GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION GILLETTE TRUNKLINE (TUAM · PDF filegeotechnical investigation...

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


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)


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


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)


0.8 - 4 Very stiff, Fat Clay (CH)

4 - 10 Very stiff, Lean Clay w/Sand (CL)

6


B-11 (cont.) 10 - 12 Stiff, Sandy Lean Clay (CL), with silt partings

12 - 30 Very stiff to hard, Lean Clay (CL)


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


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


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)


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)


1.8 - 2 Fill: stabilized, Fat Clay (CH), with gravel


8 - 22 Stiff to hard, Lean Clay w/Sand (CL)

22 - 30 Very stiff to hard, Lean Clay (CL)


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


B-21A 0 - 0.8 Pavement and Base: <see Table 2>

0.8 - 4 Fill: stiff to very stiff, Fat Clay w/Sand (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


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


DRAINAGE AND PAVING IMPROVEMENTS, WBS NO. M-410290-0004-3

HOUSTON, TEXAS

AEC PROJECT NO.:

G166-12C


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


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







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




Elevation: 49.26

Northing: 13838713.62

Easting: 3117006.93


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


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


COH WBS No. M-410290-0004-3 TYPE 4" Dry Auger DATE 1/23/13


WATER ENCOUNTERED AT N/A FEET WHILE DRILLING

WATER LEVEL AT N/A FEET AFTER DRILLING


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




Elevation: 46.98

Northing: 13838437.22

Easting: 3117411.02


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'


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







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




Elevation: 45.23

Northing: 13838093.9

Easting: 3117974.99


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'



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







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




Elevation: 45.44

Northing: 13838505.987

Easting: 3117907.963


42

36

30

24

18

12

6

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42


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


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







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




Elevation: 45.16

Northing: 13838020.775

Easting: 3117595.391


42

36

30

24

18

12

6

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42


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'


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







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




Elevation: 45.46

Northing: 13837632.288

Easting: 3117343.596


42

36

30

24

18

12

6

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42


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'


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







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




Elevation: 44.72

Northing: 13837224.183

Easting: 3117770.071


42

36

30

24

18

12

6

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42



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'


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







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




Elevation: 44.39

Northing: 13836869.854

Easting: 3117671.289


42

36

30

24

18

12

6

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42



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'


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







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




Elevation: 46.27

Northing: 13836259.874

Easting: 3117277.752


42

36

30

24

18

12

6

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42


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'


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




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




Elevation: 44.969

Northing: 13836535.561

Easting: 3117429.807


42

36

30

24

18

12

6

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42


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'


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







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




Elevation: 46.77

Northing: 13835831.944

Easting: 3116962.415


42

36

30

24

18

12

6

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42


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'


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





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




Elevation: 46.791

Northing: 13835703.915

Easting: 3116729.86


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'


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'


**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



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



PROJECT NO. G147-11

Elevation: 46**

Northing: 13837565**

Easting: 3116858**


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



Soil Samplers

Rock core

Symbol Description

Auger

Undisturbed thin wall

Shelby tube

Standard penetration test

KEY TO SYMBOLS

PLATE A-17

PLATE A-18

PLATE A-19

PLATE A-20

��

� ��

� ��

��

� ��

� ��

��

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

� ��

��

� ��

� ��

��

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

� ��

� ��

��

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

��

� ! �"�#

� "

$�% ��&�'�� "(��

)''�*+�,��$-)$�*-).$)

�/(� 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



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



HOUSTON, TEXAS

PLATE NO. :

PLATE B-2



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


ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

F

EE

T

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

F

EE

T



HOUSTON, TEXAS

PLATE NO. :

PLATE B-3



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


ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

F

EE

T

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

F

EE

T



HOUSTON, TEXAS

PLATE NO. :

PLATE B-4



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


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


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


HOUSTON, TEXAS

30'


0.010" SLOT SCREEN

THREADED PVC CAP


4" DIA. BOREHOLE

BENTONITE CHIPS

FILTER SAND

GROUND SURFACE

20'

10'

METAL CAP


AEC PROJECT NO. :

G166-12

SCALE:

DATE:

06-04-15

DRAWN BY:

BpJ

SOURCE DWG. BY:


PLATE NO. :

PLATE B-6


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


HOUSTON, TEXAS

30'


0.010" SLOT SCREEN

THREADED PVC CAP


4" DIA. BOREHOLE

BENTONITE CHIPS

FILTER SAND

GROUND SURFACE

20'

10'

METAL CAP


AEC PROJECT NO. :

G166-12

SCALE:

DATE:

06-04-15

DRAWN BY:

BpJ

SOURCE DWG. BY:


PLATE NO. :

PLATE B-7


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


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


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


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


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� � � � � ��



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'-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


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'-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



(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.)

� � � � � ��



C

(psf)

�

(deg)Ka K0 Kp

C'

(psf)

�'

(deg)Ka K0 Kp

Long-Term

BoringDepth

(ft)Soil Type

�

(pcf)

�'

(pcf)

OSHA

Type

Short-Term



(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



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'-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


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'-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'-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

� � � � � ��



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

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � � �

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � � �

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � � �

APPENDIX E

Plates E-1 to E-2 Well Installation and Plugging Reports

PLATE E-1

PLATE E-2

APPENDIX F

Plates F-1 to F-2 DARWin Pavement Analysis

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

� � � � � � � �

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

� � � � � � � �

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION GILLETTE TRUNKLINE (TUAM · PDF filegeotechnical investigation...

Documents

Transcript of GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION GILLETTE TRUNKLINE (TUAM · PDF filegeotechnical investigation...