PROPOSED NEW INDOOR ATHLETIC FACILITYWATER CONTENT TEST . The water content, also known as the moisture content of soils is one of the most common and simplest types of laboratory

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED NEW INDOOR ATHLETIC FACILITY

HEREFORD, DEAF SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

CLIENT: THOMAS & ISRAEL ENGINEERS ATTN: MR. MATT THOMAS

Amarillo Testing & Engineering, Inc.

Consulting Engineers & Materials Testing 1113 N. McMasters St. Amarillo, Texas 79106

P: (806) 374.2756 F: (806) 374.3277

AMARILLO TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.

CLIENT: THOMAS & ISRAEL ENGINEERS. Page 2 of 25 8/16/13

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 3 REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 3 ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................ 3 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 3 EXPLORATION, SAMPLING AND FIELD TESTING ........................ 4 LABORATORY TESTS ............................................................................ 4 SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION............................................................... 4 SOIL MECHANICS .................................................................................. 4

WATER CONTENT TEST .................................................................... 4 TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT ........................................................................ 4 ATTERBERG LIMITS .......................................................................... 5 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST .................................................... 5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ......................................................... 6 AGGREGATE SOIL PROPERTIES .................................................... 6 COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION ............................................................ 7 SOIL BEARING CAPACITIES ............................................................ 7 MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION ........................................... 8 SKIN FRICTION CALCULATION ....................................................... 8

FOUNDATION AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ..........10 STRUCTURAL BACKFILL OPERATIONS .........................................11

EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION ...................................................11 TRENCH SAFETY ...................................................................................12

DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................14 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ..................................................16

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

SITE LAYOUT RECORDS OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION



INTRODUCTION The objectives for this geotechnical report is to compile adequate subsurface soil condition data in order to obtain a detailed understanding of the engineering and geologic properties of the soil and in some cases rock strata that could impact the foundation design process of the project. This report is the result of a sub-soil exploration investigation conducted for the proposed new Indoor Athletic Facility to be constructed in Hereford, Deaf Smith County, TX This investigation includes sub-surface explorations, laboratory testing, and engineer’s recommendations concerning soil conditions. Details of this investigation with recommendations are depicted in this report.

REFERENCES

“Foundation Analysis and Design” by Joseph E. Bowles “Foundation Engineering Handbook” by Robert W. Day “Foundation Engineering” by Peck, Hanson, and Thorburn “ASTM Standards: Section Four-Construction” “International Building Code- 2006”

ASSUMPTIONS The field and laboratory soil testing appears to indicated consistency regarding the type of soils encountered on the proposed site. The soils encountered throughout this site display similar characteristics. However, in-situ moisture content and stiffness varies with depth at each bore locations. Poor drainage area would contain slightly higher moisture contents. In contrast, areas were drainage appears to be adequate; the soil stratum is drier and stiffer but friable. In general terms, all encountered soils are considered Lean Clays (CL) and Clayey Sands (SC) with varying degree of stiffness and in-situ moisture contents. This geotechnical report was performed following substantial compliance with the above referenced ASTM Field and Laboratory Standards, and prudent geotechnical engineering practices.

SITE DESCRIPTION The enclosed layout site plan depicts the location of the proposed new Industrial Facilities. Typically, in this part of the Plains of Texas, the water table is encountered at approximately 200 to 300 feet. However, in some places in Texas weak perch water tables may be encountered at shallow depths. Our field sampling does not indicate the existence of any weak or perched water table. The site was relatively flat and covered with grassy vegetation.



EXPLORATION, SAMPLING AND FIELD TESTING This particular subsurface study consisted of a total of six exploration borings. Exploration borings B-1 through B-3 were drilled to a depth of 20 feet in the proposed building area. Exploration borings B-4 through B-6 were drilled to a depth of 5 feet in the proposed parking lot area. The drilling phase of this investigation was completed on August 14, 2013. The drill work was accomplished using a Mobile B-48 Hollow Stem Auger Drilling Machine. Exploration boring soil samples were retrieved using a split spoon samples during standard penetration test operations as per ASTM D-1586. Our geotechnical technician recorded and logged all samples retrieved during field samplings. The soils samples were visually characterized according ASTM D-2488 and were prepared for transporting according to ASTM D-4220.

LABORATORY TESTS All boring soil samples were visually classified and tested to determine the in-situ moisture contents of the soils in the laboratory (ASTM D-2488, ASTM D-2216). Typical samples were selected for Atterberg Limits, and percent finer than #200 sieve tests (ASTM D-4318, ASTM D-1140). Intact split spoon soil samples were tested for approximate unconfined compressive strength using the pocket penetrometer. In addition, intact split spoon samples were tested for approximate unit weight.

SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION The locations of the exploration borings are delineated on the enclosed site diagram. The soils encountered during our drilling operations consisted of Lean Clays (CL) and Clayey Sands (SC). The enclosed record of subsurface investigation describes in precise detail the soil strata encountered at each exploration boring location (ASTM D-2487).

SOIL MECHANICS

WATER CONTENT TEST The water content, also known as the moisture content of soils is one of the most common and simplest types of laboratory test. The process involves the wet mass determination of the soil sample. The sample is placed in a drying oven with a temperature of 110 degrees Celsius for a minimum period of 12 to 16 hours, usually overnight. The dry mass is then calculated. The moisture content is determined by subtracting the dry mass from the wet mass and divided the difference by the dry mass. The obtained moisture content values are displayed on the Record of Subsurface Exploration.

TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT The total density, also known as the wet density should only be obtained from undisturbed soil samples. In this case, intact split spoon soil samples were measured for wet density. By using the



water content data, the dry unit weight of the soil sample can be determined. The enclosed Record of Subsurface Exploration contains our calculated dry unit weight (lbs/cf) for the tested soils.

ATTERBERG LIMITS The Atterberg Limits are laboratory tests for arbitrary moisture contents to determine when the soil is on the verge of being viscous (Liquid Limit) or non plastic (Plastic Limit). The plasticity index is the arbitrary range of water contents for which a soil is plastic. Atterberg Limits data from these exploration borings indicate that these soils are considered moderately cohesive lean clays (CL) and semi-cohesive Clayey Sands (SC). The average moisture content of the soils retrieved during standard penetration tests indicated that the soils are considered dry for the most part. These soils have low to moderate swelling or shrinking characteristic depending on the in-situ moisture contents and soil classification. The data obtained from the Atterberg Limits/% Finer than #200 sieves is depicted in the enclosed Record of Subsurface Exploration.

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST The Standard Penetration Test has been used in correlation for soil consistency (firmness), angle of internal friction (θ), unit weight (γ), and undrained shear strength (qu) In clays, the degree of firmness or consistency varies from very soft to hard, based on the undrained shear strength. According to “Foundation Analysis and Design” By Joseph E. Bowles the following correlation exists for cohesive soils:

Clayey Soils Sandy Soils Consistency N (Blows/ft) Consistency N (Blows/ft) Very Soft 0-2 Very Loose 2-3 Soft 3-5 Loose 4-7 Medium 6-9 Medium 8-20 Stiff 10-16 Dense 21-40 Very Stiff 17-30 Very Dense >40 Hard >30 In addition, shear strength may be estimated based on the calculated clay consistency as follows: Clay Consistency Undrained Shear Strength (psf) Very Soft su < 250 Soft 250



BUILDING SITE SOIL’S ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION(φ) DEPTH (FT) SOIL UNIT WEIGHT (γ), AND SOIL COHESION(c), Soil Angle of Internal Unit Weight Cohesion Friction (pcf) Lean Clays (CL) 15-20 125-130 250-300 Clayey Sands (SC) 25-30 125-135 100-150

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES For the determination of lateral earth pressures, the Rankine Earth Pressure Theory is utilized. This theory assumes a cohesionless soil (c=0). The coefficient of active and passive earth pressures are computed as follows: Ka=1-sinθ/1+sinθ Kp= 1/ka

Where θ = angle of internal friction The Active Earth Pressure (Pa) and Passive Earth Pressure (Pp) are computed as follows: Pa= ½ kaγH2 Pp= ½ kpγH2

Where γ = soil unit weight H= height of soil wall The in-situ dry unit weight of these soils at this site are approximated to be in the range of 90 pcf to 100 pcf based on the standard penetration tests data, soils classification data, and the Bowles Reference. In some instances, it is necessary to calculate the K0 condition. According to “Foundation Analysis and Design” by Joseph E. Bowles, this condition is described as a soil condition formed by either residual from in-situ rock weathering or achieved through via deposition of sediments. After the deposit is completed, both the stresses and strains reach equilibrium condition. Therefore, each element within the soil mass is subject to both total and effective vertical and lateral stresses of such magnitude as to result in a condition of zero strain. The K0 state becomes the starting reference point when new stresses in the soil mass caused either by applying building loads or from removal of loads, as along the bottom or sides of excavations. The K0 conditions for normally consolidated clays as: K0 = 0.95 – sin θ

AGGREGATE SOIL PROPERTIES The aggregate soil properties are essentially weight-volume relationships. In any particular sample of soil, it would consists of air-filled voids, water filled voids, and solid material. The percentage of these constituents is used to calculate the aggregate properties.



Based on our subsurface investigation, the soils encountered near the surface are classified as Lean Clays with (CL) have a maximum dry density in the range of 100 pcf to 105 pcf and moisture content in the range of 14-18 percent as determined by the Standard Proctor: ASTM D-698. The Clayey Sands (SC) have a maximum dry density in the range of 108 pcf to 115 pcf with optimum moisture in the range of 8 to 14 percent.

COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION According to the IBC 2006, the resistance of structural walls to lateral sliding shall be calculated by combining the values obtained from the lateral bearing and the lateral sliding resistance. In the case of clays encountered at this site, the lateral sliding resistance shall not exceed one half the dead load.

SOIL BEARING CAPACITIES The most important step in the designs of footing foundations is the evaluation of the greatest pressure that can be applied to the soil beneath the footings without causing either failure of the loaded soil or excessive settlement. The allowable soil bearing capacities are partially based on the number of blow counts (N). The relationship is approximately qu= N/4, but this value is only used as a guide and is adjusted by the judgement of the soils engineer as deemed necessary depending on proposed foundation design, current site conditions, and possibly future site conditions. Typically, a more conservative value is selected than noted by the above relationship in anticipation of inadvertent site wetting. Recommended allowable bearing capacities are based on standard field penetration test data, pocket penetrometer readings, and soil classification data. These recommendations are in accordance with “Foundation Analysis and Design”, 2nd Edition by Bowles and “Foundation Engineering” by Peck, Hanson and Thorburn. These values assume a factor of safety of three against ultimate failure and a possible theoretical settlement of one inch for static loads. The allowable bearing capacities for vibrating loads shall be considered half of the allowable bearing capacities for static load. The allowable bearing pressure value is the maximum pressure that can be imposed by a foundation onto soil or rock supporting the foundation. It is derived from experience and general usage, and provides an adequate factor of safety against shear failure and excessive settlement. In order to determine the allowable bearing pressure qall, the ultimate bearing capacity qult is divided by a safety factor. The norma1 factor of safety used for bearing capacity analyses is 3. This is a high factor of safety as compared to other factors of safety, such as only 1.5 for slope stability analyses. Therefore, the assumption of increasing the allowable bearing capacity by one third of the load for temporary unsustainable loads such as snow and wind loads is acceptable.

SITE RECOMMENDED ALLOWABLE DEPTH (FT) NET SOIL BEARING CAPACITIES (PSF)

STATIC LOADINGS 2.5 2500 5 2500 7.5 3000 10 3000 15 4000 20 6000



MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION The modules of subgrade reaction (ks) is a soil parameter often called for, particularly when computer assisted structural analysis is performed in the design process. This value (ks) is defined as follows:

Ks= q/∆

Where q = intensity of soil pressure ∆= Average settlement for an increment of pressure By using the stated allowable soil bearing capacity (qa), “Foundation Analysis and Design”, 2nd Edition by Bowles computes an empirical expression for the modulus of subgrade reaction (ks) as follows:

Ks = 36qa kips/ft3 This equation is developed by reasoning that q a is in ksf and is valid for a settlement of about 1 inch, and safety factor F=3. According to “Foundation Analysis and Design” by Joseph E. Bowles, the value of lateral sub-grade modulus may be obtained by the following relationship. Ks =72qa kips/ft3 This relationship compares very closely with the relationship obtained by Terzaghi (1955) of 67qa. It should be noted that all of the above soil parameters are estimated based on the in-situ soil’s current condition. Excessive and prolonged site wetting combined with site covering elimination will act to weaken the soil strength. In effect, all of these values of soil parameters would change to weaker soil conditions. This often happens when site drainage and sub-soil strata moisture conditions after completion of construction are not properly considered.

SKIN FRICTION CALCULATION For proper safety factor and engineering prudence, it is suggested that a wall friction loading factor of 1/4 of the allowable soil bearing capacity at the respective depth be used. In other words, if the allowable soil bearing capacity at the pier wall depth is 3500 psf, then use a wall friction load capacity of 875 psf per wall surface area. The top five feet of the pier from the surface should be ignored to allow for surface weathering conditions, and it would be advisable, that pier hole wall friction bearing capacity not exceed more than one third of the total bearing capacity of the pier. This statement is a suggestion for the purpose of engineering prudence. In many cases, the lateral modulus of subgrade reaction (ks) is used in the calculation of shear and moment diagrams. Typical values of lateral modulus of subgrade reactions for medium to stiff clays have a lateral modulus of subgrade reaction in the range of 45 to 60 pci. TOTAL AND DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT

The usual approach to settlement analyses is to first estimate the amount of sustained loads induced total settlement (ρmax) of the foundation. According to “Foundation Engineering Handbook” by Robert W. Day, because of variable soil conditions and structural loads, the induced settlement is rarely uniform. Typically, the maximum differential settlement (Δ) of the foundation is approximately equal to 50 to 75 percent of the sustained loads induced total settlement. In other



words, .50ρmas≤ Δ ≤ .75 ρmas. In the event that the calculated total settlement and/or maximum differential settlement are deemed unacceptable, then soil remediation measures are necessary. Other options exist regarding foundation design in order to resist the anticipated soil movements caused by sustained loads. One option may include the design of mat foundations or post-tensioned slabs in a structure in order to remain intact, even with substantial movements. Another option is a deep foundation system that may transfer the anticipated structural loads to soil stratum with higher allowable bearing capacities.

Normally, we assume a 1” settlement in theory; however, field plate testing performed on similar site in the Texas Panhandle depicts the value to be actually closer to maximum settlement of 3/8”. Understanding that differential settlement depends on bearing load difference. The Elastic Settlement of soils such as non-saturated clays and silts, sands, clayey sands and gravels may be obtained using the following equation:

S = q B [(1 – μ2)/Es]Iw

Where: S = Settlement

q = intensity of contact pressure

B = least lateral dimension of footing

Iw = Influence factor which depends on shape of footing

and its rigidity

Es, μ = Elastic Properties of Soil

Influence factors for various-shaped members (“Foundation Design and Analysis” by Bowles)

FLEXIBLE RIGID

SHAPE CENTER CORNER AVERAGE Iw I m* CIRCLE 1.00 .64 (edge) .85 .88 6.0

SQUARE 1.12 .56 .95 .82 3.7

RECTANGLE

L/B=.2 2.29

.5 3.33

1.5 1.36 .68 1.15 1.06 4.12

2 1.53 .77 1.30 1.20 4.38

5 2.10 1.05 1.83 1.70 4.82

10 2.54 1.27 2.25 2.10 4.93

100 4.01 2.00 3.69 3.40 5.06

(*) Lee (1962

Typical Range of values for Es (“Foundation Analysis and Design” By Bowles)

SOIL Es

CLAY- VERY SOFT .05 - .4

SOFT 0.2 – 0.6



MEDIUM 0.6 – 1.2

HARD 1 – 3

SANDY 4 – 6

SAND 1 – 3.5

SILT 0.2 – 3.0

Typical Range of values for Poisson’s Ratio μ (“Foundation Analysis and Design” By Bowles)

Type of Soil Μ

Clay, unsaturated 0.4 – 0.5

Clay, saturated 0.1 – 0.3

Sandy Clay 0.2 – 0.3

Silt 0.3 – 0.35

Sand 0.2 – 0.4

FROST DEPTH The estimated frost depth for the Deaf Smith County Area is approximately 18 inches.

SITE CLASS DETERMINATION: According to the IBC 2006 Table 1613.5.2, the proposed site may be classified as Class D.

FOUNDATION AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Before any foundation construction, the site should be cleared of any deleterious materials(surface vegetation). Prior to any foundation operations, the top eight inches should be scarified and recompacted to 95% compaction as determined by “Moisture-Density Relation of Soils: Standard Effort” as per ASTM D-698. The sub-grade should have moisture content within the range of +/- 3% from optimum moisture. The embankment fill should be placed in accordance with the recommendations delineated in the “Embankment Construction” section of this report. For any site leveling, or raising of the floor grade, the areas to receive embankment fill soil can assume the near surface allowable bearing capacities at this particular site if proper compaction is achieved. We recommend a minimum of 12 inches of embankment fill in order to improve drainage away from the foundation system. TYPICAL SLAB/ FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION The foundation system should be designed in a way that the entire foundation would act as one unit. This is accomplished by designing a well stiff foundation system. We recommend a minimum slab thickness of 4 inches for the athletic use facility. The slab on grade and the perimeter foundation should all be tie together permitting the entire structure to experience any movement due to the



possible soil volume changes as a single unit, therefore minimizing minor structural and cosmetic problems. The perimeter footing should be placed at a convenient depth as long as the allowable bearing capacities are not exceeded. We recommend a minimum depth of twenty four inches. The perimeter footings should have steel reinforcing consisting of 4 #4 steel bars, two top and two bottom continuously with #3 stirrups placed on 36” o.c. The slab on grade reinforcing may consist of either #3 bars on 12” o.c. both ways or #4 bars on 16” o.c. both ways. Dowels should be placed between the footing and the slab on-grade. These dowels may consist of #4 bars placed at 5’ maximum spacing along the perimeter of the proposed structure. In addition, the concrete slab shall contain saw cuts spaced at a maximum spacing of 25 feet. In the case of prefabricated metal building structures, the foundation system may consist of spread footing at each support columns and a perimeter footing. We recommend the placement of thicken sections between columns or hairpin steel reinforcing at each of the columns. GENERAL FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS Any foundation system should be protected against intrusion of moisture to the foundation/slab system. The dry cohesive soils found at this site can be undermined significantly should they become excessively wet as the result of exposure to additional moisture. Proper site drainage combined with quality construction practice and sufficiently stiffened foundation system should help ensure minimal future structural or cosmetic damage caused by near surface soil volume changes.

STRUCTURAL BACKFILL OPERATIONS Backfill areas usually require special considerations. Typically, backfill areas are small and difficult to compact. However, poorly compacted backfill areas often are the source of settlement and underground drainage problems. Any exterior foundation backfill should be compacted using soils with a plasticity index in the range of 10 to 20. These soils for backfill purposes should be properly compacted to within 95% of maximum dry density and within +/- 3% from optimum moisture as determined by the “Moisture-Density Relation of Soils: Standard Effort” as per ASTM D-698. Improper compaction of backfill can lead to soft and saturated backfill that may either shrink or swell. This can be a particular problem on backfill around the grade beams, adjacent to exterior grade beams, and exterior underground utilities that run near or parallel to walls and structures. Proper quality control should be performed during all backfill operations. Special attention should be given to plumbing lines near or adjacent to the foundation system.

EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION Any embankment soil use for leveling purposes or for backfill should have a plasticity index in the range of 10 to 20 or as found on site. The proposed embankment fill shall be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to its placement at this project. Before the placement of any embankment fill, the site to receive fill soil should be cleaned and scalped of all deleterious materials. The site should then be processed and compacted to within recommended compaction effort criteria mentioned in the “Foundation and Construction Considerations” section of this report.. Any embankment construction should be compacted to within 95% of maximum dry density and within +/- 3% from optimum moisture as determined by the “Moisture-Density Relation of Soils:



Standard Effort” as per ASTM D-698. The backfill operation should be performed using the terrace method, in order words; every leveling lift of embankment fill should be placed horizontally until the desired elevation is reached. The embankment construction should be constructed in loose lifts of 8 inches compacted to 6 inches. Field compaction tests are strongly recommended in order to document proper soil moisture processing and compaction. During all excavations or embankment fill operations, the work should be continually observed to ensure no soil conditions are found that may be damaging to the structure.

TRENCH SAFETY During all excavations or embankment fill operations, the work should be continually observed to ensure no soil conditions are found that may be damaging to the structure. During all temporarily excavation and trenching operations, workman safety should be of primarily importance. Any excavation wall in a trench or vicinity should be shaped as per required safety standards. Bracing, shoring or sloping of trench walls may be necessary if trench excavations are deep enough to require such assessment. Based on soil’s classification criteria as presented by OSHA’s CFR 29, Part 1926: Subpart P-Excavations/Trench Safety Standards, this site can generally be considered “Type B” soils when the allowable bearing capacity is below 3000 psf. “Type A” soils when the soil’s allowable bearing capacity is 3000 psf or higher.

NEW PAVEMENT AREA CONSIDERATIONS RELATED SOILS DATA The analysis of the soil conditions for the pavement is based on standard filed penetration test data, in-situ soil moisture contents, soils classification data, and local experience or practice. Using “Thickness Design-Asphalt Pavements for Highways and Streets”, (MS-1) published by the Asphalt Institute; and California Bearing Ratio data assumptions for the soil types encountered at this site. The California Soil Bearing Ratio for the subgrade soils at this site is estimated to be within the range of 5-8. Based on this data, the following pavement thickness recommendations are to be provided as follows: For this type of project, the bituminous surface course should be at least 2 inches in thickness. The base course should be in the range of 6 to 8 inches in thickness. The more heavily traveled areas such as the entry road and truck paths should receive consideration for pavement sections heavier than the basic parking area. Use of concrete pavement should be considered where heavy truck turning and twisting loads are anticipated. PAVEMENT MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS The typical bituminous surfacing material that is locally available should be used if applicable specifications are met. Typically, materials that meets Texas Highway Department Standard Specifications are specified in this area. Any bituminous surface course used should have a proven performance history prior to consideration. The base course should meet at least minimum requirements as stated by the standards. Anticipated truck and twisting truck loadings can be a source of bituminous pavement surfacing failure problems. A high quality surfacing placement with adequate drainage will help minimize possible failures. In Truck loading areas, the use of concrete aprons may need to be considered. Where heavy truck traffic is anticipated, heavier pavement sections with additional base course or sub-base may be considered.



PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS “Model Construction Specifications for Asphalt Concrete and Other Plant Mix Types” (SS-1) by the Asphalt Institute indicates that the following requirements be satisfied for the bituminous surface course based on Marshall Method for medium traffic loads: Compaction (No. of Blows/Side)………………………. 50 Minimum Stability (Lbs)………………………………..1000* Flow Range (1/100 inches)………………………………8-18 Percent Air Void Range…………………………………3 –5 % Minimum Voids in Mineral Aggregate (VMA)………..15%

(*) This requirement is minimal, and should be raised if heavy, turning traffic is anticipated to at least 1200 lbs

Bituminous Mixture Strength parameters should be stated in construction specifications in addition to materials specifications. SITE PREPARATION /GRADING The top eight inches, at least, at this location should be processed and recompacted to within 95% of maximum dry density and within 3% of optimum moisture as determined by the “Moisture Density Relation of Soils: Standard Effort ASTM D-698”. Flexible base course should be also compacted to these same compaction standards as a minimum. It is essential that the subgrade be graded for proper drainage of the subgrade itself. No low areas in subgrade should be allowed, regardless of the grading of pavement surfacing. Otherwise, moisture can build up in the lower areas beneath the pavement surfacing, resulting in eventual pavement stress. The bituminous surface course should also be compacted to within at least 96% Marshall Density as previously noted. Proper drainage of pavement is essential. A minimum rate of slope in a paved area of 1% would be desired. All of the above noted pavement recommendations assume a reasonable positive drainage. Any location that does not drain both the subgrade and the pavement surface will not endure the above noted expectations. PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The use of concrete pavement could be considered. Based on the above mentioned soils criteria and on “Handbook of Concrete Engineering”, edited by Mark Fintel, the concrete surfacing should be at least five inches thick over at least a four inch thickness of base course for normal traffic loadings. For truck loadings, a depth of eight inches should be considered. The concrete compressive strength should be at least 3500 in 28 days. The above reference advises 15’ to 20’ sawed traverse joint intervals for expansion/contraction. The use of distributed steel in the pavement section designs is optional. Distributed steel aids in keeping cracks closed. Assuming free joint spacing.



DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS

Site drainage both during and after construction is important to ensure that excessive moisture does not cause the weakening of soil structure or the possibility of surface soil volume changes. Many problems with movement of structural foundations are the result of variations of soil moisture contents from season to season or by changes in the moisture of the soil by site reconfiguration. The maintenance of constant in-situ soil moisture content near foundations and floor slabs on grade should help minimize these problems. ON SITE QUALITY CONTROL OBSERVATION AND TESTING FREQUENCY We recommend the following items at a minimum be observed and tested by a representative of independent testing laboratory during the construction phase. Observation: Sub-grade Processing Fill placement and compaction Foundation Reinforcing and Concrete Placement Testing: Earthwork

One test per 2,500 sq. ft of processed sub-grade under structures and pavement. One test per 10,000 sq. ft. of processed sub-grade for non structural areas

One test per 2,500 sq. feet per lift within Building Areas

One test per 10,000 sq. ft. per lift on Areas other than Building and Parking Areas.

One test per 50 linear feet per lift in utility and grade beam backfill Concrete 1 set of (3) Concrete Test Cylinders per every 50 cubic yards per pour



The development of the proposed project may require the implementation of a quality assurance program. The purpose of the quality assurance program is to provide the owner with independent confirmation of the job specifications execution through out the construction phase of the project. The implementation of a quality assurance program would provide a “check and balance” program beneficial to all parties involved. Typically, the quality assurance program consists of approximately 20% of the required testing as specified in the job specification manual. As the construction industry moves to “Turn Key Contracts” and “At Risk Management Contracts”, the owner of the proposed project should consider the implementation of a Quality Assurance Program. Amarillo Testing & Engineering, Inc. staff will welcome the opportunity to provide construction materials testing services once the construction phase of the project begin. Very Respectfully, AMARILLO TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. F-3425 Oziel E. Gonzalez, P.E. Report No. 1308162.13

OzzieTEXAS SEAL

SUPPORTING

DOCUMENTATION

• SITE LAYOUT • RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

SITE

LAYOUT

RECORD OF

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

SAMPLE TYPEAU-AUGERBS-BAG SAMPLERC-ROCK CORESS-SPLIT SPOONST-SHELBY TUBE

BORING METHODAR=AIR ROTARY

CFA-CONT. FLIGHT AUGERSHSA-HOLLOW STEM AUGER

RW-ROTARY WASH

Amarillo Testing RECORD OFand Enginering, Inc. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONGeotechnical Engineering ConsultantsCLIENT: THOMAS AND ISRAEL ENGINEERS BORING NO. B-1PROJECT: PROPOSED NEW ATHLETIC FACILITYPROJECT LOCATION: HEREFORD, DEAF SMITH COUNTY, TXJOB NUMBER: 1308162.13

DATE STARTED:DATE COMPLETED:DRILLING FOREMAN: RICHARD CORDOVADRILLING METHOD: AIR ROTARY

STRATUM DESCRIPTION STR

ATU

M L

EG

EN

D

DE

PTH

SC

ALE

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

RE

CO

VE

RY

%

STA

ND

AR

D P

EN

ETR

ATI

ON

TE

ST

N, B

LOW

S/F

T

UN

CO

NFI

NE

D C

OM

PR

ES

SIV

E

STR

EN

GTH

qu

Ton

s/sq

. ft

PO

CK

ET

PE

NE

TRO

ME

TER

qp

To

ns/s

q. ft

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T

lb

s/cf

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

% LL

=LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

P

I=P

LAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

LS

=SH

RIN

KA

GE

LIM

IT

% F

INE

R T

HA

N #

200

Brown Lean Clay (CL) TOP GS 8.4 LL=27;PI=10 73.4with SandLight Brown Lean Clay (CL) 2.5' SS 19 6.1with Sand and Calcareous NodulesLight Brown Lean Clay (CL) 5' SS 23 7.1 LL=29;PI=15 78.8with Sand and Calcareous NodulesStrong Brown Lean Clay (CL) 7.5' SS 25 8.4with Sand and Calcareous Nodules Strong Brown Lean Clay (CL) 10' SS 17 11.6 LL=41;PI=21 74.2with Sand and Calcareous Nodules Reddish Yellow Sandy Lean Clay (CL) 15' SS 22 11.9

Reddish Yellow Clayey Sand (SC) 20' SS 50 9.6 LL=27;PI=7 48.1

8/14/20138/14/2013




RW-ROTARY WASH




ATU

M L

EG

EN

D

DE

PTH

SC

ALE

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

RE

CO

VE

RY

%S

TAN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TRA

TIO

N

TES

T

N,

BLO

WS

/FT

UN

CO

NFI

NE

D C

OM

PR

ES

SIV

E

STR

EN

GTH

qu

Ton

s/sq

. ft

PO

CK

ET

PE

NE

TRO

ME

TER

qp

To

ns/s

q. ft

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T

lb

s/cf

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

% LL

=LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

P

I=P

LAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

LS

=SH

RIN

KA

GE

LIM

IT

% F

INE

R T

HA

N #

200

Brown Lean Clay (CL) TOP GS 8.8with SandStrong Brown Lean Clay (CL) 2.5' SS 19 8.2 LL=30;PI=15 72.0with Sand and Calcareous NodulesStrong Brown Lean Clay (CL) 5' SS 19 8.1 LL=31;PI=16 73.2with Sand and Calcareous NodulesStrong Brown Lean Clay (CL) 7.5' SS 19 9.4 LL=34;PI=18 78.3with Sand and Calcareous Nodules Strong Brown Lean Clay (CL) 10' SS 20 9.2with Sand and Calcareous Nodules Strong Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) 15' SS 27 4.5+ 14.7 LL=36;PI=17 66.0with Calcareous NodulesReddish Yellow Clayey Sand (SC) 20' SS 50 12.2with Calcareous Nodules

8/14/20138/14/2013




RW-ROTARY WASH

Amarillo Testing RECORD OFand Enginering, Inc. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONGeotechnical Engineering ConsultantsCLIENT: THOMAS AND ISRAEL ENGINEERS BORING NO. B-3PROJECT: PROPOSED NEW TACO BELLPROJECT LOCATION: PROPOSED NEW ATHLETIC FACILITYJOB NUMBER: HEREFORD, DEAF SMITH COUNTY, TX

1308162.13

DATE STARTED:DATE COMPLETED:DRILLING FOREMAN:DRILLING METHOD: AIR ROTARY


ATU

M L

EG

EN

D

DE

PTH

SC

ALE

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

RE

CO

VE

RY

%S

TAN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TRA

TIO

N

TES

T

N,

BLO

WS

/FT

UN

CO

NFI

NE

D C

OM

PR

ES

SIV

E

STR

EN

GTH

qu

Ton

s/sq

. ft

PO

CK

ET

PE

NE

TRO

ME

TER

qp

To

ns/s

q. ft

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T

lb

s/cf

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

% LL

=LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

P

I=P

LAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

LS

=SH

RIN

KA

GE

LIM

IT

% F

INE

R T

HA

N #

200

Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) TOP GS 10.6 LL=28;PI=8 68.4

Light Brown Lean Clay (CL) 2.5' SS 20 6.1 LL=28;PI=13 74.1with Sand and Calcareous NodulesLight Brown Lean Clay (CL) 5' SS 15 8.0with Sand and Calcareous NodulesStrong Brown Lean Clay (CL) 7.5' SS 17 8.7with Sand and Calcareous NodulesLight Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) 10' SS 26 9.8 LL=25;PI=9 59.9with Calcareous NodulesStrong Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) 15' SS 17 10.9 LL=25;PI=8 64.1

Reddish Yellow Sandy Lean Clay (CL) 20' SS 50 4.5+ 12.7

4/24/20138/14/20138/14/2013




RW-ROTARY WASH

Amarillo Testing RECORD OFand Enginering, Inc. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONGeotechnical Engineering ConsultantsCLIENT: THOMAS AND ISRAEL ENGINEERS BORING NO. B-4PROJECT: PROPOSED NEW TACO BELLPROJECT LOCATION: PROPOSED NEW ATHLETIC FACILITYJOB NUMBER: HEREFORD, DEAF SMITH COUNTY, TX

1308162.13

DATE STARTED:DATE COMPLETED:DRILLING FOREMAN:DRILLING METHOD: AIR ROTARY


ATU

M L

EG

EN

D

DE

PTH

SC

ALE

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

RE

CO

VE

RY

%S

TAN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TRA

TIO

N

TES

T

N,

BLO

WS

/FT

UN

CO

NFI

NE

D C

OM

PR

ES

SIV

E

STR

EN

GTH

qu

Ton

s/sq

. ft

PO

CK

ET

PE

NE

TRO

ME

TER

qp

To

ns/s

q. ft

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T

lb

s/cf

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

% LL

=LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

P

I=P

LAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

LS

=SH

RIN

KA

GE

LIM

IT

% F

INE

R T

HA

N #

200

Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) TOP GS 8.8 LL=25;PI=8 67.7

Light Brown Lean Clay (CL) 2.5' SS 16 6.2with Sand and Calcareous NodulesLight Brown Lean Clay (CL) 5' SS 17 5.4with Sand and Calcareous Nodules

4/24/20138/14/20138/14/2013




RW-ROTARY WASH




ATU

M L

EG

EN

D

DE

PTH

SC

ALE

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

RE

CO

VE

RY

%

STA

ND

AR

D P

EN

ETR

ATI

ON

TE

ST

N, B

LOW

S/F

T

UN

CO

NFI

NE

D C

OM

PR

ES

SIV

E

STR

EN

GTH

qu

Ton

s/sq

. ft

PO

CK

ET

PE

NE

TRO

ME

TER

qp

To

ns/s

q. ft

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T

lb

s/cf

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

% LL

=LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

P

I=P

LAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

LS

=SH

RIN

KA

GE

LIM

IT

% F

INE

R T

HA

N #

200

Brown Lean Clay (CL) TOP GS 10.0with SandStrong Brown Lean Clay (CL) 2.5' SS 15 8.3 LL=25;PI=9 70.9with Sand and Calcareous NodulesLight Brown Lean Clay (CL) 5' SS 28 6.3with Sand and Calcareous Nodules

8/14/20138/14/2013




RW-ROTARY WASH




ATU

M L

EG

EN

D

DE

PTH

SC

ALE

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

RE

CO

VE

RY

%S

TAN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TRA

TIO

N

TES

T

N,

BLO

WS

/FT

UN

CO

NFI

NE

D C

OM

PR

ES

SIV

E

STR

EN

GTH

qu

Ton

s/sq

. ft

PO

CK

ET

PE

NE

TRO

ME

TER

qp

To

ns/s

q. ft

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T

lb

s/cf

WA

TER

CO

NTE

NT

% LL

=LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

P

I=P

LAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

LS

=SH

RIN

KA

GE

LIM

IT

% F

INE

R T

HA

N #

200

Brown Lean Clay (CL) TOP GS 11.7 LL=24;PI=7 70.0with SandStrong Brown Lean Clay (CL) 2.5' SS 13 6.0with Sand and Calcareous NodulesLight Brown Lean Clay (CL) 5' SS 18 7.0with Sand and Calcareous Nodules

8/14/20138/14/2013

ENG1308162.13GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONPROPOSED NEWINDOOR ATHLETIC FACILITYHEREFORD, DEAF SMITH COUNTY, TEXASCLIENT: THOMAS & ISRAEL ENGINEERSATTN: MR. MATT THOMASAmarillo Testing & Engineering, Inc.Consulting Engineers & Materials Testing1113 N. McMasters St.Amarillo, Texas 79106P: (806) 374.2756F: (806) 374.3277SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATIONSITE LAYOUTRECORDS OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONINTRODUCTIONDetails of this investigation with recommendations are depicted in this report.REFERENCESASSUMPTIONSSITE DESCRIPTIONEXPLORATION, SAMPLING AND FIELD TESTINGLABORATORY TESTSSOIL STRATA DESCRIPTIONThe locations of the exploration borings are delineated on the enclosed site diagram.SOIL MECHANICSWATER CONTENT TESTTOTAL UNIT WEIGHTATTERBERG LIMITSSTANDARD PENETRATION TESTHard >30In addition, shear strength may be estimated based on the calculated clay consistency as follows:

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

Ka=1-sin(/1+sin(Kp= 1/kaWhere ( = angle of internal frictionThe Active Earth Pressure (Pa) and Passive Earth Pressure (Pp) are computed as follows:Pa= ½ ka(H2Pp= ½ kp(H2Where ( = soil unit weightH= height of soil wallK0 = 0.95 – sin θAGGREGATE SOIL PROPERTIESCOEFFICIENT OF FRICTIONSOIL BEARING CAPACITIESMODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION

Ks= q/(By using the stated allowable soil bearing capacity (qa), “Foundation Analysis and Design”, 2ndKs = 36qa kips/ft3This equation is developed by reasoning that q a is in ksf and is valid for a settlement of about 1 inch, and safety factor F=3.SKIN FRICTION CALCULATIONTOTAL AND DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENTFROST DEPTHSite Class Determination:

FOUNDATION AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONSTYPICAL SLAB/ FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION

STRUCTURAL BACKFILL OPERATIONSEMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION

TRENCH SAFETYNEW PAVEMENT AREA CONSIDERATIONSRELATED SOILS DATAPAVEMENT MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONSPAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONSMinimum Stability (Lbs)………………………………..1000*SITE PREPARATION /GRADINGPORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONSSite drainage both during and after construction is important to ensure that excessive moisture does not cause the weakening of soil structure or the possibility of surface soil volume changes. Many problems with movement of structural foundations ar...

ON SITE QUALITY CONTROL OBSERVATION AND TESTING FREQUENCYObservation:Fill placement and compactionFoundation Reinforcing and Concrete PlacementTesting:EarthworkOne test per 2,500 sq. ft of processed sub-grade under structures and pavement.One test per 10,000 sq. ft. of processed sub-grade for non structural areasOne test per 2,500 sq. feet per lift within Building AreasOne test per 10,000 sq. ft. per lift on Areas other than Building and Parking Areas.One test per 50 linear feet per lift in utility and grade beam backfillConcreteAMARILLO TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.Oziel E. Gonzalez, P.E.Report No. 1308162.13SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

SUPPORTINGSHEET41610SITELAYOUTHerefordlayoutRECORDOFSUBSURFACEEXPLORATION1308162LOGS.13B-1B-2B-3B-4B-5B-6

2013-08-16T16:49:02-0500OZIEL E. GONZALEZ

Documents

PROPOSED NEW INDOOR ATHLETIC FACILITYWATER CONTENT TEST . The water content, also known as the moisture content of soils is one of the most common and simplest types of laboratory