 inch thick lime-stabilized subgrade.
Based on AEC’s site visit, the traffic volume along Tuam Street, Smith Street, Elgin Street, Milam Street,
and W. Alabama Street is average to very high. AEC selected traffic volume data from the Texas
Transportation Institute’s (TTI) “Houston Regional Traffic County Map” website. In addition, traffic
design information such as types of vehicles and percentage of heavy trucks was not available when this
report was prepared (and is not presented on TTI’s website). AEC should be notified once this information
becomes available so that our recommendations can be revised as necessary. According to HR Green, a
service life of 25 years should be used for pavement design. Traffic counts along the project alignments
taken from TTI’s website are summarized in Table 1.
Table 7. Nearby Traffic Counts from Texas Transportation Institute(1)
Roadway Limits Year Average Daily
Traffic (vpd)
Traffic Volume
Difference (%)
Tuam Street Baldwin Street to Bagby
Street
2001
2006
5,630
4,310 -23 (2001 to 2006)
Smith Street Rosalie Street to Elgin
Street 2006 13,150 n/a
Westheimer
Road
Mason Street to Helena
Street
2001
2006
18,440
19,650 +6 (2001 to 2006)
Elgin Street Louisiana Street to
Milam Street 2009 18,210 n/a
Milam Street Winbern Street to W.
Alabama Street 2006 15,460 n/a
W. Alabama
Street
Brandt Street to Day
Street
2001
2006
13,210
12,910 -2 (2001 to 2006)
Note: (1) Traffic counts taken from TTI website, “Houston Regional Traffic Counts.
The pavement design recommendations developed below are in accordance with the “AASHTO Guide for
Design of Pavement Structures,” 1993 edition.
26
5.5.1 Rigid Pavement
According to Section 10.05 of the December 2014 Infrastructure Design Manual, major thoroughfares must
have a minimum thickness of 8 inches and a minimum stabilized subgrade thickness of 8 inches.
Rigid pavement design is based on the anticipated design number of 18-kip ESALs the pavement is
subjected to during its design life. The parameters that were used in computing the rigid pavement section
are as follows:
Overall Standard Deviation (S0) 0.35
Initial Serviceability (P0) 4.5
Terminal Serviceability (Pt) 2.5
Reliability Level (R) 95%
Overall Drainage Coefficient (Cd) 1.2 (curb and gutter)
Load Transfer Coefficient (J) 3.2
Loss of Support Category (LS) 1.0
Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus (MR) 4,500 psi
Elastic Modulus (Esb) of Stabilized Soils 20,000 psi
Composite Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) 91 to 96 pci
Mean Concrete Modulus of Rupture (S’c) 600 psi (at 28 days)
Concrete Elastic Modulus (Ec) 3.37 x 106 psi
Pavement sections (as indicated on HR Green’s drawings) for Tuam Street, Smith Street, Elgin Street,
Milam Street, and W.Alabama Street are presented on Table 8. Pavement design was performed using the
DARWin v3.0 computer program. DARWin analysis results are presented on Plates F-1 and F-2, in
Appendix F. AEC should be notified if different standards or constants are required for pavement design at
the site, so that our recommendations can be updated accordingly.
Table 8. Recommended Rigid Pavement Sections
Pavement Layer Tuam Street Smith Street Elgin Street Milam Street W. Alabama
Street
Portland Cement
Concrete 9 10 10 10 10
Lime-stabilized
Subgrade 8 10 10 10 10
18-kip ESAL Load
Capacity 4,830,595 9,599,010 9,599,010 9,599,010 9,599,010
27
Concrete Pavement: Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement should be constructed in accordance with
Section 02751 of the latest edition of the COHSCS. According to Section 02751 of the latest edition of the
COHSCS, concrete mix design has a required flexural strength of 600 psi at 28 days and field testing shall
confirm a minimum concrete compressive strength of 3,500 psi at 28 days. The Contractor shall be
responsible for ensuring that a concrete mix design based on concrete compressive strength of 3,500 psi at
28 days also meets a minimum concrete flexural strength of 500 psi at 7 days and 600 psi at 28 days.
5.5.2 Reinforcing Steel
Reinforcing steel should be in accordance with Section 02751 of the latest edition of the COHSCS.
Reinforcing steel is required to control pavement cracks, deflections across pavement joints and resist
warping stresses in rigid pavements. The cross-sectional area of steel (As) required per foot of slab width
can be calculated as follows (for both longitudinal and transverse steel).
As = FLW/(2fs) ............ Equation (9)
where: As = Required cross-sectional area of reinforcing steel per foot width of pavement, in2
F = Coefficient of resistance between slab and subgrade, F = 1.8 for stabilized soil
L = Distance between free transverse joints or between free longitudinal edges, ft.
W = Weight of pavement slab per foot of width, lbs/ft
fs = Allowable working stress in steel, 0.75 x (yield strength), psi
i.e. fs = 45,000 psi for Grade 60 steel.
5.5.3 Pavement Subgrade Preparation
Existing pavement and base should be demolished in accordance with Section 02221 of the latest edition of
the COHSCS. Subgrade preparation should extend a minimum of 2 feet beyond the paved area perimeters.
After demolition of existing pavement and base, we recommend that a competent soil technician inspect the
exposed subgrade to determine if there are any unsuitable soils or other deleterious materials. Excavate and
dispose of unsuitable soils and other deleterious materials which will not consolidate; the excavation depth
should be increased when inspection indicates the presence of organics and deleterious materials to greater
depths. The exposed soils should be proof-rolled in accordance with Item 216 of the 2014 Texas
Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of
Highways, Streets, and Bridges to identify and remove any weak, compressible, or other unsuitable
materials; such materials should be replaced with compacted select fill.
28
Scarify the top 8 to 10 inches (in accordance with Table 8) of the exposed subgrade and stabilize with at
least 7 percent hydrated lime by dry soil weight. Lime stabilization shall be performed in accordance with
Section 02336 of the latest edition of the COHSCS. The stabilized soils should be compacted to 95 percent
of their ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor) dry density at a moisture content ranging from optimum to 3
percent above optimum.
5.6 Select Fill
Select fill should be in accordance with Section 02320, Subsection 1.01.B.7 of the latest edition of the
COHSCS.
6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Site Preparation
To mitigate site problems that may develop following prolonged periods of rainfall, it is essential to have
adequate drainage to maintain a relatively dry and firm surface prior to starting any work at the site.
Adequate drainage should be maintained throughout the construction period. Methods for controlling
surface runoff and ponding include proper site grading, berm construction around exposed areas, and
installation of sump pits with pumps.
6.2 Groundwater Control
The need for groundwater control will depend on the depth of excavation relative to the groundwater depth
at the time of construction. In the event that there is heavy rain prior to or during construction, the
groundwater table may be higher than indicated in this report; higher seepage is also likely and may require
a more extensive groundwater control program. In addition, groundwater may be pressurized in certain
areas of the alignment, requiring further evaluation and consideration of the excess hydrostatic pressures.
Groundwater control should be in general accordance with Section 01578 of the latest edition of the
COHSGR.
29
The Contractor should be responsible for selecting, designing, constructing, maintaining, and monitoring a
groundwater control system and adapt his operations to ensure the stability of the excavations.
Groundwater information presented in Section 4.1 of this report, along with consideration for potential
environmental and site variation between the time of our field exploration and construction, should be
incorporated in evaluating groundwater depths. The following recommendations are intended to guide the
Contractor during design and construction of the dewatering system.
In cohesive soils seepage rates are lower than in granular soils and groundwater is usually collected in
sumps and channeled by gravity flow to storm sewers. If cohesive soils contain significant secondary
features, seepage rates will be higher. This may require larger sumps and drainage channels, or if
significant granular layers are interbedded within the cohesive soils, methods used for granular soils may be
required. Where it is present, pressurized groundwater will also yield higher seepage rates.
Groundwater for excavations within saturated sands can be controlled by the installation of wellpoints. The
practical maximum dewatering depth for well points is about 15 feet. When groundwater control is
required below 15 feet, possible ground water control measures include: (i) deep wells with turbine or
submersible pumps; (ii) multi-staged well points; or (iii) water-tight sheet pile cut-off walls. Generally, the
groundwater depth should be lowered at least 5 feet below the excavation bottom (in accordance with
Section 01578 of the latest edition of the COHSGR) to be able to work on a firm surface when water-
bearing granular soils are encountered.
Extended and/or excessive dewatering can result in settlement of existing structures in the vicinity; the
Contractor should take the necessary precautions to minimize the effect on existing structures in the vicinity
of the dewatering operation. We recommend that the Contractor verify the groundwater depths and seepage
rates prior to and during construction and retain the services of a dewatering expert (if necessary) to assist
him in identifying, implementing, and monitoring the most suitable and cost-effective method of controlling
groundwater.
Note that extended and/or excessive dewatering can result in differential settlement of existing adjacent
structures as the groundwater table is lowered. Special care should be exercised to prevent a change of the
groundwater level below structures when performing dewatering operations for the storm sewer installation.
One option to reduce such risk includes using a sheet pile cutoff wall to minimize seepage into the
30
excavation, combined with a series of monitoring and reinjection wells (to maintain the ground table)
around the construction area.
For open cut construction in cohesive soils, the possibility of bottom heave must be considered due to the
removal of the weight of excavated soil. In lean and fat clays, heave normally does not occur unless the
ratio of Critical Height to Depth of Cut approaches one. In silty clays, heave does not typically occur
unless an artificially large head of water is created through the use of impervious sheeting in bracing the
cut. Guidelines for evaluating bottom stability are presented in Section 5.2.2 of this report.
6.3 Construction Monitoring
Pavement construction and subgrade preparation, as well as excavation, bedding, and backfilling of
underground utilities should be monitored by qualified geotechnical professionals to check for compliance
with project documents and changed conditions, if encountered. AEC should be allowed to review the
design and construction plans and specifications prior to release to check that the geotechnical
recommendations and design criteria presented herein are properly interpreted.
6.4 Monitoring of Existing Structures
Existing structures in the vicinity of the proposed alignment should be closely monitored prior to, during,
and for a period after excavation. Several factors (including soil type and stratification, construction
methods, weather conditions, other construction in the vicinity, construction personnel experience and
supervision) may impact ground movement in the vicinity of the alignment. We therefore recommend that
the Contractor be required to survey and adequately document the condition of existing structures in the
vicinity of the proposed alignments.
7.0 LIMITATIONS
The information contained in this report summarizes conditions found on the dates the borings were drilled.
The attached boring logs are true representations of the soils encountered at the specific boring locations on
the dates of drilling. Reasonable variations from the subsurface information presented in this report should
be anticipated. If conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those
presented in this report; AEC should be notified immediately.
31
This investigation was performed using the standard level of care and diligence normally practiced by
recognized geotechnical engineering firms in this area, presently performing similar services under similar
circumstances. This report is intended to be used in its entirety. The report has been prepared exclusively
for the project and location described in this report. If pertinent project details change or otherwise differ
from those described herein, AEC should be notified immediately and retained to evaluate the effect of the
changes on the recommendations presented in this report, and revise the recommendations if necessary.
The recommendations presented in this report should not be used for other structures located along these
alignments or similar structures located elsewhere, without additional evaluation and/or investigation.
APPENDIX A
Plate A-1 Vicinity Map
Plate A-2 Boring Location Plan
Plates A-3 to A-16 Boring Logs
Plate A-17 Key to Symbols
Plate A-18 Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes
Plate A-19 Terms Used on Boring Logs
Plate A-20 ASTM & TXDOT Designation for Soil Laboratory Tests
Plates A-21 to A-25 Summary of Lab Data
AEC PROJECT NO.:
G166-12C
AVILES ENGINEERING CORPORATION
APPROX. SCALE:
N.T.S.
DATE:
DRAFTED BY:
DRAWING SOURCE:
GOOGLEPLATE NO.:
PLATE A-1
SITE
VICINITY MAP
06-05-15
WLW
GILLETTE TRUNKLINE (TUAM, SMITH, & ELGIN SEGMENTS)
DRAINAGE AND PAVING IMPROVEMENTS, WBS NO. M-410290-0004-3
HOUSTON, TEXAS
AEC PROJECT NO.:
G166-12C
AVILES ENGINEERING CORPORATION
BORING LOCATION PLANGILLETTE TRUNKLINE (TUAM, SMITH, & ELGIN SEGMENTS)
DRAINAGE AND PAVING IMPROVEMENTS, WBS NO. M-410290-0004-3
HOUSTON, TEXAS
APPROX. SCALE:
1” = 300’
DATE:
03-18-15DRAFTED BY:
WlWPLATE NO.:
PLATE A-2
SOURCE DRAWING PROVIDED BY:
GOOGLE EARTH PRONOTE: BORING LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
B-12 (35’)
PZ-4 (30’)
B-17 (30’)
GRAPHIC SCALE, FT
0 150 300
B-13 (40’)
B-14 (30’)
B-16 (30’)
B-15 (30’)
B-18 (30’)
B-19 (35’)
B-20 (30’)
PZ-5 (30’)
B-21 (30’)
B-22 (30’)
B-21A (30’)
PZ-6 (30’)
B-23 (35’)
LEGEND:
BORING LOCATION (DEPTH IN FEET)
FOR AEC REPORT G166-12C
PREVIOUS BORING LOCATION (DEPTH IN FEET)
FROM AEC REPORT G147-11
B-# (X’)
B-# (X’)
G147-11
B-58A (25’)
48
42
36
30
24
18
12
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
Pavement: 5.5" asphalt
Base: 12.5" sand and gravel
Stiff to very stiff, dark gray Fat Clay (CH),with ferrous stains
-tan and gray 6'-8', with calcareous nodules6'-10'
-reddish brown and light gray, with siltstonefragments 8'-10'
Very stiff to hard, brown, reddish brown,and light gray Lean Clay w/Sand (CL), withferrous stains-with slickensides, fat clay seams, siltstonefragments, and calcareous nodules 10'-12'-light gray and tan 12'-14'-gray and tan 14'-16'-tan, reddish brown, and gray, with siltstonefragments and sand pockets 16'-18'-gray and tan 18'-20'
Stiff to hard, light gray, tan, and reddishbrown Lean Clay (CL), with ferrous stains
-reddish brown and light gray, with fat clayseams and siltstone fragments 33'-35'
Termination Depth = 35 feet.
92
99
71
87
96
110
116
116
110
10
30
28
28
29
17
17
15
17
18
15
16
21
77
62
29
40
24
23
13
13
53
39
16
27
PROJECT: Gillette Trunkline (Tuam, Smith & Elgin) Segments BORING B-12
COH WBS No. M-410290-0004-3 TYPE 4" Dry Auger / Wet Rotary DATE 1/22/13
BORING DRILLED TO 35 FEET WITHOUT DRILLING FLUID
WATER ENCOUNTERED AT 27 FEET WHILE DRILLING
WATER LEVEL AT 28.3 FEET AFTER 1/4 HR
DRILLED BY V&S DRAFTED BY BPJ LOGGED BY RJM
PLATE A-3
EL
EV
EV
AT
ION
IN
FE
ET
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
SY
MB
OL
SA
MP
LE
IN
TE
RV
AL
DESCRIPTION
.
S.P
.T.
BL
OW
S /
FT
.
-2
00
ME
SH
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y,
PC
F
MO
IST
UR
E C
ON
TE
NT
, %
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
ITY
IN
DE
X
SHEAR STRENGTH, TSF
0.5 1 1.5 2
Torvane
Pocket Penetrometer
Unconfined Compression
Confined Compression
PROJECT NO. G166-12C
Elevation: 50.18
Northing: 13838966.08
Easting: 3116588.52
Survey Coordinates (TSPC, Surface):
48
42
36
30
24
18
12
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
Pavement: 8.5" asphalt
Base: 11.5" stabilized sand and gravel-slight hydrocarbon odor 12"-20"
Stiff to very stiff, dark gray Fat Clay (CH),with ferrous nodules-gray and tan 4'-8'
-with calcareous nodules 6'-12'
-reddish brown and light gray 8'-12'
Very stiff to hard, gray and tan Lean Clay w/Sand (CL), with sand pockets and ferrousnodules
-with calcareous nodules 18'-20'
Light gray and tan Clayey Sand (SC)
Hard, reddish brown and light gray SandyLean Clay (CL), with fat clay pockets, siltpartings, and sand pockets-slight hydrocarbon odor 33'-35'
Very stiff, reddish brown and light gray LeanClay (CL), with abundant silt partings
Termination depth = 40 feet.
90
78
79
40
89
98
98
118
119
112
8
28
28
26
25
29
17
18
17
15
14
16
18
19
66
33
49
29
25
22
14
18
12
17
44
19
31
17
8
PROJECT: Gillette Trunkline (Tuam, Smith & Elgin) Segments BORING B-13
COH WBS No. M-410290-0004-3 TYPE 4" Dry Auger / Wet Rotary DATE 1/23/13
BORING DRILLED TO 40 FEET WITHOUT DRILLING FLUID
WATER ENCOUNTERED AT 37 FEET WHILE DRILLING
WATER LEVEL AT 31.0 FEET AFTER 1/4 HR
DRILLED BY V&S DRAFTED BY BPJ LOGGED BY RJM
PLATE A-4
EL
EV
EV
AT
ION
IN
FE
ET
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
SY
MB
OL
SA
MP
LE
IN
TE
RV
AL
DESCRIPTION
.
S.P
.T.
BL
OW
S /
FT
.
-2
00
ME
SH
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y,
PC
F
MO
IST
UR
E C
ON
TE
NT
, %
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
ITY
IN
DE
X
SHEAR STRENGTH, TSF
0.5 1 1.5 2
Torvane
Pocket Penetrometer
Unconfined Compression
Confined Compression
PROJECT NO. G166-12C
Elevation: 49.26
Northing: 13838713.62
Easting: 3117006.93
Survey Coordinates (TSPC, Surface):
42
36
30
24
18
12
6
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
Pavement: 4" asphalt
Pavement: 6" concrete
Stiff to very stiff, dark gray Fat Clay (CH),with slickensides and ferrous nodules
-gray and tan 4'-6'
-dark gray, light gray, and tan 6'-8'
-reddish brown and light gray, withcalcareous nodules 8'-12'
Stiff to hard, gray and tan Lean Clay w/Sand (CL), with ferrous nodules-with silt partings 12'-18'-light gray and tan 14'-25'
-with sand pockets and calcareous nodules18'-25'
Hard, reddish brown and light gray Fat Clay(CH), with calcareous nodules
Termination depth = 30 feet.
92
94
74
75
105
103
113
112
22
22
22
23
25
23
17
18
19
14
18
18
62
66
26
41
20
21
15
17
42
45
11
24
4.3
PROJECT: Gillette Trunkline (Tuam, Smith & Elgin) Segments BORING B-14
COH WBS No. M-410290-0004-3 TYPE 4" Dry Auger DATE 1/23/13
BORING DRILLED TO 30 FEET WITHOUT DRILLING FLUID
WATER ENCOUNTERED AT N/A FEET WHILE DRILLING
WATER LEVEL AT N/A FEET AFTER DRILLING
DRILLED BY V&S DRAFTED BY BPJ LOGGED BY RJM
PLATE A-5
EL
EV
EV
AT
ION
IN
FE
ET
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
SY
MB
OL
SA
MP
LE
IN
TE
RV
AL
DESCRIPTION
.
S.P
.T.
BL
OW
S /
FT
.
-2
00
ME
SH
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y,
PC
F
MO
IST
UR
E C
ON
TE
NT
, %
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
ITY
IN
DE
X
SHEAR STRENGTH, TSF
0.5 1 1.5 2
Torvane
Pocket Penetrometer
Unconfined Compression
Confined Compression
PROJECT NO. G166-12C
Elevation: 46.98
Northing: 13838437.22
Easting: 3117411.02
Survey Coordinates (TSPC, Surface):
42
36
30
24
18
12
6
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
Pavement: 9" asphalt
Very stiff, dark gray Fat Clay (CH), withferrous stains
Very stiff, gray and tan Lean Clay w/Sand(CL), with ferrous nodules
-light gray, tan, and reddish brown, withcalcareous nodules 6'-8'
Stiff, reddish brown and gray Sandy LeanClay (CL), with silt partings and ferrousnodules
Very stiff to hard, gray and tan Lean Clay(CL), with ferrous nodules-with silt and sand pockets 12'-18'
-light gray and tan 16'-20', with sandpartings 16'-18'
-light gray, tan, and reddish brown 23'-25'
-reddish brown and light gray, withcalcareous nodules 28'-30'
Termination depth = 30 feet.
88
76
90
112
103
114
116
18
20
17
23
21
24
17
19
17
16
18
20
56
42
42
49
15
15
12
15
41
27
30
343.0
PROJECT: Gillette Trunkline (Tuam, Smith & Elgin) Segments BORING B-15
COH WBS No. M-410290-0004-3 TYPE 4" Dry Auger DATE 1/23/13
BORING DRILLED TO 30 FEET WITHOUT DRILLING FLUID
WATER ENCOUNTERED AT N/A FEET WHILE DRILLING
WATER LEVEL AT N/A FEET AFTER DRILLING
DRILLED BY V&S DRAFTED BY BPJ LOGGED BY RJM
PLATE A-6
EL
EV
EV
AT
ION
IN
FE
ET
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
SY
MB
OL
SA
MP
LE
IN
TE
RV
AL
DESCRIPTION
.
S.P
.T.
BL
OW
S /
FT
.
-2
00
ME
SH
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y,
PC
F
MO
IST
UR
E C
ON
TE
NT
, %
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
ITY
IN
DE
X
SHEAR STRENGTH, TSF
0.5 1 1.5 2
Torvane
Pocket Penetrometer
Unconfined Compression
Confined Compression
PROJECT NO. G166-12C
Elevation: 45.23
Northing: 13838093.9
Easting: 3117974.99
Survey Coordinates (TSPC, Surface):
42
36
30
24
18
12
6
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
Pavement: 9.5" concrete
Base: 9.5" stabilized sand with gravel andshell
Stiff to hard, dark gray Fat Clay w/Sand(CH), with slickensides and ferrous nodules-light gray and tan, with calcareous nodules4'-16'
-sandy clay layer 14'-15'
Medium dense, light gray and tan PoorlyGraded Sand w/Silt (SP-SM)
-wet at 18'-tan 18'-20'
Very stiff to hard, reddish brown and lightgray Fat Clay (CH), with slickensides-with silt pockets 23'-25'
-with calcareous nodules 28'-30'
Termination depth = 30 feet.
26
22
77
85
8
95
98
111
111
19
20
19
26
23
23
19
21
21
21
19
22
59
66
60
15
18
21
44
48
39
PROJECT: Gillette Trunkline (Tuam, Smith & Elgin) Segments BORING B-16
COH WBS No. M-410290-0004-3 TYPE 4" Dry Auger / Wet Rotary DATE 1/23/13
BORING DRILLED TO 20 FEET WITHOUT DRILLING FLUID
WATER ENCOUNTERED AT 18 FEET WHILE DRILLING
WATER LEVEL AT 16.4 FEET AFTER 1/4 HR
DRILLED BY V&S DRAFTED BY BPJ LOGGED BY RJM
PLATE A-7
EL
EV
EV
AT
ION
IN
FE
ET
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
SY
MB
OL
SA
MP
LE
IN
TE
RV
AL
DESCRIPTION
.
S.P
.T.
BL
OW
S /
FT
.
-2
00
ME
SH
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y,
PC
F
MO
IST
UR
E C
ON
TE
NT
, %
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
ITY
IN
DE
X
SHEAR STRENGTH, TSF
0.5 1 1.5 2
Torvane
Pocket Penetrometer
Unconfined Compression
Confined Compression
PROJECT NO. G166-12C
Elevation: 45.44
Northing: 13838505.987
Easting: 3117907.963
Survey Coordinates (TSPC, Surface):
42
36
30
24
18
12
6
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
Pavement: 10" concrete
Base: 12" lime-stabilized sand with graveland shell
Fill: stabilized, gray Fat Clay w/Sand (CH),with gravel
Very stiff, gray and tan Fat Clay w/Sand(CH), with ferrous nodules-with vertical silty clay seams 2'-4'-with calcareous nodules and roots 4'-6'-with sand pockets 6'-10'-with calcareous nodules 8'-10'
Stiff, light gray and tan Sandy Lean Clay(CL), with sand seams
Light gray and tan Clayey Sand (SC)
Medium dense to very dense, light gray andtan Silty Sand (SM)
-borehole caved in at 17.6'-wet at 18'
Very stiff, reddish brown, light gray, and tanFat Clay (CH)
Stiff to very stiff, light gray, tan, and reddishbrown Sandy Lean Clay (CL), with sandpockets, silt pockets, and calcareousnodules
Termination depth = 30 feet.
19
15
51
27
75
85
19
21
97
113
113
115
23
24
19
18
20
14
13
10
20
8
20
18
52
53
23
53
20
17
7
18
32
36
16
35
PROJECT: Gillette Trunkline (Tuam, Smith & Elgin) Segments BORING B-17
COH WBS No. M-410290-0004-3 TYPE 4" Dry Auger / Wet Rotary DATE 1/24/13
BORING DRILLED TO 20 FEET WITHOUT DRILLING FLUID
WATER ENCOUNTERED AT 18 FEET WHILE DRILLING
WATER LEVEL AT 17.6 FEET AFTER 1/4 HR
DRILLED BY V&S DRAFTED BY BPJ LOGGED BY RJM
PLATE A-8
EL
EV
EV
AT
ION
IN
FE
ET
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
SY
MB
OL
SA
MP
LE
IN
TE
RV
AL
DESCRIPTION
.
S.P
.T.
BL
OW
S /
FT
.
-2
00
ME
SH
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y,
PC
F
MO
IST
UR
E C
ON
TE
NT
, %
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
ITY
IN
DE
X
SHEAR STRENGTH, TSF
0.5 1 1.5 2
Torvane
Pocket Penetrometer
Unconfined Compression
Confined Compression
PROJECT NO. G166-12C
Elevation: 45.16
Northing: 13838020.775
Easting: 3117595.391
Survey Coordinates (TSPC, Surface):
42
36
30
24
18
12
6
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
Pavement: 10" concrete
Base: 9" stabilized sand with shell andgravel
Fill: dark gray Lean Clay (CL)
Very stiff, dark gray Lean Clay (CL), withferrous nodules-gray and tan, with calcareous nodules 4'-8'
Very stiff, reddish brown and light gray FatClay (CH), with abundant calcareousnodules
Very stiff, tan, light gray, and brown SandyLean Clay (CL), with calcareous nodules
Medium dense to dense, tan Poorly GradedSand w/Silt (SP-SM)
-with sandstone seams 15'-16'
Very stiff to hard, tan and light gray LeanClay w/Sand (CL), with ferrous stains
-tan, reddish brown, and light gray 18'-20',with sand pockets and calcareous nodules18'-25'
-light gray, tan, and reddish brown, with siltpartings 28'-30'
Termination depth = 30 feet.
17
44
89
91
10
76
72
106
115
112
119
20
19
22
23
24
17
5
5
13
21
15
16
49
56
35
47
17
20
12
16
32
36
23
31
PROJECT: Gillette Trunkline (Tuam, Smith & Elgin) Segments BORING B-18
COH WBS No. M-410290-0004-3 TYPE 4" Dry Auger DATE 1/24/13
BORING DRILLED TO 30 FEET WITHOUT DRILLING FLUID
WATER ENCOUNTERED AT N/A FEET WHILE DRILLING
WATER LEVEL AT N/A FEET AFTER DRILLING
DRILLED BY V&S DRAFTED BY BPJ LOGGED BY RJM
PLATE A-9
EL
EV
EV
AT
ION
IN
FE
ET
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
SY
MB
OL
SA
MP
LE
IN
TE
RV
AL
DESCRIPTION
.
S.P
.T.
BL
OW
S /
FT
.
-2
00
ME
SH
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y,
PC
F
MO
IST
UR
E C
ON
TE
NT
, %
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
ITY
IN
DE
X
SHEAR STRENGTH, TSF
0.5 1 1.5 2
Torvane
Pocket Penetrometer
Unconfined Compression
Confined Compression
PROJECT NO. G166-12C
Elevation: 45.46
Northing: 13837632.288
Easting: 3117343.596
Survey Coordinates (TSPC, Surface):
42
36
30
24
18
12
6
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
Pavement: 9.5" concrete
Base: 5" wood
Stiff to very stiff, gray and tan Fat Clay w/Sand (CH), with slickensides and ferrousnodules-with calcareous nodules 4'-8'
Stiff to very stiff, tan and gray Sandy SiltyClay (CL-ML)
-with silt layers and clayey sand layers 10'-12'
Stiff, light gray Silty Clay w/Sand (CL-ML)
Very stiff to hard, light gray and tan SandyLean Clay (CL)-with abundant calcareous nodules 16'-18'-with sand partings and pockets 18'-25'
Medium dense to dense, tan Silty Sand(SM)-wet at 28'
Termination depth = 35 feet.
12
30
32
85
61
75
56
65
17
110
110
117
118
21
20
19
20
16
16
16
17
11
15
16
20
21
51
20
30
40
15
14
12
15
36
6
18
25
PROJECT: Gillette Trunkline (Tuam, Smith & Elgin) Segments BORING B-19
COH WBS No. M-410290-0004-3 TYPE 4" Dry Auger / Wet Rotary DATE 1/24/13
BORING DRILLED TO 30 FEET WITHOUT DRILLING FLUID
WATER ENCOUNTERED AT 28 FEET WHILE DRILLING
WATER LEVEL AT 19.5 FEET AFTER 1/4 HR
DRILLED BY V&S DRAFTED BY BPJ LOGGED BY RJM
PLATE A-10
EL
EV
EV
AT
ION
IN
FE
ET
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
SY
MB
OL
SA
MP
LE
IN
TE
RV
AL
DESCRIPTION
.
S.P
.T.
BL
OW
S /
FT
.
-2
00
ME
SH
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y,
PC
F
MO
IST
UR
E C
ON
TE
NT
, %
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
ITY
IN
DE
X
SHEAR STRENGTH, TSF
0.5 1 1.5 2
Torvane
Pocket Penetrometer
Unconfined Compression
Confined Compression
PROJECT NO. G166-12C
Elevation: 44.72
Northing: 13837224.183
Easting: 3117770.071
Survey Coordinates (TSPC, Surface):
42
36
30
24
18
12
6
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
Pavement: 9.5" concrete
Base: 12.5" stabilized sand with gravel andshell
Fill: stabilized, dark gray Fat Clay (CH), withgravel
Very stiff, tan and gray Fat Clay (CH), withferrous nodules-with sand pockets 4'-8'
Stiff to hard, tan and light gray Lean Clay w/Sand (CL), with ferrous nodules-slight hydrocarbon odor 8'-10'-strong hydrocarbon odor 10'-12'-with slickensides, sand seams, and sandpockets 10'-12'-with silt pockets 10'-16'-moderate hydrocarbon odor 12'-14'-slight hydrocarbon odor 14'-16'-with sand pockets 16'-20'
Very stiff to hard, reddish brown and lightgray Lean Clay (CL)
-with abundant calcareous nodules 28'-30'
Termination depth = 30 feet.
91
79
77
93
112
104
116
114
19
19
17
17
19
22
20
18
18
15
19
19
67
37
29
48
23
15
12
16
44
22
17
32
PROJECT: Gillette Trunkline (Tuam, Smith & Elgin) Segments BORING B-20
COH WBS No. M-410290-0004-3 TYPE 4" Dry Auger DATE 1/25/13
BORING DRILLED TO 30 FEET WITHOUT DRILLING FLUID
WATER ENCOUNTERED AT N/A FEET WHILE DRILLING
WATER LEVEL AT N/A FEET AFTER DRILLING
DRILLED BY V&S DRAFTED BY BPJ LOGGED BY RJM
PLATE A-11
EL
EV
EV
AT
ION
IN
FE
ET
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
SY
MB
OL
SA
MP
LE
IN
TE
RV
AL
DESCRIPTION
.
S.P
.T.
BL
OW
S /
FT
.
-2
00
ME
SH
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y,
PC
F
MO
IST
UR
E C
ON
TE
NT
, %
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
ITY
IN
DE
X
SHEAR STRENGTH, TSF
0.5 1 1.5 2
Torvane
Pocket Penetrometer
Unconfined Compression
Confined Compression
PROJECT NO. G166-12C
Elevation: 44.39
Northing: 13836869.854
Easting: 3117671.289
Survey Coordinates (TSPC, Surface):
42
36
30
24
18
12
6
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
Pavement: 9.5" concrete
Base: 8.5" stabilized sand with gravel andshell
Fill: stabilized, dark gray Fat Clay w/Sand(CH), with gravel
Stiff to very stiff, gray and tan Fat Clay w/Sand (CH), with calcareous nodules-with sand pockets 2'-4'-light gray 4'-6'
Stiff to very stiff, gray, tan, and reddishbrown Lean Clay (CL)-with calcareous nodules 6'-10'-reddish brown and gray, with sand pockets8'-12'
Very stiff, reddish brown Fat Clay w/Sand(CH), with calcareous nodules, interlayeredwith sandy silt
Firm to stiff, light gray and tan Lean Clay w/Sand (CL), with abundant silt partings,moist
Very stiff, light gray and tan Sandy LeanClay (CL), with ferrous nodules
Hard, reddish brown and light gray Fat Clayw/Sand (CH), with calcareous nodules-with abundant calcareous nodules 23'-25'
Termination depth = 30 feet.
15
84
93
78
73
82
109
105
119
116
113
23
20
19
20
20
23
26
18
18
15
20
19
53
30
23
57
17
21
13
18
36
9
10
39
PROJECT: Gillette Trunkline (Tuam, Smith & Elgin) Segments BORING B-21
COH WBS No. M-410290-0004-3 TYPE 4" Dry Auger DATE 1/25/13
BORING DRILLED TO 30 FEET WITHOUT DRILLING FLUID
WATER ENCOUNTERED AT N/A FEET WHILE DRILLING
WATER LEVEL AT N/A FEET AFTER DRILLING
DRILLED BY V&S DRAFTED BY BPJ LOGGED BY RJM
PLATE A-12
EL
EV
EV
AT
ION
IN
FE
ET
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
SY
MB
OL
SA
MP
LE
IN
TE
RV
AL
DESCRIPTION
.
S.P
.T.
BL
OW
S /
FT
.
-2
00
ME
SH
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y,
PC
F
MO
IST
UR
E C
ON
TE
NT
, %
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
ITY
IN
DE
X
SHEAR STRENGTH, TSF
0.5 1 1.5 2
Torvane
Pocket Penetrometer
Unconfined Compression
Confined Compression
PROJECT NO. G166-12C
Elevation: 46.27
Northing: 13836259.874
Easting: 3117277.752
Survey Coordinates (TSPC, Surface):
42
36
30
24
18
12
6
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
Pavement: 9.5" concrete
Fill: stiff to very stiff, black Fat Clay w/ Sand(CH)-with lime-stabilized clay seams 0'-2'-dark brown and gray, with silty sandpockets 2'-4'
Very stiff, gray and tan Fat Clay (CH), withcalcareous nodules
Firm to very stiff, brown and gray Lean Clayw/Sand (CL)-with silty clay seams 8'-10'-red, with silty sand seams 10'-12'
-gray and tan 12'-20', with clayey sandseams 12'-14'
-with silty sand pockets 14'-16', andcalcareous nodules 14'-20'
-with silty sand seams 18'-20'
Hard, light gray, red, and tan Fat Clay (CH),with slickensides
-with silt pockets 28'-30'
Termination depth = 30 feet.
85
77
72
93
100
105
102
115
24
24
18
24
24
30
18
16
16
15
16
24
52
34
35
67
17
18
15
22
35
16
20
45
PROJECT: Gillette Trunkline (Tuam, Smith & Elgin) Segments BORING B-21A
COH WBS No. M-410290-0004-3 TYPE 4" Dry Auger DATE 1/27/15
BORING DRILLED TO 30 FEET WITHOUT DRILLING FLUID
WATER ENCOUNTERED AT N/A FEET WHILE DRILLING
WATER LEVEL AT N/A FEET AFTER COMPLETE
DRILLED BY V&S DRAFTED BY CHL LOGGED BY BPJ
PLATE A-13
EL
EV
EV
AT
ION
IN
FE
ET
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
SY
MB
OL
SA
MP
LE
IN
TE
RV
AL
DESCRIPTION
.
S.P
.T.
BL
OW
S /
FT
.
-2
00
ME
SH
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y,
PC
F
MO
IST
UR
E C
ON
TE
NT
, %
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
ITY
IN
DE
X
SHEAR STRENGTH, TSF
0.5 1 1.5 2
Torvane
Pocket Penetrometer
Unconfined Compression
Confined Compression
PROJECT NO. G166-12C
Elevation: 44.969
Northing: 13836535.561
Easting: 3117429.807
Survey Coordinates (TSPC, Surface):
42
36
30
24
18
12
6
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
Pavement: 9.5" concrete
Base: 2" stabilized sand and gravel
Stiff to very stiff, gray and reddish brown FatClay w/Sand (CH)-tan and light gray 2'-8', with calcareous andferrous nodules 2'-10'
-reddish brown and gray 8'-10'
Stiff, reddish brown, tan, and light graySandy Lean Clay (CL), with silt partings-sand layer 11.7'-12'
Very stiff, reddish brown Fat Clay (CH), withsilt seams, interlayered with silt and sand
Stiff, light gray and tan Lean Clay (CL),interlayered with silt and sand
Very stiff, light gray and tan Sandy LeanClay (CL), with calcareous and ferrousnodules
Very stiff to hard, reddish brown and lightgray Fat Clay (CH), with slickensides andcalcareous nodules-with abundant calcareous nodules 23'-25'
Termination depth = 30 feet.
13
83
85
62
62
98
112
112
120
104
25
18
17
16
21
17
26
26
17
15
23
20
52
59
24
55
17
20
14
18
35
39
10
37
PROJECT: Gillette Trunkline (Tuam, Smith & Elgin) Segments BORING B-22
COH WBS No. M-410290-0004-3 TYPE 4" Dry Auger DATE 1/25/13
BORING DRILLED TO 30 FEET WITHOUT DRILLING FLUID
WATER ENCOUNTERED AT N/A FEET WHILE DRILLING
WATER LEVEL AT N/A FEET AFTER DRILLING
DRILLED BY V&S DRAFTED BY BPJ LOGGED BY RJM
PLATE A-14
EL
EV
EV
AT
ION
IN
FE
ET
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
SY
MB
OL
SA
MP
LE
IN
TE
RV
AL
DESCRIPTION
.
S.P
.T.
BL
OW
S /
FT
.
-2
00
ME
SH
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y,
PC
F
MO
IST
UR
E C
ON
TE
NT
, %
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
ITY
IN
DE
X
SHEAR STRENGTH, TSF
0.5 1 1.5 2
Torvane
Pocket Penetrometer
Unconfined Compression
Confined Compression
PROJECT NO. G166-12C
Elevation: 46.77
Northing: 13835831.944
Easting: 3116962.415
Survey Coordinates (TSPC, Surface):
42
36
30
24
18
12
6
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
Pavement: 6.3" concrete
Base: 6.5" cement stabilized shell
Very stiff, gray and tan Fat Clay w/Sand(CH)-with ferrous nodules 0'-2'-gray 2'-4', with abundant calcareousnodules 2'-6'-with ferrous nodules 4'-6'
Very stiff, gray and red Lean Clay w/Sand(CL), with abundant calcareous nodulesand sand pockets
Very soft to hard, reddish tan and gray FatClay (CH), with slickensides-with calcareous nodules 8'-12'-with abundant silt seams and pockets 10'-12'-with silty sand seams 12'-14'
Stiff, light tan Sandy Silty Clay (CL-ML), withsilty sand seams and pockets, and ferrousnodules
Stiff to hard, light gray and tan Lean Clay(CL), with slickensides and calcareousnodules-with silt seams and pockets 16'-22', andferrous nodules 16'-24'-gray and tan 22'-26'-with abundant calcareous nodules 24'-26'-boring cave-in at 25.6 feet during drilling-reddish tan and light gray, with ferrousnodules 26'-28'
-gray and red 28'-35'
-with fat clay pockets 33'-35'
Termination depth = 35 feet.
38
15
88/9"
84
79
59
89
87
110
101
119
112
106
21
20
20
23
26
27
28
18
16
15
16
16
18
18
23
13
54
45
24
47
32
18
14
18
15
15
36
31
6
32
17
PROJECT: Gillette Trunkline (Tuam, Smith & Elgin) Segments BORING B-23
COH WBS No. M-410290-0004-3 TYPE 4" Dry Auger / Wet Rotary DATE 3/30/15
BORING DRILLED TO 26 FEET WITHOUT DRILLING FLUID
WATER ENCOUNTERED AT 25 FEET WHILE DRILLING
WATER LEVEL AT 22.5 FEET AFTER 24 HR
DRILLED BY Van and Sons DRAFTED BY MRB LOGGED BY MRB
PLATE A-15
EL
EV
EV
AT
ION
IN
FE
ET
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
SY
MB
OL
SA
MP
LE
IN
TE
RV
AL
DESCRIPTION
.
S.P
.T.
BL
OW
S /
FT
.
-2
00
ME
SH
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y,
PC
F
MO
IST
UR
E C
ON
TE
NT
, %
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
ITY
IN
DE
X
SHEAR STRENGTH, TSF
0.5 1 1.5 2
Torvane
Pocket Penetrometer
Unconfined Compression
Confined Compression
PROJECT NO. G166-12C
Elevation: 46.791
Northing: 13835703.915
Easting: 3116729.86
Survey Coordinates (TSPC, Surface):
42
36
30
24
18
12
6
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
Pavement: 10" concrete + 2" asphalt
Very stiff to hard, dark gray Sandy LeanClay (CL), with ferrous stains*hint of hydrocarbon-like odor 1'-2'-gray and tan, with sand pockets 2'-4'-light gray and tan 4'-10'
-with calcareous nodules 6'-8'
Loose to medium dense, tan and light graySilty Sand (SM)*hint of hydrocarbon-like odor 10'-18' (odordetected during drilling, but not two dayslater during sample inspection)
Very stiff to hard, light gray and tan LeanClay w/Sand (CL), with ferrous stains*hydrocarbon-like odor 18'-20'*hint of hydrocarbon-like odor 20'-22'
Termination depth = 25 feet.
**Survey data not available; coordinates areestimated.
7
11
12
9
63
15
74
107
110
22
20
15
16
20
6
5
4
6
20
14
15
17
40
39
13
12
27
27
PROJECT: Water Line Replacement in Avondale Area BORING B-58A
COH WBS No. S-000035-0127-4 TYPE 4" Dry Auger DATE 9/21/11
BORING DRILLED TO 25 FEET WITHOUT DRILLING FLUID
WATER ENCOUNTERED AT N/A FEET WHILE DRILLING
WATER LEVEL AT N/A FEET AFTER COMPLETE
DRILLED BY V&S DRAFTED BY LOGGED BY AEC
PLATE A-16
EL
EV
EV
AT
ION
IN
FE
ET
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
SY
MB
OL
SA
MP
LE
IN
TE
RV
AL
DESCRIPTION
.
S.P
.T.
BL
OW
S /
FT
.
-2
00
ME
SH
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y,
PC
F
MO
IST
UR
E C
ON
TE
NT
, %
LIQ
UID
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
LIM
IT
PL
AS
TIC
ITY
IN
DE
X
SHEAR STRENGTH, TSF
0.5 1 1.5 2
Torvane
Pocket Penetrometer
Unconfined Compression
Confined Compression
PROJECT NO. G147-11
Elevation: 46**
Northing: 13837565**
Easting: 3116858**
Survey Coordinates (TSPC, Surface):
Symbol Description
Strata symbols
Paving
Fill
High plasticity
clay
Low plasticity
clay
Clayey sand
Poorly graded sand
with silt
Silty sand
Silty low plasticity
clay
Misc. Symbols
Water table depth
during drilling
Subsequent water
table depth
Pocket Penetrometer
Confined Compression
Unconfined Compression
Soil Samplers
Rock core
Symbol Description
Auger
Undisturbed thin wall
Shelby tube
Standard penetration test
KEY TO SYMBOLS
PLATE A-17
���� � ��� ��� �� ��
� ��� �� � �� � �� ���� ����
� �� ��� � �� ���� �� ����� ����
��� ��� � �� ����
� ��� ���� � �� �� �� �� ��� ����
� ���� ���� � � ����� ������ � ����
���� ��� � � ����
� ��� ���� � �� �� �� �� �� ����
� ���� ���� � � ���� �������� ����
�� ���� ���� � �� ���
�� ���� ���� � �� ����� ��� ����� ���
�� ���� ���� � �� � �� � ���� �� �
�� ���� ���� � �� ����� ��������� ���
���� � ��� ��� �� �
� ��� �� � �� ����
� �� ��� � �� ���� ������� ����
��� ��� � �� �� �� ���� ����
� ��� ���� � �� �� �
� ���� ���� � �� ��� ����� � ����
���� ��� � � �� � �� ��� �� �
� ��� ���� � �� ����
� ���� ���� � � �� �� ��������� ����
�� ���� ���� � �� � �� �� ��� ���
�� ���� ���� � � ����� ��������� ���
�� ���� ���� � �� �� �� � ��� ���
�� ���� ���� � �� ����� �������� ���
� ���� ��� � �� �� � � ���� ����
��� � ��� ��� �� ��
� ��� �� � �� �� �� � ���� ����
� �� ��� � �� ����� �������� ����
��� ��� � �� ����
� ��� ���� � �� �� �� � �� ����
� ���� ���� � �� ����� ��� �� � ����
�������������
�������������
�������������
���� ��
� ! �"�#
� "
$�% ��&�'�� "(��
)''�*+�,��$-)$�*-).$)
�/(� 0�-!1(! "(!1���"%�"��(�!
�"�2 ���3�# 4��5..-$$-��$*36.53-��$�'7�)'5$��8�-.�53��)-�'-3$)
9�)�3:#; "4�'������������
�-���"�2 ���3:#; "4���������
��"(!1�
3�� 3��$�% �����#
$�%
� %�<��&��
)�#%�
)�$�
�;��=0>&��
9�� "�
��!� !��
�?�
�"��
� !0(���
�%�&�..��?�
)< �"�)�" !1�<���0&�� "� !��
��00(!1�
)( / �@����
�?�
!��!&(! A�
��#%" 00(�!
����!&(!(!1�
%" 00:" 7�%0(�$�"/�!
��� "; "1�.(#(�0
�.��?� �5��?�
. 1 !A
��B�!�(0�:"; A�0�#%� 7� C�":A A�(!�&( �A
))�B�)%�(��)%��!�0�#%�
���B��:1 "��:��(!10
)�$�B�)��!A�"A�� ! �"��(�!�$ 0�
..�B��.(D:(A�.(#(�
�.�B����0�(��.(#(�
�5�B����0�(�(���5!A C
�B�$"(�C(�����#% 00(�!
3�� 04
�������������
�������������
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
���� ��)�!A��)��
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!��������.�
. �!��������.�
. �!��������.�
�������������
�������������
�������������
�������������
�������������
�������������
�������������
�������������
�������������
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
)�!A��. �!��������.�
. �!��������.�
�������������
�������������
�������������
� � � � � �� � �
��� ���� ��� � � �� �
� ��� ���� � �� �� �� �� ��� ����
� ���� ���� � �� ����� �������� ����
�� ���� ���� � � ���
�� ���� ���� � �� � � � �� ���
�� ���� ���� � �� ����� ��������� ���
���� � ��� ��� � �� ����
� ��� �� � �� �� �� � ���� ����
� �� ��� � � ����� �� ����� ����
��� ��� � �� ����
� ��� ���� � �� � �� � ��� ����
� ���� ���� � � ���� ����� � ����
���� ��� � � ����
� ��� ���� � �� � �� �� ���� ����
� ���� ���� � � ��� ��������� ����
�� ���� ���� � �� ����
�� ���� ���� � �� ����� � �� � �������� ���
�� ���� ���� � �� ���
���� � ��� ��� �� ��
� ��� �� � �� �� �
� �� ��� � �� �� �� ��� ����
��� ��� � �� ���� ��� ���� ����
� ��� ���� � �� ����
� ���� ���� � �� �� �� � ��� ����
���� ��� � �� ���
� ��� ���� � �� ����� ��������� �� �
� ���� ���� )�$ �� ��
�� ���� ���� )�$ �� �� ���
�� ���� ���� � �� ����� ��� ���� ���
�� ���� ���� � �� �� �� �� ���� ���
��� � ��� ��� �� ��
� ��� �� � � �� �� �� �� ����
� �� ��� � �� ����� �� ���� ����
. 1 !A
��B�!�(0�:"; A�0�#%� 7� C�":A A�(!�&( �A ..�B��.(D:(A�.(#(� 3�� 04
))�B�)%�(��)%��!�0�#%� �.�B����0�(��.(#(�
���B��:1 "��:��(!10 �5�B����0�(�(���5!A C
)�$�B�)��!A�"A�� ! �"��(�!�$ 0� �B�$"(�C(�����#% 00(�!
���������=>)�!A�����
���������=>)�!A�����
���������=>)�!A�����
���������=>)�!A�����
���������=>)�!A�����
�������������
�������������
�(��4����������=>)�!A�����
���������=>)�!A�����
���"����"�A A�)�!A�=>)(��
�)��)'�
���������=>)�!A�����
)�!A��. �!��������.�
. �!��������.�
. �!��������.�
. �!��������.�
. �!��������.�
. �!��������.�
. �!��������.�
���������=>)�!A�����
���������=>)�!A�����
���������=>)�!A�����
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
�������������
�������������
�������������
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
��� "; "1�.(#(�0 � "� !��
��00(!1�
)( / �@����
�?�
)< �"�)�" !1�<���0&�
$�% ��&�'�� "(��3��
� %�<��&��
$�% ..��?� �.��?� �5��?�!��!&(! A�
��#%" 00(�!
����!&(!(!1�
%" 00:" 7�%0(�$�"/�!
���� ��
� ! �"�#
� "$�% �����#
)''�*+�,��$-)$�*-).$)�"�2 ���3�# 4��5..-$$-��$*36.53-��$�'7�)'5$��8�-.�53��)-�'-3$)
9�)�3:#; "4�'������������
�/(� 0�-!1(! "(!1���"%�"��(�! �-���"�2 ���3:#; "4���������
��"(!1�
3��
)�#%�
)�$�
�;��=0>&��
9�� "�
��!� !��
�?�
�"��
� !0(���
�%�&�
� � � � � �� � �
��� ��� ��� � �� �� � �� ��� ����
� ��� ���� � �� ����
� ���� ���� � � ����� ���� � ����
���� ��� � �� �� �� ����
� ��� ���� )�$ �� ��
� ���� ���� )�$ �� ��
�� ���� ���� )�$ �� � ����
�� ���� ���� )�$ � �� �� �� �� � �� ����
�� ���� ���� � �� ����� �� ������ ���
���� � ��� ��� �� ��
� ��� �� � �� � � �� ���� �� �
� �� ��� � �� ���� �������� ����
��� ��� � �� �� �
� ��� ���� � � �� �� �� ���� �� �
� ���� ���� � � ���� ������ � ����
���� ��� )�$ � � ���
� ��� ���� )�$ �
� ���� ���� � �� �� �� �� �� ���
�� ���� ���� � �� ����� �� ������ ���
�� ���� ���� � �� �� �� ��� ���
�� ���� ���� � �� ����� ��������� ����
���� � ��� ��� �� ����
� ��� �� �� �� �� �� ��� �� �
� �� ��� �� ���� �������� �� �
��� ��� �� ����
� ��� ���� �� ����� ������� �� �
� ���� ���� �� �� � � ���� ����
���� ��� �� �� ���
� ��� ���� � ����� �������� ����
� ���� ���� �� �� �� �� ���� ���
�� ���� ���� �� ���
�� ���� ���� �� ����� � �� �� �� �������� ���
�� ���� ���� �� ��
�� ���� ���� �� �� ����
. 1 !A
��B�!�(0�:"; A�0�#%� 7� C�":A A�(!�&( �A ..�B��.(D:(A�.(#(� 3�� 04
))�B�)%�(��)%��!�0�#%� �.�B����0�(��.(#(�
���B��:1 "��:��(!10 �5�B����0�(�(���5!A C
)�$�B�)��!A�"A�� ! �"��(�!�$ 0� �B�$"(�C(�����#% 00(�!
)(����)�!A��)'�
���������=>)�!A�����
���������=>)�!A�����
���������=>)�!A�����
)�!A��)(�����������.�'.�
)�!A��)(�����������.�'.�
)(���������=>)�!A���.�'.�
)(���������=>)�!A���.�'.�
)�!A��. �!��������.�
)�!A��. �!��������.�
)�!A��. �!��������.�
)(����)�!A��)'�
���������=>)�!A�����
. �!��������.�
. �!��������.�
�������������
��������������8�. �!��������.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
���"����"�A A�)�!A�=>)(��
�)��)'�
. �!��������.�
���������=>)�!A�����
���������=>)�!A�����
)�!A��. �!��������.�
���� ��)�!A��)��
)(����)�!A��)'�
)(����)�!A��)'�
)(����)�!A��)'�
�������������
)�!A��. �!��������.�
�(��4�. �!��������.�
��� "; "1�.(#(�0 � "� !��
��00(!1�
)( / �@����
�?�
)< �"�)�" !1�<���0&�
$�% ��&�'�� "(��3��
� %�<��&��
$�% ..��?� �.��?� �5��?�!��!&(! A�
��#%" 00(�!
����!&(!(!1�
%" 00:" 7�%0(�$�"/�!
���� ��
� ! �"�#
� "$�% �����#
)''�*+�,��$-)$�*-).$)�"�2 ���3�# 4��5..-$$-��$*36.53-��$�'7�)'5$��8�-.�53��)-�'-3$)
9�)�3:#; "4�'������������
�/(� 0�-!1(! "(!1���"%�"��(�! �-���"�2 ���3:#; "4���������
��"(!1�
3��
)�#%�
)�$�
�;��=0>&��
9�� "�
��!� !��
�?�
�"��
� !0(���
�%�&�
� � � � � �� � �
���� � ��� ��� �� ��
� ��� �� � �� � �� ��� ����
� �� ��� � � ����� �������� ����
��� ��� � � ���
� ��� ���� � �� � �� �� ��� �� �
� ���� ���� � �� ����� ������ � ����
���� ��� � �� ����
� ��� ���� � �� �� �� � �� ����
� ���� ���� � �� ����� ��������� ����
�� ���� ���� � �� ���
�� ���� ���� � �� ���� ��������� ���
�� ���� ���� � �� � �� �� ���� ���
���� � ��� ��� �� ��
� ��� �� � �� �� � �� ��� ����
� �� ��� � �� ����� �� ����� ����
��� ��� � �� ����
� ��� ���� � �� �� �� � ���� ����
� ���� ���� � �� ���� ������ � ����
���� ��� )�$ �� �� � ����
� ��� ���� � �� ����� ��������� ����
� ���� ���� � �� �� �� �� �� ����
�� ���� ���� � �� ���� ��������� ����
�� ���� ���� � �� � �� �� ��� ���
�� ���� ���� � �� ����� �������� ���
����� � ��� ��� � � �� � �� ��� ����
� ��� �� � � ���� ���� �� �
� �� ��� � �� ����
��� ��� � � ����
� ��� ���� � � ����� � �� �� ��� �������� ����
� ���� ���� � �� ����
���� ��� � �� ����
� ��� ���� � �� ����
� ���� ���� � �� ���� �� �� �� ��� ��������� ���
�� ���� ���� � �� ���
. 1 !A
��B�!�(0�:"; A�0�#%� 7� C�":A A�(!�&( �A ..�B��.(D:(A�.(#(� 3�� 04
))�B�)%�(��)%��!�0�#%� �.�B����0�(��.(#(�
���B��:1 "��:��(!10 �5�B����0�(�(���5!A C
)�$�B�)��!A�"A�� ! �"��(�!�$ 0� �B�$"(�C(�����#% 00(�!
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
���������=>)�!A�����
�(��4����������=>)�!A�����
�(��4����������=>)�!A�����
�������������
�������������
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
���������=>)�!A�����
�(��4����������=>)�!A�����
���������=>)�!A�����
���������=>)�!A�����
. �!��������.�
. �!��������.�
. �!��������.�
���������=>)�!A�����
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
)�!A��. �!��������.�
. �!��������.�
�(��4��������������
�������������
�������������
�������������
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
. �!��������.�
��� "; "1�.(#(�0 � "� !��
��00(!1�
)( / �@����
�?�
)< �"�)�" !1�<���0&�
$�% ��&�'�� "(��3��
� %�<��&��
$�% ..��?� �.��?� �5��?�!��!&(! A�
��#%" 00(�!
����!&(!(!1�
%" 00:" 7�%0(�$�"/�!
���� ��
� ! �"�#
� "$�% �����#
)''�*+�,��$-)$�*-).$)�"�2 ���3�# 4��5..-$$-��$*36.53-��$�'7�)'5$��8�-.�53��)-�'-3$)
9�)�3:#; "4�'������������
�/(� 0�-!1(! "(!1���"%�"��(�! �-���"�2 ���3:#; "4���������
��"(!1�
3��
)�#%�
)�$�
�;��=0>&��
9�� "�
��!� !��
�?�
�"��
� !0(���
�%�&�
� � � � � �� �
����� �� ���� ���� � �� ����� �������� ���
�� ���� ���� � � � �� � ��� ���
���� � ��� ��� �� ��
� ��� �� � �� �� � �� ���� �� �
� �� ��� � � ���� �������� ����
��� ��� � �� ����
� ��� ���� � �� �� �� �� ��� �� �
� ���� ���� � � ���� ������ � ����
���� ��� )�$ �� �� ���
� ��� ���� � �� ����
� ���� ���� � � ����� � � �� ���� ��������� ����
�� ���� ���� � �� ����
�� ���� ���� � �� ���� �������� ����
�� ���� ���� � �� �� �� � � �� ���
���� � ��� ��� � �� � �� �� ��� �� �
� ��� �� � �� ���� ���� ����
� �� ��� � �� ����
��� ��� � �� � � �� ��� ����
� ��� ���� � �� ����
� ���� ���� � � ����� ������ � ����
���� ��� )�$ �� ��
� ��� ���� )�$ �� �� � �� � ����
� ���� ���� � �� �� �
�� ���� ���� � �� ����� ��������� ���
�� ���� ���� � �� ���
�� ���� ��� � �� �� �� ���� ���
�� ���� ���� � �� ���
� ���� ���� � �� ���� ������� � ���
�� ���� ���� � �� ����� ��������� ���
�� ���� ���� )�$ ��>�E �� �� �� � � ��
. 1 !A
��B�!�(0�:"; A�0�#%� 7� C�":A A�(!�&( �A ..�B��.(D:(A�.(#(� 3�� 04
))�B�)%�(��)%��!�0�#%� �.�B����0�(��.(#(�
���B��:1 "��:��(!10 �5�B����0�(�(���5!A C
)�$�B�)��!A�"A�� ! �"��(�!�$ 0� �B�$"(�C(�����#% 00(�!
. �!��������.�
. �!��������.�
. �!��������.�
. �!��������.�
. �!��������.�
. �!��������.�
. �!��������.�
. �!��������.�
)�!A��)(�����������.�'.�
)�!A��. �!��������.�
�������������
�������������
���������=>)�!A�����
���������=>)�!A�����
���������=>)�!A�����
. �!������=>)�!A���.�
�������������
�������������
�������������
$�"/�!
���� ��
� ! �"�#
� "$�% �����#
. �!��������.�
���������=>)�!A�����
���������=>)�!A�����
���������=>)�!A�����
���������=>)�!A�����
)�!A��. �!��������.�
�������������
�������������
..��?� �.��?� �5��?�!��!&(! A�
��#%" 00(�!
����!&(!(!1�
%" 00:" 7�%0(�
)''�*+�,��$-)$�*-).$)�"�2 ���3�# 4��5..-$$-��$*36.53-��$�'7�)'5$��8�-.�53��)-�'-3$)
9�)�3:#; "4�'������������
�/(� 0�-!1(! "(!1���"%�"��(�! �-���"�2 ���3:#; "4���������
�������������
�������������
���������=>)�!A�����
��"(!1�
3��
)�#%�
)�$�
�;��=0>&��
9�� "�
��!� !��
�?�
�"��
� !0(���
�%�&�
��� "; "1�.(#(�0 � "� !��
��00(!1�
)( / �@����
�?�
)< �"�)�" !1�<���0&�
$�% ��&�'�� "(��3��
� %�<��&��
$�%
� � � � � �� �
APPENDIX B
Plates B-1 to B-4 Generalized Soil Profiles
Plates B-5 to B-7 Piezometer Installation Details
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
GILLETTE TRUNKLINE (TUAM, SMITH, & ELGIN SEGMENTS)DRAINAGE AND PAVING IMPROVEMENTS, WBS NO. M-410290-0004-4
HOUSTON, TEXAS
PLATE NO. :
PLATE B-1
AVILES ENGINEERING CORPORATION
SOURCE DRAWING PROVIDED BY:
DRAFTED BY :
BpJ
DATE :
06-04-15
AEC PROJECT NO. :
G166-12
VERTICAL SCALE :
1" = 6'
HORIZONTAL SCALE :
1" = 200'
A A'GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILE A-A'
ALONG TUAM STREET
STATIONS ALONG BASELINE
ELE
VA
TIO
N IN
F
EE
T
ELE
VA
TIO
N IN
F
EE
T
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
GILLETTE TRUNKLINE (TUAM, SMITH, & ELGIN SEGMENTS)DRAINAGE AND PAVING IMPROVEMENTS, WBS NO. M-410290-0004-4
HOUSTON, TEXAS
PLATE NO. :
PLATE B-2
AVILES ENGINEERING CORPORATION
SOURCE DRAWING PROVIDED BY:
DRAFTED BY :
BpJ
DATE :
06-04-15
AEC PROJECT NO. :
G166-12
VERTICAL SCALE :
1" = 6'
HORIZONTAL SCALE :
1" = 200'
B B'GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILE B-B'
ALONG SMITH STREET
STATIONS ALONG BASELINE
ELE
VA
TIO
N IN
F
EE
T
ELE
VA
TIO
N IN
F
EE
T
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
GILLETTE TRUNKLINE (TUAM, SMITH, & ELGIN SEGMENTS)DRAINAGE AND PAVING IMPROVEMENTS, WBS NO. M-410290-0004-4
HOUSTON, TEXAS
PLATE NO. :
PLATE B-3
AVILES ENGINEERING CORPORATION
SOURCE DRAWING PROVIDED BY:
DRAFTED BY :
BpJ
DATE :
06-04-15
AEC PROJECT NO. :
G166-12
VERTICAL SCALE :
1" = 6'
HORIZONTAL SCALE :
1" = 200'
C C'GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILE C-C'
ALONG ELGIN STREET
STATIONS ALONG BASELINE
ELE
VA
TIO
N IN
F
EE
T
ELE
VA
TIO
N IN
F
EE
T
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
GILLETTE TRUNKLINE (TUAM, SMITH, & ELGIN SEGMENTS)DRAINAGE AND PAVING IMPROVEMENTS, WBS NO. M-410290-0004-4
HOUSTON, TEXAS
PLATE NO. :
PLATE B-4
AVILES ENGINEERING CORPORATION
SOURCE DRAWING PROVIDED BY:
DRAFTED BY :
BpJ
DATE :
06-04-15
AEC PROJECT NO. :
G166-12
VERTICAL SCALE :
1" = 6'
HORIZONTAL SCALE :
1" = 200'
D D'GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILE D-D'
ALONG W. ALABAMA AND MILAM STREETS
STATIONS ALONG BASELINES
ELE
VA
TIO
N IN
F
EE
T
ELE
VA
TIO
N IN
F
EE
T
30'
2" O.D. SCHEDULE 40 PVC CASING
0.010" SLOT SCREEN
THREADED PVC CAP
2" O.D. SCHEDULE 40 PVC CASING
4" DIA. BOREHOLE
BENTONITE CHIPS
FILTER SAND
GROUND SURFACE
20'
10'
METAL CAP
PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION DETAILS
AEC PROJECT NO. :
G166-12
SCALE:
DATE:
06-04-15
DRAWN BY:
BpJ
SOURCE DWG. BY:
AVILES ENGINEERING CORP.
PLATE NO. :
PLATE B-5
AVILES ENGINEERING CORPORATION
N.T.S.
BORING B-17 (PZ-4)
DEPTH FROM SURFACE:
GROUNDWATER
17.9 FT
MEASURED:
DATE
1/31/13
21.5 FT 2/26/13
GILLETTE TRUNKLINE (TUAM, SMITH, & ELGIN SEGMENTS)DRAINAGE AND PAVING IMPROVEMENTS, WBS NO. M-410290-0004-4
HOUSTON, TEXAS
30'
2" O.D. SCHEDULE 40 PVC CASING
0.010" SLOT SCREEN
THREADED PVC CAP
2" O.D. SCHEDULE 40 PVC CASING
4" DIA. BOREHOLE
BENTONITE CHIPS
FILTER SAND
GROUND SURFACE
20'
10'
METAL CAP
PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION DETAILS
AEC PROJECT NO. :
G166-12
SCALE:
DATE:
06-04-15
DRAWN BY:
BpJ
SOURCE DWG. BY:
AVILES ENGINEERING CORP.
PLATE NO. :
PLATE B-6
AVILES ENGINEERING CORPORATION
N.T.S.
BORING B-21 (PZ-5)
DEPTH FROM SURFACE:
GROUNDWATER
25.2 FT
MEASURED:
DATE
1/31/13
22.0 FT 2/26/13
GILLETTE TRUNKLINE (TUAM, SMITH, & ELGIN SEGMENTS)DRAINAGE AND PAVING IMPROVEMENTS, WBS NO. M-410290-0004-4
HOUSTON, TEXAS
30'
2" O.D. SCHEDULE 40 PVC CASING
0.010" SLOT SCREEN
THREADED PVC CAP
2" O.D. SCHEDULE 40 PVC CASING
4" DIA. BOREHOLE
BENTONITE CHIPS
FILTER SAND
GROUND SURFACE
20'
10'
METAL CAP
PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION DETAILS
AEC PROJECT NO. :
G166-12
SCALE:
DATE:
06-04-15
DRAWN BY:
BpJ
SOURCE DWG. BY:
AVILES ENGINEERING CORP.
PLATE NO. :
PLATE B-7
AVILES ENGINEERING CORPORATION
N.T.S.
BORING B-23 (PZ-6)
DEPTH FROM SURFACE:
GROUNDWATER
22.5 FT
MEASURED:
DATE
4/3/15
16.0 FT 5/4/15
GILLETTE TRUNKLINE (TUAM, SMITH, & ELGIN SEGMENTS)DRAINAGE AND PAVING IMPROVEMENTS, WBS NO. M-410290-0004-4
HOUSTON, TEXAS
APPENDIX C
Plates C-1 to C-4 Recommended Geotechnical Design Parameters
Plate C-5 Load Coefficients for Pipe Loading
Plate C-6 Live Loads on Pipe Crossing Under Roadway
G166-12 GILLETTE TRUNKLINE DRAINAGE AND PAVING IMPROVEMENTS, HOUSTON, TEXAS
SOIL PARAMETERS FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
C
(psf)
�
(deg)Ka K0 Kp
C'
(psf)
�'
(deg)Ka K0 Kp
0-10 Stiff to very stiff CH 123 61 B 1700 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 150 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
10-16 Very stiff CL 129 67 B 2100 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 200 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
16-28 Very stiff to hard CL 133 71B
(16'-20')2400 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 225 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
28-35 Stiff to hard CL 133 71 N/A 1300 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 125 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
0-6 Stiff to very stiff CH 125 63 B 1400 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 125 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
6-12 Very stiff CH 126 64 B 2000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 200 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
12-18 Very stiff CL 138 76 B 2000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 200 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
18-27 Hard CL 136 74B
(18'-20')3000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 300 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
27-32 SC 125 63 N/A 0 28 0.36 0.53 2.77 0 28 0.36 0.53 2.77
32-37 Hard CL 132 70 N/A 3000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 300 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
37-40 Very stiff CL 130 68 N/A 2000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 200 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
0-6 Very stiff CH 128 66 B 2200 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 200 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
6-12 Stiff to very stiff CH 127 65 B 2000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 200 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
12-18 Stiff to very stiff CL 134 72 B 1400 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 125 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
18-27 Hard CL 130 68B
(18'-20')3000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 300 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
27-30 Hard CH 132 70 N/A 3000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 300 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
0-4 Very stiff CH 120 58 B 2000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 200 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
4-10 Very stiff CL 131 69 B 2700 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 250 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
10-12 Stiff CL 128 66 B 1400 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 125 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
12-18 Very stiff CL 133 71B
(18'-20')2300 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 225 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
18-30 Very stiff to hard CL 137 75 N/A 3000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 300 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
0-8 Stiff to very stiff CH 123 61 B 1800 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 175 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
8-16 Very stiff to hard CH 134 72 B 2700 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 250 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
16-22 Medium dense SP-SM 125 63C
(18'-20')0 30 0.33 0.50 3.00 0 30 0.33 0.50 3.00
22-30 Very stiff to hard CH 132 70 N/A 3000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 300 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
B-17 0-2 Fill: stabilized CH 120 58 C 750 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 75 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
B-12
B-14
B-15
B-16
B-13
Long-Term
BoringDepth
(ft)Soil Type
�
(pcf)
�'
(pcf)
OSHA
Type
Short-Term� � � � � �� �
G166-12 GILLETTE TRUNKLINE DRAINAGE AND PAVING IMPROVEMENTS, HOUSTON, TEXAS
SOIL PARAMETERS FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
C
(psf)
�
(deg)Ka K0 Kp
C'
(psf)
�'
(deg)Ka K0 Kp
Long-Term
BoringDepth
(ft)Soil Type
�
(pcf)
�'
(pcf)
OSHA
Type
Short-Term
2-10 Very stiff CH 134 72 B 2200 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 200 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
10-12 Stiff CL 129 67 B 1400 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 125 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
12-14 SC 115 53 C 0 26 0.39 0.56 2.56 0 26 0.39 0.56 2.56
14-18 Medium dense SM 120 58 C 0 28 0.36 0.53 2.77 0 28 0.36 0.53 2.77
18-23 Very dense SM 125 63C
(18'-20')0 34 0.28 0.44 3.54 0 34 0.28 0.44 3.54
23-27 Very stiff CH 120 58 N/A 2000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 200 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
27-30 Stiff to very stiff CL 136 74 N/A 1800 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 175 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
0-2 Fill: CL 120 58 C 800 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 75 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
2-8 Very stiff CL 129 67 B 2400 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 225 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
8-12 Very stiff CH/CL 135 73 B 2100 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 200 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
12-16Medium dense to dense
SP-SM120 58 C 0 30 0.33 0.50 3.00 0 30 0.33 0.50 3.00
16-25 Very stiff to hard CL 136 74B
(16'-20')2800 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 275 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
25-30 Very stiff CL 138 76 N/A 2200 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 200 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
0-2 Stiff to very stiff CH 120 58 B 1000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
2-8 Very stiff CH 131 69 B 2300 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 225 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
8-16 Stiff to very stiff CL-ML 128 66 B 1400 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 125 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
16-27 Very stiff to hard CL 137 75B
(16'-20')3000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 300 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
27-35 Medium dense to dense SM 120 58 N/A 0 32 0.31 0.47 3.25 0 32 0.31 0.47 3.25
0-2 Fill: stabilized CH 120 58 C 800 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 75 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
2-8 Very stiff CH 131 69 B 2200 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 200 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
8-16 Stiff to very stiff CL 127 65 B 1300 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 125 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
16-30 Very stiff to hard CL 136 74B
(16'-20') 2000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 200 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
0-4 Fill: stiff to very stiff CH 124 62 C 1100 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
4-8 Very stiff CH 120 58 B 1600 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 150 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
8-10 Firm to stiff CL 130 68 C 900 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 75 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
B-21A
B-19
B-20
B-18
B-17
(cont.)
� � � � � �� �
G166-12 GILLETTE TRUNKLINE DRAINAGE AND PAVING IMPROVEMENTS, HOUSTON, TEXAS
SOIL PARAMETERS FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
C
(psf)
�
(deg)Ka K0 Kp
C'
(psf)
�'
(deg)Ka K0 Kp
Long-Term
BoringDepth
(ft)Soil Type
�
(pcf)
�'
(pcf)
OSHA
Type
Short-Term
10-16 Stiff to very stiff CL 120 58 B 1200 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
16-22 Very stiff CL 118 56B
(16'-20')2200 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 200 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
22-30 Hard CH 133 71 N/A 3000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 300 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
0-2 Fill: stabilized CH 120 58 C 800 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 75 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
2-6 Stiff to very stiff CH 130 68 B 1700 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 150 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
6-12 Stiff to very stiff CL 129 67 B 1000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
12-18 Firm to stiff CL/CH 140 78 B 1000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
18-22 Very stiff CL 133 71B
(18'-20')2200 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 200 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
22-30 Hard CH 134 72 N/A 3000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 300 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
0-10 Stiff to very stiff CH 131 69 B 1700 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 150 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
10-12 Stiff to very stiff CL/CH 131 69 B 1200 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
16-21 Stiff CL 140 78B
(16'-20')1200 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
21-30 Very stiff to hard CH 128 66 N/A 2000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 200 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
0-10 Very stiff CH/CL 132 70 B 2100 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 200 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
10-16Very soft to hard CH/
CL-ML128 66 C 500 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 50 16 0.57 0.72 1.76
16-26 Very stiff to hard CL 137 75B
(16'-20')2600 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 250 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
26-35 Stiff to hard CL 130 68 N/A 1900 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 175 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
0-4 Very stiff CL 128 66 B 2200 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 200 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
4-10 Very stiff to hard CL 125 63 B 3000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 300 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
10-18 Loose to medium dense SM 120 58 C 0 28 0.36 0.53 2.77 0 28 0.36 0.53 2.77
18-25 Very stiff to hard CL 132 70B
(18'-20')3000 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 300 18 0.53 0.69 1.89
B-21A
(cont.)
B-22
G147-11
B-58A
B-21
B-23
� � � � � ��
G166-12 GILLETTE TRUNKLINE DRAINAGE AND PAVING IMPROVEMENTS, HOUSTON, TEXAS
SOIL PARAMETERS FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
C
(psf)
�
(deg)Ka K0 Kp
C'
(psf)
�'
(deg)Ka K0 Kp
Long-Term
BoringDepth
(ft)Soil Type
�
(pcf)
�'
(pcf)
OSHA
Type
Short-Term
(1) �����= Unit weight for soil above water level, �����Buoyant unit weight for soil below water level. E'n = Soil modulus for native soils;
(2) C = Soil ultimate cohesion for short term (upper limit of 3,000 psf for design purposes), � = Soil friction angle for short term;
(3) C' = Soil ultimate cohesion for long term (upper limit of 300 psf for design purposes), �' = Soil friction angle for long term;
(4) Ka = Coefficient of active earth pressure, K0 = Coefficient of at-rest earth pressure, Kp = Coefficient of passive earth pressure;
(5) CL-ML = Silty Clay, CL = Lean Clay, CH = Fat Clay, SC = Clayey Sand; SM = Silty Sand; ML = Silt; SP-SM = Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
(6) OSHA Soil Types for soils in the top 20 feet below grade:
A: cohesive soils with qu = 1.5 tsf or greater (qu = Unconfined Compressive Strength of the Soil)
B: cohesive soils with qu = 0.5 tsf or greater
C: cohesive soils with qu = less than 0.5 tsf, fill materials, or granular soil
C*: submerged cohesive soils; dewatered cohesive soils can be considered OSHA Type C.
� � � � � ��
� � � � � � � �Reference: US Army Corps of Engineers Engineering Manual, EM 1110-2-2902, Oct. 31, 1997, Figure 2-5.
APPENDIX D
Plate D-1 Critical Heights of Cuts in Nonfissured Clays
Plate D-2 Maximum Allowable Slopes
Plate D-3 A Combination of Bracing and Open Cuts
Plate D-4 Lateral Pressure Diagrams for Open Cuts in Cohesive Soil-Long Term Conditions
Plate D-5 Lateral Pressure Diagrams for Open Cuts in Cohesive Soil-Short Term Conditions
Plate D-6 Lateral Pressure Diagrams for Open Cuts in Sand
Plate D-7 Bottom Stability for Braced Excavation in Clay
Plate D-8 Tunnel Behavior and TBM Selection
Plate D-9 Relation between the Width of Surface Depression and Depth of Cavity for
Tunnels
Plate D-10 Methods of Controlling Ground Water in Tunnel and Grouting Material Selection
Plate D-11 Buoyant Uplift Resistance for Buried Structures
Page 1
1993 AASHTO Pavement Design
DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System
A Proprietary AASHTOWare
Computer Software ProductAviles Engineering Corporation
Rigid Structural Design Module
Tuam Street
Rigid Structural Design
Pavement Type JRCP
Slab Thickness for Performance Period Traffic 9 in
Initial Serviceability 4.5
Terminal Serviceability 2.5
28-day Mean PCC Modulus of Rupture 600 psi
28-day Mean Elastic Modulus of Slab 3,370,000 psi
Mean Effective k-value 91 psi/in
Reliability Level 95 %
Overall Standard Deviation 0.35
Load Transfer Coefficient, J 3.2
Overall Drainage Coefficient, Cd 1.2
18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 4,830,594
Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
Period
Description
Roadbed Soil
Resilient
Modulus (psi)
Base Elastic
Modulus
(psi)
1 1 4,500 20,000
Base Type lime-stabilized subgrade
Base Thickness 8 in
Depth to Bedrock 100 ft
Projected Slab Thickness 9 in
Loss of Support Category 1
Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 91 psi/in
� � � � � � � �
Page 1
1993 AASHTO Pavement Design
DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System
A Proprietary AASHTOWare
Computer Software ProductAviles Engineering Corporation
Rigid Structural Design Module
Smith Street, Elgin Street, Milam Street, and W. Alabama Street
Rigid Structural Design
Pavement Type JRCP
Slab Thickness for Performance Period Traffic 10 in
Initial Serviceability 4.5
Terminal Serviceability 2.5
28-day Mean PCC Modulus of Rupture 600 psi
28-day Mean Elastic Modulus of Slab 3,370,000 psi
Mean Effective k-value 96 psi/in
Reliability Level 95 %
Overall Standard Deviation 0.35
Load Transfer Coefficient, J 3.2
Overall Drainage Coefficient, Cd 1.2
18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 9,599,008
Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
Period
Description
Roadbed Soil
Resilient
Modulus (psi)
Base Elastic
Modulus
(psi)
1 1 4,500 20,000
Base Type lime-stabilized subgrade
Base Thickness 10 in
Depth to Bedrock 100 ft
Projected Slab Thickness 10 in
Loss of Support Category 1
Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 96 psi/in
� � � � � � � �