October 10, 2013 Brazos Riverfront Development Waco, Texas...th2000 South 15 Street, Waco, Texas...

2000 South 15th Street, Waco, Texas 76706 Ph: 254-235-1048 www.LFEctx.com Fx: 254-235-1625

October 10, 2013 Brazos Riverfront Development, Ltd. Waco, Texas Attention: Mr. Rick Sheldon Reference: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Brazos Riverfront Development Waco, Texas LFE Project No. W13-061 Dear Mr. Sheldon: This letter transmits our preliminary geotechnical report, which has been electronically produced. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services for the Brazos Riverfront. A separate report will be issued by Terracon that addresses environmental impacts, if any, of the existing fill materials present on portions of the overall project site. As design of the individual structures commences, we will need to collaborate with the design team to provide additional project-specific information. We would also appreciate the opportunity to provide construction phase services such as materials testing as a part of the success of the project. If you have any questions regarding our report, please call me at (254) 235-1048. Best Regards, LANGERMAN FOSTER ENGINEERING COMPANY Texas Registered Engineering Firm No. F-13144 Scott M. Langerman, P.E. Principal / Geotechnical Engineer Distribution List:

1. Mr. Rick Sheldon 2. Mr. Joe Beard 3. Mr. Mike Anderson 4. Ms. Bert Bryan

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Brazos Riverfront Development

Waco, Texas

LFE No. W13-061 10 October 2013

Report Prepared For: Brazos Riverfront Development, LLC Waco, Texas Report Prepared By:

_________________________________ Scott M. Langerman, P.E. Principal / Geotechnical Engineer

2000 South 15th Street, Waco, Texas 76706 Ph: 254/235-1048 www.LFEctx.com

Copyright 2013 2000 South 15th Street, Waco, Texas 76706 Page 1 of 33 LFE Project No. W11-061 Ph: 254-235-1048 www.LFEctx.com Fx: 254-235-1625 October 10, 2013

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BRAZOS RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT

WACO, TEXAS 1.0 INTRODUCTION Purpose: The purpose of this investigation is to provide preliminary geotechnical

design and construction criteria for various structures that will be incorporated into the Brazos Riverfront Development. As design of the individual structures commences, we will need to collaborate with the design team and provide additional project-specific information. Environmental studies are currently being conducted that may require changes in the recommendations contained in the report.

The project location is shown on Plates 1 and 2 in the Appendix. Geotechnical data and recommendations are provided in a brief, and hopefully user friendly manner.

Authorization: Services were performed in general accordance with LFE Proposal No.

GEO13-106, dated August 16, 2013. Authorization to proceed was provided by Mr. Joe Beard on August 21, 2013. Five additional geotechnical borings, as well as an environmental study, were added to the scope. The environmental study will be provided as a separate report when it is completed.

2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Drilling Dates: Borings were drilled in from August 26 to September 27, 2013. Dates of

each boring are shown on the individual boring logs in the Appendix. Boring Layout: Borings were located in the field by Langerman Foster Engineering (LFE)

personnel. Some of the borings were subsequently surveyed by Leth, Ltd. A summary of basic drilling information, including boring elevations, depths of fill, and depths to limestone bedrock is contained on Plate 3 in the Appendix.

Sampling Methods: In general, samples were obtained with push-tubes in cohesive soils,

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT’s) in granular soils, and NQ-size core drilling in rock materials. Water was used as a drilling fluid in the rock core drilling process.


3.0 LABORATORY TESTS Test Results: Laboratory test results are shown on Plate 4 in the Appendix and selected

tests are shown on the boring logs. Test Procedures: Laboratory tests were conducted in general conformance with the

standards noted in Table 3.1.

TABLE 3.1: LABORATORY TESTS

Test Name Test Method

Atterberg Limits ASTM D 4318

-#200 Mesh Sieve ASTM D 1140

Moisture Content ASTM D 2216

Soil Classification ASTM D 2487

Unconfined Compression (rock) ASTM D 2938

4.0 SITE OBSERVATIONS AND PHOTOGRAPHS Site Observations: The Brazos Riverfront will be situated along the south bank of the Brazos

River in downtown Waco. Interstate I-35 forms the eastern boundary of the site, and Franklin Avenue forms the west boundary. Much of the site contains existing structures and pavements that will be razed as part of the development process.

Photographs and descriptions are shown on the following pages.


East of Railroad Tracks facing towards Baylor Stadium. Fire Training Tower on the right.

Concrete dock and piles. View is facing upstream.


Geoprobe rig that was used to drill on the existing dock. View is facing upstream.

Retaining Wall and hike & bike trail near the dock. View is facing downstream towards the I-35 bridges.


Drilling at Boring B-3 between the Brazos River and the Fire Tower. View is looking downstream.

Existing apartment building.

Drilling at Boring R-1. View is facing east.


5.0 SUBSURFACE MATERIALS Stratigraphy: Major strata types are listed in Table 5.1, and individual boring logs are

contained in the Appendix. Material descriptions are general and range of depths approximate because boundaries between different strata are seldom clear and abrupt in the field.

TABLE 5.1: MAJOR STRATA TYPES

Strata Depth to Top of Strata (ft)

Depth to Base of Strata (ft)

General Description

I 0 11.5 to 51.5 OVERBURDEN SOILS and/or EXISTING FILL

II 11.5 to 51.5 100+ LIMESTONE

Stratum changes are approximations, and in-situ transitions are usually gradual. Plate 3 in the Appendix contains a summary list of boring elevations, fill depths, and depths to limestone bedrock. Individual boring logs contain detailed information.

Geology: Based on the available geologic mapi,ii of the area and the contents of the

borings, the site contains Alluvial Deposits overlying the Austin Chalk Formation. In some areas, fill soils have been placed, and estimates of the fill depths are shown on the individual boring logs.

Alluvial Deposits are derived from meandering paths and flood events of the Brazos River. Due to the inconsistent means of deposition, the deposits vary both horizontally and vertically in content and engineering properties. At this site, most of the native soils consist of silty sands with various layers with clay and/or gravel. From a geologic perspective, alluvial deposits are considered recent. The underlying Austin Chalk is considered a soft limestone based on universal rock classification systems, but is considered relatively hard rock in the Central Texas area. Although the Austin Chalk is usually described as limestone, it is comprised of chalk, chalky limestone, limestone, and marl (hard calcareous clay). The unweathered Austin Chalk is light gray to gray in color. The limestone is generally massive; however, faulting has produced discontinuities that sometimes include slickensided fracture planes.


Our borings revealed the presence of an ancient “underground cliff” based on the elevation of limestone in the borings. The approximate location of the cliff is shown on Plates 2A, 2B, and 2C in the Appendix. Cross sections of the borings are also included in the Appendix. Be aware that the term “underground cliff” is not a geologic definition, rather it is a general layman’s term to describe an unusual geologic feature. Although there are faults near the Brazos Riverfront site, there are not any that are mapped in the immediate vicinity of the project area. Originally, the cliff would have been about 30 to 40 feet in height, and would have looked something like Lover’s Leap a little further upriver. Over thousands of years, river materials such as clay, sand, and gravel evidently filled in the cliff area to form what we see on the surface today. Of course, early Wacoans did some backfilling as well. Natural cliffs normally have colluvium at the base of the cliff. This consists of cobbles and boulders that rolled down the cliff when it was exposed. Colluvium may interfere with foundation installations.

Groundwater: Water level measurements were made prior to using water for coring limestone bedrock, and groundwater notes are included on the individual boring logs in the Appendix.

In general, we expect that the groundwater elevation will be about the same elevation as Lake Brazos. At normal pool, the lake elevation is about 376 feet. Transient groundwater may occur at higher elevations, especially after rain events. The water observations conducted for this investigation are short-term and should not be interpreted as a groundwater study.


6.0 GEOTECHNICAL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS Project Information: The project consists of a master planned development that will include a

hotel, high-rise condominium tower, mixed-use retail and apartment centers, restaurants, parking garages, and a grocery store. Riverfront improvements include a new retaining wall along the river, and a modified dock in the area of the former Brazos Belle Riverboat. Details concerning the configurations of the facilities were in the planning stage when this report was issued. We anticipate that additional geotechnical design data will be needed as the project progresses.

Dewatering: Due to the proximity of some of the structures to the Brazos River,

groundwater, and possibly flood water, will impact design and construction. Groundwater and flood water issues are only addressed in a general fashion in this report.

Existing Fill: Existing fill was present in most of the borings near the river, and the

depth varied from 3.5 to 19 feet at the boring locations. Plate 3 in the Appendix contains a summary of the fill depths and descriptions. Some of the fill contains brick fragments, pieces of glass, cinders, and other items that may be “tornado debris” from the 1953 tornado that struck Waco. At that time, debris was dumped in many low-lying areas in the vicinity of the river.

As of the date of this report, there are ongoing studies by Terracon to

determine whether the fill has components that require remediation, and whether buildings can be constructed over the fill without concerns of methane or other environmental-related problems.

For purposes of this report, we have assumed that the existing fill can

be constructed upon. If environmental requirements demand that the existing fill be removed, remediated in place, or other special treatment is necessary, then we must be contacted to provide additional geotechnical recommendations.

Expansive Soil: Clay soils in the Central Texas area are subject to expansive soil

movements, which include swelling under moist conditions and shrinking under dry conditions. The moisture fluctuations occur due to seasonal wet and dry cycles, but are also influenced after construction by site grading, drainage, landscaping, and groundwater. Actual soil movement is difficult to determine due to the many unpredictable variables involved.


Most of the soils consist of lean clays and sands that do not exhibit expansive clay movements. However, there may be occasional layers or pockets of fat clay soils that are expansive, and should be removed below permanent structures.

Silty Sand: Silty sand and other unstable subgrade soils are prevalent throughout the site. Earthwork in silty soils is often problematic because small changes in moisture content will cause a rapid loss of strength. Rutting often occurs with heavy equipment, especially with repetitive loads. Over-working of silty soils, especially with vibratory equipment, will exacerbate problems. Depending on the actual conditions encountered during construction, it may be necessary to use woven filter fabrics, geogrids, clean rock, or cement treatment of the soils in order to improve the subgrade. The most effective procedure will depend upon the soil conditions and time of year stabilization is needed.

Silty sands are also easily eroded. Small cracks in utilities, such as sewer pipes, will draw silt and fine sand into the line, and this creates voids. In this particular area of Waco, sinkholes have occurred due to silts and sands washing into sewer lines. The City of Waco recently completed major restoration of a sewer line and several sinking manholes that cracked and created major voids. We highly recommend that sewer lines be designed and constructed in such a manner that breaks in sewer lines do not create voids.

Foundation Types: We anticipate that deep foundations extending to limestone bedrock will be needed for the major structures and retaining walls along the river. Potential deep foundation systems are listed below. Smaller structures such as restaurants may be supported with simple footing or stiffened slab foundations, but there will be a risk of future settlements in areas that have existing fill.

Auger-cast Piles: Auger-cast piles (ACP’s) are constructed by advancing a continuous hollow-stem auger to refusal in limestone bedrock. Fluid cement grout is then pumped under pressure through the center of the auger shaft as it is withdrawn, leaving a continuous concrete pile. Pile diameters generally range from 16 to 30 inches, and reinforcing can be placed in the piles. ACP’s have been successfully used on the Baylor Stadium project as well as the Highers Simpson Athletic Building, and the Ferrell Center Addition. On all of these projects, ACP’s were rapidly constructed and were able to achieve significant load bearing. ACP’s must be load tested during construction to verify capacity. Be aware that the cost to mobilize ACP equipment is significant.


Drilled Shafts: Although drilled shafts are the most common deep foundation system in the Central Texas area, only portions of the overall Brazos Riverfront are favorable from an installation standpoint.

In areas where the depth to limestone is less than about 30 feet (elevation of limestone is about 378 or higher), and groundwater is not present, drilled shafts will provide a desirable combination of economy and load support. In areas where the depth to limestone is more than about 30 feet (elevation of limestone is below about 378 feet), drilled shafts can be used, but the installation process will be slow and cumbersome for the project schedule. Mobilization costs for drilled shafts are generally low as compared to auger-cast piles.

Driven Piles: Installing driven pipe piles or H-piles is a viable alternative for this site; however, this is not a common foundation system in the area. The piles may easily be driven through the sandy soils to refusal in bedrock, and high capacities are achievable. The piles may be either driven or vibrated to bedrock, and then driven to refusal. At this time, we do not believe this foundation system will be desired alternative, but it is certainly viable. The sandy soils at the site may be sensitive to vibration.

Footings or Stiffened Slabs: Foundations for small structures such as restaurants may be supported on grade with footings and/or stiffened slabs. In areas where native soils are present at the ground surface, the potential for settlement and/or movements due to expansive clay soils is low. However, portions of the site contain existing fill up to about 19 feet, and these areas will be subject to future settlements of an unknown magnitude. In these areas, the existing fill can be removed to a depth of perhaps 5 to 10 feet, re-worked, and then replaced in controlled lifts. The intent is not to eliminate the potential for future settlements, but rather to reduce the risk.

AUGER CAST PILES ACP Description: ACP’s are constructed by advancing a continuous hollow-stem auger to

refusal in limestone bedrock. Fluid cement grout is then pumped under pressure through the center of the auger shaft as it is withdrawn, leaving a continuous concrete pile. Pile diameters generally range from 16 to 30 inches, and reinforcing can be placed in the piles.


Capacities of ACP’s: ACP’s must extend to refusal in limestone bedrock. The capacity of ACP’s

bearing in rock is normally controlled by two items- the strength of the grout relative to requirements in the building codes, and the strength of the rock. At this site, there is an additional concern due to the presence of an ancient cliff that is not apparent at the ground surface. There is probably colluvium at the base of the cliff (colluvium is boulders and chunks of rock that tumble down rock slopes). See Figure 6.1.

Figure 6.1: Sketch of the underground cliff and foundation challenges (not to scale)

There are two basic types of rigs that install auger-cast piles, namely fixed mast rigs and conventional rigs with hanging leads. Fixed mast rigs can auger down through colluvium materials such as boulders and cobbles that will likely exist in the area of the underground cliff. Conventional


rigs with hanging leads generally cannot auger through these materials due to the lack of downcrowd as compared to fixed mast rigs. However, construction with conventional rigs is more rapid as compared to fixed mast rigs. The International Building Code has different limiting capacity requirements based on the strength of the grout. Test results indicate that the strength of the rock rather than the strength of the grout will control the ultimate capacity, but it is critical that load tests be performed for verification.

We understand that the 2009 code will be used for this project. Design capacities for ACP’s are provided in Table 6.1, and must be verified during construction with load tests.

TABLE 6.1: ACP CAPACITIES

ACP Diameter (inches)

Grout Strength (psi)

ACP Capacity (tons)

16 4,000 110

18 4,000 140

24 4,000 250

30 4,000 390

Capacities must be verified by field load tests.

All piles within 50-ft of the toe or crest of the underground cliff must penetrate at least 10 feet into limestone (See Figure 6.1) with either drilled shafts or ACP’s installed with a fixed-mast rig.

Side Friction: Table 6.2 contains allowable side friction values for auger-cast piles. The

side friction for piles spaced horizontally between 2 and 6 diameters (center to center) should be multiplied by a reduction factor varying linearly as shown in Table 6.3.


TABLE 6.2: ALLOWABLE TENSILE SIDE FRICTION

Depth (feet) Strata Description Allowable Side Friction(1) (psf)

0 to 5 Clay or Sand Neglect

5 to 40 Clay or Sand 300

(1) Tensile. Do NOT use as additive to compressive strengths from Table 6.1.

TABLE 6.3: REDUCTION FACTORS FOR SIDE FRICTION

Pile Spacing Reduction Factor (percent)

< 2 diameters 50

3 diameters 67

4 diameters 78

5 diameters 89

≥ 6 diameters 100

Multiply the calculated side friction by the appropriate reduction factor

Lateral Loads: At some locations, the ACP’s will be subject to lateral loads that must be

resisted by the soil. One common software package to design for lateral loads is the L-Pile computer program. Geotechnical input parameters for L-Pile are listed in Table 6.4.


TABLE 6.4: LATERAL LOAD DESIGN PARAMETERS (L-PILE VERSION 6)

Depth (feet)

LPile Soil Type

Soil Type Cohesion

(psi) φ

(deg)

ε50 (Soil) or krm (Rock)

Unit Wt (2) (pci)

Modulus, ks (pci)

Initial Modulus of Rock Mass (psi)

Uniaxial Comp.

Strength (psi)

0 to 5

Neglect

Silt, Sand, and Clay

2 (1) --- 0.01 0.060 --- --- ---

5 to top

of Rock Loose Sand

Silt, Sand, and Clay

--- 30 --- 0.060 20 --- ---

Rock Weak Rock Limestone --- --- 0.0005 0.076 --- 20,000 2,000

(1) Minor cohesion, unit weight, and modulus as listed above may be used to account for the effect of the overburden soils.

(2) Unit weights listed above represent total unit weights. For soils below the water table, the unit weight of water must be subtracted. This yields a submerged unit weight of 0.024 pci (41.3 pcf). It would be conservative to assume that the water level will rise to the top of ground for calculation purposes.

DRILLED SHAFTS Description: Drilled shafts are installed by using an auger to drill into limestone. Steel

reinforcement is placed in the excavation, and concrete is poured up to a specified elevation. Drilled shafts are the most common foundation type in the Waco area.

Risk: In areas where the depth to limestone is less than about 30 feet

(elevation of limestone is about 378 or higher), and groundwater is not present, drilled shafts will provide a desirable combination of economy and load support. In areas where the depth to limestone is more than about 30 feet (elevation of limestone is below about 378 feet), drilled shafts can be used, but the installation process will be slow and cumbersome for the project schedule. Mobilization costs for drilled shafts are generally low as compared to auger-cast piles.


Installing drilled shafts on portions of the overall Brazos Riverfront site will be difficult from a constructability standpoint. Where sand soils are present below the water table, temporary casing must be seated into limestone to seal out groundwater and prevent caving. Normally, casing in this situation is vibrated to the top of limestone, but at this site vibrations may cause liquefaction of the silty sand soils that would impact other components of the new structure and existing structures. Vibration monitoring may be required. In addition, installing cased drilled piers is a slow process as compared to installing ACPs. There will be a schedule impact.

Bearing Stratum: Gray LIMESTONE End Bearing: Straight-shaft drilled piers may be designed using an allowable end-

bearing pressure of 100,000 psf with a penetration of at least 3 feet into LIMESTONE. This capacity may be increased if confirmed with load tests. Drilled shafts should be specified to terminate on a hard layer and not a softer marly layer after the required penetration is achieved. This may require penetrating more than 3 feet and would be determined on a pier by pier basis.

All piers within 50-ft of the toe or crest of the underground cliff must

penetrate at least 10 feet into limestone (See Figure 6.1). Side Friction: An allowable tensile side friction value of 300 psf may be used in the

overburden clay/sand soils to resist uplift loads, but the top 5 feet should be neglected. Compressive side friction support is not recommended above the limestone. An allowable tensile and compressive side friction value of 5,000 psf can be used after an initial 3-ft penetration into LIMESTONE.

Settlement: Properly designed and constructed drilled shafts are expected to have a

settlement of ½ inch or less. Casing: Temporary casing and/or slurry drilling techniques will be required to

properly install the drilled shafts where groundwater and caving conditions occur. As discussed above, using temporary casing will be problematic in certain situations. Slurry drilling may be used instead, but will require a company that specializes in this method. There are numerous pitfalls to slurry drilling, such as the bearing stratum cannot be visually confirmed, and the concrete must be poured from the bottom up using a tremie. It may not be possible to create thick enough slurry to prevent the silt/sand soils from caving. With either method, several test piers would need to be installed to confirm the drilling methods.


Pier Spacing: The side friction for piers spaced horizontally less than 6 diameters

(center to center) should be multiplied by a reduction factor as listed in Table 5.3 in the auger-cast pile recommendations.

Lateral Loads: Geotechnical parameters for lateral load resistance are shown in the

previous Table 6.4.

INTERIOR FLOOR SLABS ASSOCIATED WITH DEEP FOUNDATIONS Description: In areas where native soils are present at the ground surface, the

potential for settlement and/or movements due to expansive clay soils is low. Interior slabs may be constructed on grade. If a building has heavier than normal floor slab loads (more than 50 psf), then additional subgrade preparation may be needed to support the loads. Case-by-case recommendations must be made for individual structures.

In areas where existing fill is present, it is impossible to predict future

settlements. From a practical standpoint, the existing fill can be removed to a depth of perhaps 5 to 8 feet, and then replaced in controlled lifts with compaction. The top 2 feet of the building pad should consist of imported select fill that meets the specifications in Section 8 of this report. Pending environmental studies may restrict whether the existing fill can be removed and/or modified.

In areas where existing fill is deeper than about 5 to 8 feet, it is less

practical to remove and re-compact the fill. Instead, we suggest that the interior floor slabs be designed as structural slabs such that the slab is fully supported by the deep foundations. For this method, the slab can be constructed on grade without the use of void spaces or carton forms. However, future settlements of the fill will not affect the slab because it is fully supported by the deep foundations.

FOOTINGS AND/OR STIFFENED SLABS ON GRADE (FOOTING OPTION 1) Risk: Foundations for small structures such as restaurants may be supported

on grade with footings and/or stiffened slabs. In areas where native soils are present at the ground surface, the potential for settlement and/or movements due to expansive clay soils is low.


However, portions of the site contain existing fill up to about 19 feet, and these areas will be subject to future settlements of an unknown magnitude. From a practical standpoint, the existing fill can be removed to a depth of perhaps 5 to 8 feet, and then replaced in controlled lifts with compaction. The top 2 feet of the building pad should consist of imported select fill that meets the specifications in Section 8 of this report. The intent is not to eliminate the potential for future settlements, but rather to reduce the risk. Pending environmental studies may restrict whether the existing fill can be removed and/or modified. Rigid architectural features such as masonry, stucco, CMU block walls and floor tiles do not perform well when the potential settlements exceed approximately ½-inch. Allowances for differential movement including frequent movement joints will be required to reduce architectural cracking. A properly designed slab may perform satisfactorily from a structural standpoint but still experience architectural cracking.

Bearing Stratum: Native Soils or Imported Select Fill Bearing Pressure: An allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf may be used. Perimeter grade

beams or footings should be bear at a depth of at least 24 inches below the final ground surface.

BRAB/PCI: The Building Research Advisory Board (BRAB) and Prestressed Concrete

Institute are two published design procedures for slabs on expansive soils. Both of these method utilize an effective PI of the subsurface soils and a Regional Climatic Index of Cw=19 for Waco. An Effective PI of 22 can be used for design.

FOOTING FOUNDATION WITH SOIL CEMENT (FOOTING OPTION 2)

Risk: In areas where the fill is deeper than about 5 to 8 feet, a second option is

to improve the upper soil with soil cement in a manner to reduce differential settlements, which will substantially reduce the potential for cracking of the slabs. This approach will not completely eliminate the potential for settlement of the building, but will substantially reduce that potential for areas with thick fill. We successfully used this approach for the new Baylor Hawkins Tennis Center. Pending environmental studies may restrict whether the existing fill can be modified.


Figure 6.2: Sketch of Foundation (not to scale)

Subgrade Improvement: The layered system shown in Figure 6.2 includes a variety of materials,

and specifications for each material are summarized in Section 8 of this report.

Depending on the finished floor elevation, an excavation will be made to a depth of about 5 to 6 feet. The soils at this depth may consist of clay and silt soils that do not compact easily, and are often subject to severe rutting when heavy and/or vibratory equipment is used. Therefore, the first layer should consist of about 12 inches of clean, oversize rock to stabilize the base of the excavation (if needed). The next layer consists of soil cement in which the onsite soils are mixed with Portland cement. This layer is designed to permanently bind these otherwise weak soils into a strengthened layer to provide support for the foundations. Using onsite soils eliminates the need to import material for this layer. Footings should bear on top of the soil cement. The next layer consists of imported select fill materials. Locally-available “red fill” can be used, but must be approved by the geotechnical engineer on a case-by-case basis since there are often variations in the quality. The thickness of this layer will need to be specified by the structural engineer to accommodate the thickness of the slab relative to the finished floor elevation and other structural features. Using this layer of select fill also makes installation of plumbing and other features easier (as compared to soil cement).


This layered system will not eliminate all settlement because the

foundation will be constructed above weak fill soils. Bearing Stratum: Soil Cement Bearing Pressure: An allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf can be used for footings

bearing on soil cement.

Miscellaneous Geotechnical Parameters Seismic: For structural designs based upon the 2006 IBC, the Site Class is D. The

Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at short periods (SS) is about 0.10g, and the Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at a 1 second period (S1) is about 0.04g. Site Coefficients are as follows: Fa= 1.6 and Fv= 2.4.

Hazards associated with slope stability, soil liquefaction, surface rupture, and lateral spreading are not considered an issue with this site due to the study area being in a seismically inactive area and the site being underlain at a relatively shallow depth by bedrock.

Vapor Barriers: The need for vapor barriers, and where to place them, must be determined by the structural engineer based on the proposed floor treatment, building function, concrete properties, placement techniques, and the construction schedule. When moisture barriers are used, precautions should be taken during the initial floor slab concrete curing period to reduce differential curing and possible curling of the slabs.


7.0 SITE RETAINING WALLS AND RIVERFRONT WALLS Project Information: Retaining walls will be used throughout the site for various applications.

Exterior walls will be used to accommodate changes in grade, and are expected to be less than 10 feet in height. Riverfront walls are addressed as a separate item.

Figure 7.1: Sketch of Retaining Wall (not to scale, for illustrative purposes only)

TABLE 7.1: EARTH PRESSURE PARAMETERS

Earth Pressure Coefficient Equivalent Fluid

Pressure (pcf)

Surcharge Pressure, P1

(psf)

Earth Pressure, P2

(psf)

At-Rest (K0) 0.50 60 (0.50)S 60X

Active (KA) 0.33 40 (0.33)S 40X

Passive (KP) 3.0 360 -- --

Values assume a 1H:1V wedge of select fill behind the wall with a unit weight of 120 pcf.

Values assume that the wall is drained. Hydrostatic pressures must be added for an undrained condition

Earth pressure parameters do not include a factor of safety

Drainage material: ASTM C-33, Size 67 gravel aggregate, uniformly compacted

Base sliding resistance: 500 psf

Footing bearing pressure: 3,000 psf

Resultant Horizontal Forces per linear foot: o RH1= (P1)(X), where RH1 is acting at ½X from the top of the wall o RH2= (0.5)(P2)(X), where RH2 is acting at ⅔X from the top of the wall

Wedge ofSelect Fill

For the active condition,movement at the top isabout 0.002X to 0.004XS

X2

3

RH2

RH1

X

For the at-rest condition,it is assumed that nomovement will occur

Synthetic drain ordrainage material

X1

2


Footing Support: For the footing bearing pressure listed in Table 7.1, at least 12 inches of

clean rock must be placed directly below the base of the footing. This will help to strengthen the silty sand soils at the site to provide a relatively uniform base for supporting the footing. The clean rock should be angular with particles of about 3 to 5 inches in size. Footings should not be used for walls on the actual riverfront due to scour and slope stability.

Riverfront Walls: General: We understand that new walls will be constructed at various areas along

the riverfront. Walls along the river must be designed to prevent damage due to wave action, prevent scour that will undermine the walls, and not fail due to slope stability. All walls must be designed in accordance with permits from the Corps of Engineers.

Existing Dock: An existing concrete dock extends into a shallow backwater area. It was

originally constructed to serve as an access point for a river boat, first the Brazos Queen and later the Brazos Belle. Currently, there are not any river boats docked. Borings M-1 and M-2 were drilled through the concrete, and revealed that that slab has a thickness of about 3.5 to 5 inches. Limestone bedrock was encountered about 35 feet below the slab, and there were not any obstructions encountered at the boring locations.

We understand that the Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over

construction along the river, and that preliminary inquiries suggest that the existing concrete dock footprint area can be re-used with certain limitations.

Per the Corps, new construction cannot extend past the dock footprint,

except that driven piles can be installed to suspend a deck over the water. Drilled piers or auger-cast piles can be used within the existing footprint of the dock, but cannot be used in the water.

We understand that the design team is currently weighing different

concepts for utilization of the existing dock area. One method to support a new dock system is to use sheet piling with dead-man anchors. Another is to support a new retaining wall with drilled shafts or auger-cast piles that are drilled through the existing concrete docks. Once a particular method is chosen, cooperation between the wall designer and LFE will be needed.


Sheet Piling: Most wall systems used in marine environments include the use of sheet piling in conjunction with deadman anchors. For marinas, the sheet piles are normally capped with concrete to provide a more aesthetic appearance. This system was used for the marina at Baylor Stadium. Along the Brazos Riverfront, sheet piling can be vibrated to a pre-determined depth or to the top of limestone bedrock. Dead-man anchors must be installed at regular intervals to increase the lateral support for the piling.

There are existing concrete walkways, rip-rap, and other items along

portions of the existing river. These items will interfere with pile driving, and must be removed.

In conjunction with the site retaining wall recommendations, the

following properties may be assigned to the existing sandy soils: Angle of Internal Friction (Ø)= 28 degrees, and the Friction Angle between Sheet Piles and Backfill (δ)= 14 degrees.

Timber Piles: Based on our understanding of Corp’s requirements, any new decking

that extends past the existing dock footprint can only be supported with piles. We assume that the deck will only support relatively light loads such as pedestrians. Timber piles can be driven to refusal in limestone bedrock, and as such, may be designed using the maximum vertical loads allowed in the applicable building code. Steel points may be used on the piles to provide better seating into limestone. The decking and pile system must be designed to resist lateral loads from floods and debris impacts.


8.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS Site Preparation: Surficial vegetation, root systems, existing pavements, utilities, and any

other underground structures must be removed. Depending on the design of each particular structure, existing fill should also be removed within limitations of the environmental studies and requirements. The stripping depth must be based on field observations with attention given to old drainage areas, uneven topography, and wet soils. Proof-rolling should be used to detect soft spots or pumping subgrade areas. Proof-rolling should be performed using a heavy pneumatic tired roller, loaded dump truck, or similar piece of equipment weighing at least 25 tons.

Grading: Grading, landscaping, and drainage pose a significant risk factor for future

performance of foundation systems, even if the foundation is fully suspended. Preventing water from ponding around the foundation is critical, and good drainage should be obvious to the casual observer. We suggest the following general guidelines for perimeter drainage:

1. The building pad or the finished floor elevation must be elevated

above the exterior finished grade to assist in draining the surface water away from the structure.

2. Where possible, extend paved surfaces up to the building line to serve as a barrier to soil moisture evaporation and infiltration. These surfaces must slope away from the building.

3. Outlets for gutter systems must rapidly discharge water away from

the foundation.

4. Roots from trees and decorative vegetation remove moisture from soils, which causes soil shrinkage (settlement). Trees should have root blockers near the foundation or be located as far away from the foundation as practical.

5. Sprinkler systems must be properly maintained and over-watering of

the soils should be avoided.

Select Fill: Fill should meet the requirements of 2004 TxDOT Item 247, Type A, Grade 3 or better. If another local source of select fill is desired, the following specification may be used as a guide:


Maximum Aggregate: 3 inches Percent Retained on #4 Sieve: 25 - 50 Percent Retained on #40 Sieve: 50 - 75 Plasticity Index: 5 - 15 Non-Organic Please note that locally available “red fill” is generally acceptable for use

as select fill below the building, provided that these materials are confined by grade beams. However, red fill is highly variable and will require evaluation by LFE on a case-by-case basis.

The select fill material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of

ASTM D698 (or TEX-113-E) maximum dry density at ±3% of the optimum moisture content. A maximum compacted lift thickness of six inches must be specified, with each lift tested for compliance prior to the addition of subsequent lifts. The placement and compaction of fill material must be observed, monitored, and tested by LFE on a full-time basis.

Soil Cement: Consists of a mixture of onsite soils and Portland cement. Depending on

the gradation of the materials, add about 6% Portland cement (by weight) to the onsite soils. That will result in roughly 30 pounds of Portland cement per square yard for a 6” lift, or 40 pounds of Portland cement per square yard for an 8” lift. A compressive strength of about 250 psi is desired. Trial mixtures will be needed to assess the appropriate percentage of cement to add, and adjustments to the percentage of cement may be required.

The following procedures apply to mixing and processing of the soil

cement. Step 1- Scarification and Pulverization: The existing material should be

scarified and then pulverized. The depth of pulverization should correspond to lift thickness (either 6” o 8”). The particle distribution should have 100% smaller than 2 inch and 55% passing a No. 4 sieve. More than one pass with the pulverizing equipment may be needed.

Step 2- Shaping and Grading: The pulverized materials must be shaped

to the desired cross-section and grade. This process may involve additional earthwork, including the addition or removal of material.

Step 3- Add Cement: Portland cement should be spread in a measured

amount on the surface of the pulverized material, in either dry or slurry form. The amount of cement applied to the pulverized material is critical in this process, and is discussed in the specifications below.


Step 4- Water Application: Water must be added to bring the aggregate-

cement mixture to optimum moisture content. Step 5- Mixing: The mixture must be combined and blended using a

pulverizing/mixing machine. Multiple passes of the mixer may be required to achieve a uniform blend of materials. Proper mixing and blending is critical in this process.

Step 6- Compaction: Compaction is usually performed with a smooth-

drum vibratory roller. A pneumatic-tired roller may follow to finish the surface. Final compaction should take place no more than 3 hours past initial mixing of the cement. The mixture should be compacted to at least 95% of standard Proctor (ASTM D698) at optimum moisture or higher. Depending on the uniformity of the mixture across the site, the density requirement may be waived.

Step 7- Curing: The surface must be kept moist by periodically applying

water to the surface to avoid drying. This should be performed continuously for the first 24 hours. The prime coat should be applied as soon as possible thereafter to better seal the moisture inside the base.

Oversize Rock: Should consist of clean, crushed stone with sizes ranging from about 3 to

8 inches approved by the geotechnical engineer. Compaction specifications to not apply; however, the rock should be placed in such a manner that will stabilize the bottom of the excavation.

Subgrade: The subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM

D698 (or TEX-113-E) maximum dry density at 0 to +3% of the optimum moisture content. A maximum compacted lift thickness of six inches must be specified, with each lift tested for compliance prior to the addition of subsequent lifts. The placement and compaction of fill material must be observed, monitored, and tested by LFE on a full-time basis. Proof-rolling may be used in lieu of compaction testing of the subgrade, but will require approval by LFE on a case-by-case basis.

Foundations: Foundation construction recommendations for drilled piers and footings

are listed below.

1. A minimum pier shaft diameter of 24 inches is normally specified to allow for cleaning, minimum construction tolerances, and conventional concrete mix designs. Smaller diameters may be used at the discretion of the structural engineer.


2. Foundation construction must be observed by LFE to determine that the proper bearing material has been reached in accordance with the recommendations given herein.

3. Prior to the placement of concrete, water must be removed from

foundation excavations. Prolonged exposure or inundation of the bearing surface with water may result in changes in bearing strength and compressibility characteristics. If delays occur, the drilled shaft and/or footing excavations should be deepened and cleaned, in order to provide a fresh bearing surface.

4. Concrete must be placed promptly after the excavations are

completed, cleaned, and observed. Drilled piers must be concreted before the end of the work day.

5. The reinforcement steel cage placed in the shaft must be designed

from the standpoint of meeting at least the following two requirements: (1) the structural requirements for the imposed loads; and (2) stability requirements during the placement of concrete.

6. Groundwater was encountered during our field exploration. Drilled

shafts will require temporary steel casing to seal out groundwater and prevent the pier holes from caving. Special concrete design and construction procedures as described in ACI 336.1 and ACI 336.3R should be specified in order to properly extract the casing during concrete placement. ACI requires placing concrete at a minimum slump of 6 inches when temporary steel casing is used.


9.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Pavement: New pavement will be constructed for parking lots, access roads, and

truck deliveries. We have computed several pavement section options for review by the design team.

Risk: Pavement design methods are intended to provide an adequate thickness

of structural materials over the subgrade to support the wheel loads.

The pavement and adjacent areas must be well drained. Proper maintenance must be performed on cracks in the pavement surface to prevent water passing through to the base or subbase material. Extending the base material out about 2 feet from the edge of the pavement curb will also aid in reducing edge related cracking. Routine maintenance is essential.

Pavement “islands” often provide a means of water infiltration into the

base and subgrade materials below the pavement. If islands are used, then we recommend that a synthetic lining or clay soils be used to limit infiltration of water into the base and subgrade. Water entry into the base and subgrade will cause softening of the materials, and will cause potholes and/or ruts to form.

The presence of trees and vegetation adjacent to paved areas will

exacerbate the formation of cracks in pavements due to moisture loss in the subgrade from transpiration to the root systems of the vegetation. Soil moisture loss from vegetation can extend a distance from the vegetation about equal to its height.

Design Basis: Due to the conceptual nature of this project, we have developed options

for different pavement applications. We anticipate that there are three basic types of pavement that will be installed:

Light duty pavement may be used for parking of passenger vehicles and light trucks only. Medium duty pavement may be used for drive lanes with moderate traffic such as passenger vehicles, light trucks, and small delivery trucks/vans such as UPS. Heavy-duty pavement may be used for semi-trailer trucks, trash trucks, and fire trucks.


Design Method: AASHTO and American Concrete Institute guidelines. Traffic Loads: For pavement design purposes, traffic volumes are expressed as the

number of Equivalent 18-kip single axle load applications (ESAL) over a 20 year theoretical pavement design life. We have summarized values for three primary traffic conditions.

We have computed the approximate types and volumes of different vehicles to aid in the design team’s evaluation of the intended uses of the pavements.

TABLE 9.1: TRAFFIC ESTIMATES

Traffic Area Typical Traffic ESAL’s Reference Table

Light Duty Light cars and trucks, no heavy vehicles, similar to a low volume residential street.

20,000 Table 9.2A

Medium Duty Light cars, pickup trucks, and small delivery vehicles

100,000 Table 9.2B

Heavy Duty Semi-trailer trucks, trash trucks, fire trucks

500,000 Table 9.2C

TABLE 9.2A: ESTIMATED TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS (20,000 ESAL’S – LIGHT DUTY)

Vehicle Type Gross Vehicle Weight

(kips) Vehicles per Day

Cars 4 2,000

Pickup Trucks 7 350

UPS Trucks 20 0

Semi-Trailer Trucks 80 0


TABLE 9.2B: ESTIMATED TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS (100,000 ESAL’S – MEDIUM DUTY)



Cars 4 4,000

Pickup Trucks 7 1,000

UPS Trucks 20 30


TABLE 9.2C: ESTIMATED TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS (500,000 ESAL’S – HEAVY DUTY)



(per lane)

Cars 4 4,000

Pickup Trucks 7 1,000

Buses or UPS Trucks 20 40


Pavement Options: With the above in mind, we have developed pavement sections that can be evaluated by the design team. The sections are listed in Table 9.3, and include risk factors relative to cost, performance life, maintenance, and aesthetics. Detailed descriptions are also provided for each pavement section, and material specifications are provided.

Be aware that there are many possible combinations of pavement materials, and the listed options are intended to be reasonable alternatives. Other sections may be suggested during the design process relative to cost, risk tolerance, aesthetics, and other factors, and those can be evaluated on a case by case basis.


TABLE 9.3: PAVEMENT OPTIONS

Type Surface Base Relative Cost

Performance Life

Maintenance Aesthetics

LIGHT DUTY PAVEMENT

Concrete 5” RCP 6” CTB High Long Low High

Concrete 5” RCP None Medium Medium Medium Medium

Asphalt 1.5” Type D 6” CTB Medium Medium High Medium

CTB None 6” CTB Low Medium High Low

MEDIUM DUTY PAVEMENT


Concrete 6” RCP None Medium Medium Medium Medium

Asphalt 1.5” Type D 8” CTB Medium Medium High Medium

CTB None 8” CTB Low Medium High Low

HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT


RCP… Reinforced Concrete Pavement

Type D… Asphalt with a relatively smooth surface (fine aggregate matrix)

CTB… Cement Treated Base (imported, locally available base)

Option 1: Concrete over Cement Treated Base

Concrete over CTB will have a long performance life, superior aesthetics, and will be low maintenance. Construction costs will be high compared to the other options, but the design life is expected to be more than 40 years with relatively low maintenance.

Option 2: Concrete over Compacted Subgrade

In order to save costs, it is possible to place reinforced concrete directly on a compacted subgrade. There is risk associated with this approach,


and cracking of the concrete is likely. Concrete is rigid and subgrade soils are flexible. It is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve uniform compaction on the variable subgrades present across the project area. Thus, when vehicles travel across the pavement, the concrete must bridge over soft spots.

Option 3: Asphalt over Cement Treated Base

Asphalt over CTB will have a moderate to perhaps long performance life, but will require maintenance. It is the most common pavement type used in the Waco area, and construction costs will be moderate compared to the other options. CTB is a mixture of sand, gravel, and cement, and is essentially weak concrete. Cracks form in CTB because it shrinks as it cures. These cracks are random and reflect up into asphalt pavements, and sealing of the cracks soon after construction is required. From an aesthetics standpoint, this type of pavement is undesirable because cracks will be visible to the public. However, there are methods to reduce the formation of cracks. Concrete pavements are not affected by this type of cracking. One method to reduce cracking is to place the CTB at least a month in advance of the asphalt surface. This has a secondary benefit because the CTB can be placed early in the construction process to provide an all-weather surface. Equipment can drive across the CTB without getting stuck, and construction materials can be placed on the surface. If areas of the CTB are damaged, it can be replaced relatively easily.

Option 4: Cement Treated Base over Compacted Subgrade

This is a temporary pavement option in which CTB is placed such that an asphalt overlay of 1.5” can be placed at a later date if desired. This approach is sometimes used in the Waco area for temporary parking lots, and in some cases for permanent parking lots where aesthetics are not a concern. The CTB will crack. Pavement striping can be performed on CTB, but the striping would be less-pronounced as compared to asphalt. Re-striping will be needed on a regular basis, perhaps semi-annually.

Silty Sand Soils: Silty sand soils are prevalent throughout the site. Earthwork in silty soils

is often problematic because small changes in moisture content will cause a rapid loss of strength. Rutting often occurs, and overworking of silty soils, especially with vibratory equipment, will exacerbate problems.


Depending on the actual conditions encountered during construction, it may be necessary to use geogrids, filter fabric, cement treatment, or clean rock to improve the subgrade.

Specifications: Pavement specifications. The TxDOT citations below reference the 2004

Edition unless stated otherwise.

1. Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete (HMAC): TxDOT Item 340.

2. Reinforced Concrete Pavement (RCP): TxDOT Item 360, Concrete Pavement. The concrete class should be specified as Class P in accordance with TxDOT Item 421, Portland Cement Concrete. Usually, isolation joints are placed at 10-ft to 15-ft intervals. Reinforcement often consists of #3 bars placed at 12-in to 16-in intervals in each direction. The project Civil Engineer should use their discretion to decide on the joint and reinforcement details, and should follow ACI recommended practices.

3. Cement Treated Base (CTB): City of Waco specifications.

4. Clean Rock: Should consist of clean, crushed stone with sizes ranging from about 3 to 8 inches approved by the geotechnical engineer. Compaction specifications to not apply; however, the rock should be placed in such a manner that will stabilize the subgrade.

5. Subgrade: The subgrade and material that is placed to raise the grade

should be compacted to at least 95% of ASTM D698 (or TEX-113-E) maximum dry density at a moisture content range of 0% to +3.0% of optimum moisture content. Fill material should be placed in 6-inch compacted lifts. Silty soils may be problematic, and may require additional measures. Existing fill soils may contain debris that will impact future performance. Placement of the fill must be monitored by an experienced engineering technician, and all undesirable debris must be removed.

6. The pavement must have positive drainage, and water must not pond in areas directly adjoining paved sections.


10.0 DESIGN REVIEW AND LIMITATIONS Design Review: We were provided with preliminary site plans and design information.

The recommendations contained in this report are based on this information. We must be consulted of any changes so that we may re-evaluate our recommendations. We also must be given the opportunity to review construction documents to affirm that our recommendations have been interpreted correctly. We cannot be responsible for misinterpretations if not given the opportunity to review aspects of the project that are based on the contents of this report. Such a review is considered an additional service.

Limitations: This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client and their

designated project design team. Preparation of the report has been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by reputable geotechnical engineers in the same locality. No warranties, express or implied, are intended or made.

The subsurface conditions are interpreted from samples taken only at the locations noted. During construction, variations will be encountered, and will require interpretation by LFE to verify the adequacy of the geotechnical recommendations.

This investigation did not include environmental testing or evaluations,

and does not address whether landfilling operations, as defined by the State of Texas, have occurred on the property. Another firm is providing environmental services for this project to address the environmental concerns.

i Virgil E. Barnes, Project Director, Geologic Atlas of Texas, Waco Sheet, The University of Texas at Austin Bureau of Economic Geology, 1970. ii Yelderman, Joe C Jr., and Cervenka, Robert E., Environmental Atlas of McLennan County, Baylor Geological

Studies, Spring 1992, Bulletins No. 13 & 14.

APPENDIX Site Location Map Boring Location Sketch Laboratory Test Results Boring Logs Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering Report

SITE LOCATION MAP

BRAZOS RIVERFRONT WACO, TEXAS

LFE PROJECT NO. W13-061

PLATE

1

Brazos Riverfront

BORING LOCATION SKETCH



PLATE

2A

B –

1

B –

2

B –

3

B –

4

B –

5

B –

10 B

– 6

B –

7

B –

8

B –

9

G –

1

G –

2

H –

1

H –

2

R –

1

R –

2

M –

1

M –

2

B –

11

B –

12 B –

13

B –

14

B –

15

Ap

pro

xim

ate

loca

tio

n o

f

anci

en

t lim

est

on

e “

clif

f”




PLATE

2B

B –

1

B –

2

B –

3

B –

4

B –

5

B –

10 B

– 6

B –

7

B –

8

B –

9

G –

1

G –

2

H –

1

H –

2

R –

1

R –

2

M –

1

M –

2

B –

11

B –

12

B –

13

B –

14

B –

15

Ap

pro

xim

ate

loca

tio

n o

f

anci

en

t lim

est

on

e “

clif

f”




PLATE

2C

B –

1

B –

2

B –

3

B –

4

B –

5

B –

10 B

– 6

B –

7

B –

8

B –

9

G –

1

G –

2

H –

1

H –

2

R –

1

R –

2

M –

1

M –

2

B –

11

B –

12

B –

13

B –

14

B –

15

Ap

pro

xim

ate

loca

tio

n o

f

anci

en

t lim

est

on

e “

clif

f”

Cro

ss-S

ecti

on

Lin

es.

Cro

ss s

ect

ion

s ar

e o

n

the

att

ach

ed

pag

es.

PLATE 3


SUMMARY OF FILL AND LIMESTONE DEPTHS

Boring

Ground Surface

Elevation (ft)

Depth of Fill

(ft) Fill Description

Depth to Limestone

(ft) Limestone Elevation

B-1 394 6 Mixture of clay, sand, and brick fragments 11.5 382.5

B-2 397.5 6

Mixture of clay, sand, gravel, brick fragments and pieces of glass. A layer of possible burned cinders was present at a

depth about 4 to 5 feet

15 382.5

B-3 393.5 19 Mixture of clay, sand, gravel, brick

fragments, and pieces of glass 49 344.5

B-4 392 3.5 Sand and Clay 47 345

B-5 395 0 N/A 15 380

B-6 395 0 N/A 14 381

B-7 399.5 0 N/A 18.5 381

B-8 392 9 Mixture of clay, sand, gravel, pieces of glass,

and pieces of metal 47 345

B-9 386 8 Mixture of clay, sand, brick fragments and

pieces of glass, and trace gravel 42 344

B-10 400 0 N/A 18 382

B-11 392 18.5 Mixture of clay, sand, pieces of glass, pieces

of asphalt, and trace gravel 47 345

B-12 396 8.5 Mixture of clay, sand, and trace gravel 25 371

B-13 391 4.5 Mixture of clay, sand, and trace gravel 42.5 348.5

B-14 390 5 Mixture of clay, sand, silt, and trace gravel 51.5 338.5

B-15 384 9 Mixture of silt, sand, and gravel 46 338

NOTES:

Ground surface elevations were estimated from a topographic map prepared by Leth Ltd., and were rounded to the nearest ½ -ft.

Fill descriptions are approximate, and are based on relatively small samples. The normal pool elevation of Lake Brazos is about 376-ft

PLATE 3


SUMMARY OF FILL AND LIMESTONE DEPTHS

Boring

Ground Surface

Elevation (ft)

Depth of Fill

(ft) Fill Description

Depth to Limestone

(ft) Limestone Elevation

G-1 406 0 N/A 13.5 392.5

G-2 403.5 0 N/A 13.5 390

H-1 403 0 N/A 25 378

H-2 400 0 N/A 18 382

M-1 379 0 N/A 35 344

M-2 378 0 N/A 33.5 344.5

R-1 404.5 0 N/A 10.5 394

R-2 406.5 0 N/A 15 391.5

NOTES:

Ground surface elevations were estimated from a topographic map prepared by Leth Ltd., and were rounded to the nearest ½ -ft.

Fill descriptions are approximate, and are based on relatively small samples.

The normal pool elevation of Lake Brazos is about 376-ft

B-1 0.0 - 1.5 37 5

B-1 4.5 - 6.0 29 10

B-1 6.5 - 8.0 35 17 18 66 19

B-1 10.5 - 11.8 52 18 34 75 16

B-1 16.1 - 135.5 1.5

B-1 23.0 - 159.0 1.8

B-1 28.0 - 199.2 2.2

B-1 34.0 - 149.2 1.6

B-1 39.3 - 135.4 2.2

B-1 47.8 - 196.0 2.4

B-2 2.5 - 4.0 25 4

B-2 4.5 - 6.0 35 14

B-2 6.5 - 8.0 9 3

B-2 10.5 - 11.8 7 7

B-2 15.8 - 114.4 1.5

B-2 24.0 - 160.9 1.7

B-2 34.0 - 160.0 1.7

B-3 0.0 - 1.5 42 5

B-3 2.5 - 4.0 27 14 13 34 7

B-3 6.5 - 8.0 51 19 32 58 16

B-3 8.5 - 10.0 10 4

B-3 10.5 - 12.0 44 28

B-3 18.5 - 20.0 15 23

B-3 23.5 - 25.0 89 29

B-3 28.5 - 30.0 39 14

B-3 38.5 - 40.0 4 17

B-3 48.5 - 49.2 7 13

B-3 50.0 - 170.4 1.5

B-3 57.4 - 174.0 2.2

B-3 61.8 - 179.7 1.5

B-4 0.0 - 1.5 14 9

B-4 2.5 - 4.0 50 20 30 65 17

B-4 4.5 - 6.0 55 12

B-4 8.5 - 10.0 46 11

B-4 13.0 - 14.5 49 17

B-4 23.0 - 24.5 74 27

B-4 28.0 - 29.5 75 32

B-4 38.0 - 39.6 2 12

B-4 50.0 - 169.7 1.9

B-4 61.3 - 171.7 1.7

B-4 71.2 - 196.3 1.8

B-4 80.0 - 149.3 2.0

Strain atFailure

(%)

LiquidLimit

UnconfinedCompressive

Strength(tsf)

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex

Project: Brazos Riverfront

Project Number: W13-061

Summary of Laboratory Results

Unit DryWeight(pcf)

MoistureContent

(%)

PercentPassingNo. 200Sieve

SampleDepth(ft.)

BoringNo.

Plate 4

CLA

SS

- D

FW

KLE

INF

ELD

ER

.GD

T -

10/

7/13

15

:18

- C

:\US

ER

S\P

UB

LIC

\DO

CU

ME

NT

S\B

EN

TLE

Y\G

INT

\PR

OJE

CT

S\W

13-0

61, B

RA

ZO

S R

IVE

RF

RO

NT

.GP

J

B-4 96.6 - 51.1 1.3

B-5 2.5 - 4.0 26 15 11 60 13

B-5 6.5 - 8.0 46 12

B-5 8.5 - 10.0 15 5

B-5 10.5 - 11.3 47 12

B-5 15.0 - 194.9 2.0

B-5 23.0 - 153.1 1.7

B-5 31.0 - 188.0 2.2

B-6 0.5 - 2.0 35 10

B-6 2.5 - 4.0 24 16 8 66 14

B-6 6.5 - 8.0 24 15 9 63 15

B-6 8.5 - 10.0 46 11

B-6 10.5 - 12.0 23 8

B-6 17.5 - 138.4 1.6

B-6 23.2 - 217.3 2.0

B-6 26.1 - 164.4 2.1

B-7 2.5 - 4.0 36 15 21 65 17

B-7 4.5 - 6.0 45 12

B-7 6.5 - 8.0 25 11

B-7 10.5 - 12.0 7 2

B-7 13.5 - 15.0 5 7

B-7 20.0 - 141.0 1.6

B-7 27.0 - 157.0 2.0

B-7 35.0 - 169.8 2.4

B-8 2.5 - 4.0 44 20 24 32 4

B-8 4.5 - 6.0 40 12

B-8 6.5 - 8.0 64 21

B-8 8.5 - 10.0 66 17

B-8 10.5 - 12.0 37 16 21 83 24

B-8 13.5 - 15.0 77 26

B-8 18.5 - 20.0 57 25

B-8 23.5 - 25.0 81 29

B-8 33.5 - 35.0 6 30

B-8 43.5 - 45.0 12 11

B-8 50.4 - 163.5 2.1

B-8 58.5 - 157.9 1.5

B-8 65.0 - 159.7 1.8

B-9 0.5 - 2.0 36 10

B-9 2.5 - 4.0 38 11

B-9 4.5 - 6.0 19 15 4 37 12

B-9 6.5 - 8.0 64 18

B-9 8.5 - 10.0 45 18

Strain atFailure

(%)

LiquidLimit


Strength(tsf)

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex




Unit DryWeight(pcf)

MoistureContent

(%)


SampleDepth(ft.)

BoringNo.

Plate 4

CLA

SS

- D

FW

KLE

INF

ELD

ER

.GD

T -

10/

7/13

15

:18

- C

:\US

ER

S\P

UB

LIC

\DO

CU

ME

NT

S\B

EN

TLE

Y\G

INT

\PR

OJE

CT

S\W

13-0

61, B

RA

ZO

S R

IVE

RF

RO

NT

.GP

J

B-9 13.5 - 15.0 45 28

B-9 18.5 - 20.0 28 26

B-9 23.5 - 25.0 57 31

B-9 33.5 - 35.0 22 26

B-9 38.5 - 40.0 9 24

B-9 45.0 - 148.5 1.8

B-9 53.0 - 190.2 2.0

B-9 61.0 - 192.6 1.9

B-10 2.5 - 4.0 28 16 12 60 13

B-10 4.5 - 6.0 52 11

B-10 8.5 - 10.0 7 3

B-10 10.5 - 12.0 4 2

B-10 13.5 - 15.0 7 7

B-10 20.0 - 127.1 1.8

B-10 25.0 - 117.8 1.9

B-10 31.0 - 194.2 2.2

B-10 35.0 - 162.1 1.5

B-11 2.5 - 4.0 40 18 22 30 11

B-11 6.5 - 8.0 29 8

B-11 8.5 - 10.0 39 14

B-11 13.5 - 15.0 34 13

B-11 18.5 - 20.0 47 16

B-11 23.5 - 25.0 37 23

B-11 28.5 - 30.0 7 22

B-11 43.5 - 45.0 6 12

B-11 51.0 - 229.9 1.8

B-11 56.7 - 121.9 1.6

B-12 2.5 - 4.0 30 14 16 44 19

B-12 6.5 - 8.0 28 15 13 65 9

B-12 13.5 - 15.0 51 12

B-12 18.5 - 20.0 17 12

B-12 25.7 - 54.0 2.4

B-12 31.0 - 79.9 1.9

B-13 2.5 - 4.0 45 12

B-13 4.5 - 6.0 37 8

B-13 6.5 - 8.0 59 9

B-13 13.5 - 15.0 41 22

B-13 18.5 - 20.0 16 32

B-13 45.5 - 208.8 2.0

B-13 47.5 - 132.4 1.7

B-14 1.0 - 2.5 40 10

B-14 5.0 - 6.5 48 13

Strain atFailure

(%)

LiquidLimit


Strength(tsf)

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex




Unit DryWeight(pcf)

MoistureContent

(%)


SampleDepth(ft.)

BoringNo.

Plate 4

CLA

SS

- D

FW

KLE

INF

ELD

ER

.GD

T -

10/

7/13

15

:18

- C

:\US

ER

S\P

UB

LIC

\DO

CU

ME

NT

S\B

EN

TLE

Y\G

INT

\PR

OJE

CT

S\W

13-0

61, B

RA

ZO

S R

IVE

RF

RO

NT

.GP

J

B-14 7.0 - 8.5 98 24

B-14 11.0 - 12.5 68 28

B-14 18.0 - 19.5 86 30

B-14 23.0 - 24.5 7 26

B-14 28.0 - 29.5 5 25

B-14 53.0 - 189.3 2.3

B-14 58.0 - 202.6 2.3

B-15 0.5 - 2.0 10 6

B-15 2.5 - 4.0 33 14

B-15 4.5 - 6.0 12 7

B-15 8.5 - 10.0 33 21

B-15 13.5 - 15.0 65 29

B-15 50.5 - 181.3 1.9

B-15 51.6 - 110.7 1.5

G-1 0.0 - 1.5 25 3

G-1 2.5 - 4.0 31 16 15 29 4

G-1 6.5 - 8.0 6 2

G-1 10.5 - 12.0 7 5

G-1 15.7 - 41.7 1.7

G-1 20.3 - 181.1 1.7

G-1 25.0 - 156.6 1.9

G-1 30.0 - 165.9 1.8

G-2 0.0 - 1.5 40 4

G-2 2.5 - 4.0 32 15 17 46 8

G-2 4.5 - 6.0 66 12

G-2 6.5 - 8.0 77 14

G-2 8.5 - 10.0 42 15 27 79 14

G-2 10.5 - 12.0 64 21

G-2 15.8 - 147.2 2.5

G-2 20.8 - 107.1 2.4

G-2 26.7 - 128.5 2.3

G-2 31.4 - 141.5 1.7

G-2 35.0 - 167.7 2.0

H-1 2.5 - 4.0 37 16 21 75 15

H-1 6.5 - 8.0 82 19

H-1 8.5 - 10.0 45 18 27 85 18

H-1 10.5 - 12.0 64 17

H-1 13.5 - 15.0 31 14

H-1 18.5 - 20.0 10 14

H-1 26.0 - 148.9 1.7

H-1 31.3 - 176.4 1.8

H-1 38.8 - 156.8 2.0

Strain atFailure

(%)

LiquidLimit


Strength(tsf)

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex




Unit DryWeight(pcf)

MoistureContent

(%)


SampleDepth(ft.)

BoringNo.

Plate 4

CLA

SS

- D

FW

KLE

INF

ELD

ER

.GD

T -

10/

7/13

15

:18

- C

:\US

ER

S\P

UB

LIC

\DO

CU

ME

NT

S\B

EN

TLE

Y\G

INT

\PR

OJE

CT

S\W

13-0

61, B

RA

ZO

S R

IVE

RF

RO

NT

.GP

J

H-1 44.0 - 182.1 1.9

H-2 0.5 - 23 14 9 25 2

H-2 2.5 - 4.0 16 10

H-2 6.5 - 8.0 23 8

H-2 10.5 - 12.0 37 7

H-2 13.0 - 14.5 6 6

H-2 20.0 - 168.8 1.8

H-2 26.0 - 195.5 2.3

H-2 32.2 - 110.3 1.7

H-2 39.0 - 282.2 2.1

H-2 42.4 - 187.5 1.8

H-2 46.7 - 253.7 2.0

M-1 2.5 - 19 15 4 45 21

M-1 7.5 - 51 25

M-1 17.5 - 53 28

M-1 27.5 - 6 13

M-1 32.5 - 12 15

M-2 2.5 - 30 17 13 28 21

M-2 7.5 - 33 25

M-2 17.5 - 22 21

M-2 27.5 - 8 14

M-2 31.5 - 32 11

R-1 0.0 - 1.5 31 2

R-1 2.5 - 4.0 22 6

R-1 4.5 - 6.0 9 3

R-1 8.5 - 10.0 8 5

R-1 15.3 - 151.3 1.6

R-1 20.4 - 140.9 1.9

R-1 28.0 - 191.6 2.3

R-1 35.0 - 187.2 2.6

R-2 2.5 - 4.0 24 5

R-2 6.5 - 8.0 12 5

R-2 10.5 - 12.0 20 6

R-2 16.0 - 132.5 2.4

R-2 21.6 - 142.2 2.0

R-2 27.2 - 160.7 2.2

R-2 33.6 - 189.9 2.0

R-2 39.0 - 206.8 2.0

Strain atFailure

(%)

LiquidLimit


Strength(tsf)

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex




Unit DryWeight(pcf)

MoistureContent

(%)


SampleDepth(ft.)

BoringNo.

Plate 4

CLA

SS

- D

FW

KLE

INF

ELD

ER

.GD

T -

10/

7/13

15

:18

- C

:\US

ER

S\P

UB

LIC

\DO

CU

ME

NT

S\B

EN

TLE

Y\G

INT

\PR

OJE

CT

S\W

13-0

61, B

RA

ZO

S R

IVE

RF

RO

NT

.GP

J

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

410

0 0.001 0.002290

300

310

320

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

410

0 0.001 0.002

SUBSURFACE DIAGRAME

leva

tion

(ft)

Distance Along Baseline (ft)

CLIENT Brazos Riverfront Development, LLC

PROJECT NUMBER W13-061

PROJECT NAME Brazos Riverfront

PROJECT LOCATION Waco, Texas

ST

RA

TIG

RA

PH

Y &

GW

- A

SIZ

E -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/7/

13 1

4:0

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ

Langerman Foster Engineering2000 S. 15th StreetWaco, Texas 76706Telephone: 245-235-1048

B-4

B-10

B-12

320

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

0 0.001 0.002320

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

0 0.001 0.002

SUBSURFACE DIAGRAME

leva

tion

(ft)






ST

RA

TIG

RA

PH

Y &

GW

- A

SIZ

E -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/7/

13 1

3:5

7 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


B-7

B-14

B-15

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

0 0.001 0.002 0.003290

300

310

320

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

0 0.001 0.002 0.003

SUBSURFACE DIAGRAME

leva

tion

(ft)






ST

RA

TIG

RA

PH

Y &

GW

- A

SIZ

E -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/7/

13 1

4:1

5 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


B-4

B-6

B-7

B-13

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

410

0 0.001 0.002 0.003330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

410

0 0.001 0.002 0.003

SUBSURFACE DIAGRAME

leva

tion

(ft)






ST

RA

TIG

RA

PH

Y &

GW

- A

SIZ

E -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/7/

13 1

3:4

6 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


B-1B-11

G-1

360

365

370

375

380

385

390

395

400

405

410

0 0.001360

365

370

375

380

385

390

395

400

405

410

0 0.001

SUBSURFACE DIAGRAME

leva

tion

(ft)






ST

RA

TIG

RA

PH

Y &

GW

- A

SIZ

E -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/7/

13 1

3:4

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


G-1

G-2

320

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

410

0 0.001 0.002 0.003320

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

410

0 0.001 0.002 0.003

SUBSURFACE DIAGRAME

leva

tion

(ft)






ST

RA

TIG

RA

PH

Y &

GW

- A

SIZ

E -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/7/

13 1

3:5

3 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


B-2

B-3

G-2

350

355

360

365

370

375

380

385

390

395

400

405

0 0.001 0.002350

355

360

365

370

375

380

385

390

395

400

405

0 0.001 0.002

SUBSURFACE DIAGRAME

leva

tion

(ft)






ST

RA

TIG

RA

PH

Y &

GW

- A

SIZ

E -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/7/

13 1

3:4

1 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


H-1

H-2

360

365

370

375

380

385

390

395

400

405

410

0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007360

365

370

375

380

385

390

395

400

405

410

0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007

SUBSURFACE DIAGRAME

leva

tion

(ft)






ST

RA

TIG

RA

PH

Y &

GW

- A

SIZ

E -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/7/

13 1

3:4

3 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


R-1

R-2

96(96)

100(100)

10-16-17(33)

5-11-19(30)

5-4-4(8)

3-5-6(11)

5-50/5"

20-18-50/4"

50/2"

35

52

17

18

37

29

66

75

5

10

19

16

135.5

159

18

34

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

RC

RC

1.5

1.8

387.5

384.0

382.5

379.0

FILL - CLAYEY SAND; brown to gray, with sand

--- brick fragments below 2.5 feet, traceorganics

SANDY LEAN CLAY; dark gray, with gravel

FAT CLAY; tan, with sand and gravel

LIMESTONE; gray, fractured

LIMESTONE; gray

(Continued Next Page)

Completion Depth:Date Started:Completed:Logged by:

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

50 ft.

8/26/13

8/26/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was advanced to a depth of 15 feet prior to using water in therock core drilling process. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of8 feet below the existing ground surface after a 24 hr time period.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

PAGE 1 OF 2BORING NO. B-1





MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


100(92)

100(100)

100(100)

100(100)

100(100)

199.2

149.2

135.4

196

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

2.2

1.6

2.2

2.4

344.0

LIMESTONE; gray (continued)

Bottom of borehole at 50.0 feet.


GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

25

30

35

40

45

50

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

50 ft.

8/26/13

8/26/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was advanced to a depth of 15 feet prior to using water in therock core drilling process. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of8 feet below the existing ground surface after a 24 hr time period.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


92(84)

100(100)

100(94)

100(100)

8-14-16(30)

10-20-15(35)

5-7-7(14)

7-14-21(35)

17-32-32(64)

14-25-50/4"

50/5"

50/4"

25

35

9

7

4

14

3

7

114.4

160.9

160

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

RC

RC

RC

RC

1.5

1.7

1.7

392.5

391.0

384.0

382.5

362.5

FILL - CLAYEY SAND; brown, with gravel andpieces of brick and glass

--- cinders and ash

CLAYEY SAND; tan

SILTY SAND and GRAVEL; tan

WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan and gray,fractured

LIMESTONE; gray



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

35 ft.

8/27/13

8/27/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was advanced to a depth of 15 feet prior to using water in therock core drilling process. 14 days after drilling, cave-in was observed at11 feet below existing ground surface.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


8-14-16(30)

5-6-9(15)

3-4-3(7)

2-2-3(5)

2-4-5(9)

1-1-1(2)

1-1-3(4)

3-2-2(4)

2-3-4(7)

7-8-10(18)

0-0-1(1)

27

51

14

19

42

34

58

10

44

15

89

39

5

7

16

4

28

23

29

14

13

32

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

389.0

384.5

383.5

374.5

370.0

365.0

360.0

FILL - CLAYEY SAND; gray and brown, withgravel and pieces of brick and glass

FILL - SANDY FAT CLAY; tan, with gravel

FILL - SILTY SAND; red-brown

FILL - CLAYEY SAND; tan and red-brown, tracegravel, organics, and cinders

--- brick fragments

--- mix of sand, clay, brick fragments - brown,dark brown, red-brown

SILTY SAND; gray

LEAN CLAY; dark gray, silty

SILTY SAND; gray, trace gravel

SAND; gray, trace silt and gravel



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

65 ft.

8/26/13

8/26/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was advanced to a depth of 50 feet prior to using water in therock core drilling process. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of29.5 feet below the existing ground surface. After a 10 min observationperiod, water was observed at 19.6 feet.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


100(88)

100(84)

92(92)

7-6-29(35)

17-50/5"

19-50/2"

4

7

17

13

170.4

174

179.7

SS

SS

SS

RC

RC

RC

1.5

2.2

1.5

344.5

328.5

SAND; gray, trace silt and gravel (continued)

LIMESTONE; gray



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

65 ft.

8/26/13

8/26/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was advanced to a depth of 50 feet prior to using water in therock core drilling process. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of29.5 feet below the existing ground surface. After a 10 min observationperiod, water was observed at 19.6 feet.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


15-6-17(23)

3-6-10(16)

4-6-5(11)

2-3-3(6)

2-2-1(3)

1-1-1(2)

1-1-2(3)

3-3-3(6)

1-2-4(6)

1-1-1(2)

1-2-4(6)

4-20-50(70)

50 20

14

65

55

46

49

74

75

2

9

17

12

11

17

27

32

12

30

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

391.9

389.5388.5

385.5

369.0

359.0

345.0

2' ASPHALTFILL - SILTY SAND and GRAVEL; brown

FILL - SANDY FAT CLAY; gray, with gravelSANDY LEAN CLAY; red-brown, silty

SILTY SAND; red-brown, trace gravel

--- gravel layers

SANDY SILT; red-brown

--- red-brown and gray

SAND; tan, trace gravel

--- gravel layers

LIMESTONE; gray



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

100 ft.

8/30/13

8/30/13

C.RAST

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was advanced to a depth of 50 feet prior to using water in therock core drilling process. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of16.4 feet below the existing ground surface. After a 15 min observationperiod, the water level stayed the same.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


100(100)

100(100)

100(100)

100(96)

100(88)

100(74)

86(16)

96(54)

100(58)

100(72)

169.7

171.7

196.3

149.3

51.1

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

1.9

1.7

1.8

2.0

1.3

292.0


--- interbedded shale layers below 80 feet

--- fewer shale layers below 95 feet



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

50

60

70

80

90

100

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

100 ft.

8/30/13

8/30/13

C.RAST

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was advanced to a depth of 50 feet prior to using water in therock core drilling process. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of16.4 feet below the existing ground surface. After a 15 min observationperiod, the water level stayed the same.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


100(100)

100(100)

100(100)

100(100)

10-9-5(14)

2-3-4(7)

1-2-3(5)

2-3-5(8)

35-23-11(34)

22-50/4"

50/2"

26 15 60

46

15

47

13

12

5

12

194.9

153.1

188

11

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

RC

RC

RC

RC

2.0

1.7

2.2

394.7

389.0

380.0

360.0

2" ASPHALT over 3" BASESANDY LEAN CLAY; brown, silty

SILTY SAND and GRAVEL; tan and gray

LIMESTONE; gray



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

35 ft.

8/27/13

8/27/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was advanced to a depth of 15 feet prior to using water in therock core drilling process. 14 days after drilling, cave-in was observed at9.5 feet below existing ground surface.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


80(50)

100(80)

50(14)

4-7-11(18)

2-2-3(5)

1-2-4(6)

2-3-4(7)

2-3-3(6)

7-31-32(63)

27-50/5"

24

24

16

15

35

66

63

46

23

10

14

15

11

8

138.4

217.3

164.4

8

9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

RC

RC

RC

1.6

2.0

2.1

394.3

393.0

386.5

385.0

381.0

365.0

4" ASPHALT over 4" GRAVEL BASESILTY SAND; brown, with clay

SANDY LEAN CLAY; red-brown

SILTY SAND; tan

SILTY SAND and GRAVEL; tan and gray

LIMESTONE; tan and gray, fractured

--- less fractured

--- gray

--- shale layer

--- low recovery and RQD due to gravel in corebarrel



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

30 ft.

9/4/13

9/4/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


100(100)

3-8-4(12)

3-4-8(12)

3-5-5(10)

2-2-12(14)

8-17-20(37)

18-37-34(71)

10-15-18(33)

50/2"

36 15 65

45

25

7

5

17

12

11

2

7

141

21

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

RC

1.6

399.0

395.0

389.0

382.5

381.0

2" CONCRETE, over 4" GRAVELSANDY LEAN CLAY; gray

--- red-brown below 2.5 feet

SILTY SAND; red-brown and gray, with clay andgravel


GRAVEL; tan

LIMESTONE; gray



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

40 ft.

9/3/13

9/3/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


100(100)

90(84)

100(90)

157

169.8

RC

RC

RC

2.0

2.4

359.5




GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

25

30

35

40

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

40 ft.

9/3/13

9/3/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


17-27-18(45)

3-2-1(3)

2-3-3(6)

2-1-1(2)

2-3-4(7)

2-2-3(5)

2-3-3(6)

1-1-1(2)

1-1-1(2)

6-9-12(21)

6-7-12(19)

44

37

20

16

32

40

64

66

83

77

57

81

6

4

12

21

17

24

26

25

29

30

24

21

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

386.0

381.5

373.5

368.5

358.5

FILL - CLAYEY SAND; brown, with gravel

--- pieces of glass

FILL - SANDY LEAN CLAY; dark red-brown,with pieces of metal and brick

LEAN CLAY; dark gray, silty

--- tan below 14 feet

SANDY LEAN CLAY; tan, silty

SANDY SILT; tan

SAND; tan, with silt, trace gravel



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

70 ft.

9/4/13

9/4/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


92(52)

100(60)

100(46)

100(84)

7-23-16(39)

11-40-37(77)

50/1"

12 11

163.5

157.9

159.7

SS

SS

SS

RC

RC

RC

RC

2.1

1.5

1.8

348.5

345.0

322.0

SAND; tan, with silt, trace gravel (continued)


LIMESTONE; gray



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

70 ft.

9/4/13

9/4/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


4-6-14(20)

6-12-13(25)

6-9-11(20)

1-6-6(12)

1-2-1(3)

1-2-2(4)

1-1-1(2)

1-2-1(3)

0-0-2(2)

1-6-15(21)

2-3-5(8)

19 15

36

38

37

64

45

45

28

57

22

10

11

12

18

18

28

26

31

26

4

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

385.6

381.5

380.0

378.0

362.5

357.5

2" ASPHALT over 4" GRAVELFILL - SILTY SAND; dark brown to brown, withgravel, brick fragments, and pieces of glass

FILL - SILTY SAND; red-brown to dark brown,trace gravel

FILL - SANDY LEAN CLAY; dark red-brown,trace gravel, pieces of ceramic

CLAYEY SAND; gray, with silt

--- tan

--- gray-brown

SANDY SILT; gray-brown, with clay

SILTY SAND; brown



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

65 ft.

9/5/13

9/5/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was advanced to a depth of 45 feet prior to using water in therock core drilling process. Groundwater was not observed above thatdepth.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


100(76)

100(80)

100(100)

100(100)

3-5-17(22)

50/1"

9 24

148.5

190.2

192.6

SS

SS

RC

RC

RC

RC

1.8

2.0

1.9

344.0

321.0

SILTY SAND; brown (continued)

--- with gravel below 38.5 feet

LIMESTONE; gray



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

65 ft.

9/5/13

9/5/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


100(74)

5-5-5(10)

3-4-5(9)

2-2-2(4)

2-2-10(12)

9-23-25(48)

10-26-21(47)

10-15-35(50)

50/3"

28 16 60

52

7

4

7

13

11

3

2

7

127.1

12

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

RC

1.8

399.3

392.5

383.0

382.0

6" CONCRETE over 2 inches sandy base

SANDY LEAN CLAY; red-brown, with silt


GRAVEL; tan

LIMESTONE; gray



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

40 ft.

9/3/13

9/3/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was advanced to a depth of 20 feet prior to using water in therock core drilling process. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of15 feet below the existing ground surface. After a 10 min time period,the water level was at 14.5 feet.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


100(86)

100(86)

76(20)

117.8

194.2

162.1

RC

RC

RC

1.9

2.2

1.5

360.0


--- low recovery and RQD due to sand in corebarrel



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

25

30

35

40

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

40 ft.

9/3/13

9/3/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was advanced to a depth of 20 feet prior to using water in therock core drilling process. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of15 feet below the existing ground surface. After a 10 min time period,the water level was at 14.5 feet.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


2-4-6(10)

1-3-3(6)

2-3-5(8)

8-9-11(20)

1-2-2(4)

2-2-6(8)

3-1-2(3)

3-2-2(4)

1-2-2(4)

3-5-9(14)

3-4-6(10)

40 18 30

29

39

34

47

37

7

11

8

14

13

16

23

22

22

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

383.5

373.5

363.5

FILL - CLAYEY SAND; gray, with gravel

--- pieces of glass

--- pieces of glass and asphalt

FILL - CLAYEY SAND; tan, trace gravel

--- pieces of glass and 2 bone fragments

CLAYEY SAND; gray-brown, trace gravel

SILTY SAND; tan and gray



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

60 ft.

9/23/13

9/23/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was advanced to a depth of 50 feet prior to using water in therock core drilling process. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of24 feet below the existing ground surface.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


90(62)

100(100)

3-6-11(17)

9-10-11(21)

50/1"

6 12

229.9

121.9

SS

SS

SS

RC

RC

1.8

1.6

348.5

345.0

332.0

SILTY SAND; tan and gray (continued)

SILTY SAND; tan, with gravel

LIMESTONE; gray



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

35

40

45

50

55

60

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

60 ft.

9/23/13

9/23/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


90(86)

100(80)

2-2-3(5)

2-2-2(4)

3-4-5(9)

1-5-5(10)

3-5-5(10)

5-6-7(13)

3-5-7(12)

5-7-7(14)

6-14-22(36)

30

28

14

15

44

65

51

17

19

9

12

12

54

79.9

16

13

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

RC

RC

2.4

1.9

390.0

387.5

377.5

371.0

361.0

FILL - CLAYEY SAND; dark gray, trace gravel

FILL - SANDY LEAN CLAY; tan

SANDY LEAN CLAY; tan, silty, with gravel

SILTY SAND; tan, with gravel

LIMESTONE; gray



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

35 ft.

9/23/13

9/23/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was advanced to a depth of 25 feet prior to using water in therock core drilling process. Groundwater not observed above that depth.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


7-6-7(13)

2-3-4(7)

2-2-3(5)

2-3-5(8)

3-4-5(9)

1-1-2(3)

1-1-2(3)

45

37

59

41

16

12

8

9

22

32

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

390.5

386.5

384.5

377.5

3" ASPHALT over 3" BASEFILL - CLAYEY SAND; tan, with gravel

SILTY SAND; tan, with clay and trace gravel

SANDY SILT; tan, with clay and gravel

SILTY SAND; tan, with clay and trace gravel



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

50 ft.

9/27/13

9/27/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


90(90)

208.8

132.4RC

2.0

1.7

348.5

341.0

SILTY SAND; tan, with clay and trace gravel(continued)

LIMESTONE; gray



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

25

30

35

40

45

50

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

50 ft.

9/27/13

9/27/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


9-8-6(14)

2-2-1(3)

1-2-1(3)

3-4-5(9)

1-2-3(5)

1-1-1(2)

1-2-2(4)

1-4-6(10)

2-4-8(12)

7-18-21(39)

40

48

98

68

86

7

5

10

13

24

28

30

26

25

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

389.0

385.0

383.0

379.0

367.0

12" CEMENTED GRAVEL BASE

CLAYEY SAND; brown, with silt and gravel(possible fill)

SILTY SAND; red-brown, with clay and tracegravel

SILT; dark red-brown, with clay and trace sand

SILTY SAND; dark red-brown, with clay andtrace gravel

SAND; red-brown, with silt

--- light red-brown



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

60 ft.

9/26/13

9/27/13

C.RAST

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was advanced to a depth of 53 feet prior to using water in therock core drilling process. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of19.5 feet below the existing ground surface. After a 15 min observationperiod, the water level was at 19 feet.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


100(100)

100(100)

189.3

202.6

RC

RC

2.3

2.3

337.0

330.0

SAND; red-brown, with silt (continued)

LIMESTONE; gray



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

60 ft.

9/26/13

9/27/13

C.RAST

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was advanced to a depth of 53 feet prior to using water in therock core drilling process. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of19.5 feet below the existing ground surface. After a 15 min observationperiod, the water level was at 19 feet.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


24-10-5(15)

2-5-3(8)

1-2-3(5)

1-2-1(3)

1-1-1(2)

1-1-1(2)

10

33

12

33

65

6

14

7

21

29

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

383.5

382.5

379.5

375.0

4" ASPHALT over 3" GRAVELFILL - SAND; tan, with silt

FILL - SILTY GRAVEL; gray, with sand

FILL - SILTY SAND and GRAVEL; dark gray,with clay

--- sand and gravel, graySILTY SAND; tan



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

55 ft.

9/27/13

9/27/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


90(56)

181.3

110.7

RC

1.9

1.5

338.0

329.0

SILTY SAND; tan (continued)

LIMESTONE; gray



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

30

35

40

45

50

55

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

55 ft.

9/27/13

9/27/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


86(70)

100(90)

100(100)

100(100)

15-20-16(36)

8-14-13(27)

6-9-6(15)

5-10-14(24)

8-21-24(45)

13-17-15(32)

50/4"

31 16

25

29

6

7

3

4

2

5

41.7

181.1

156.6

165.9

15

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

RC

RC

RC

RC

1.7

1.7

1.9

1.8

403.5

399.5

392.5

391.0

371.0

CLAYEY GRAVEL; red-brown, with sand

CLAYEY SAND; red-brown, with gravel

SAND and GRAVEL; tan, trace silt and clay

WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan

LIMESTONE; gray



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

35 ft.

8/28/13

8/28/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)


PAGE 1 OF 1BORING NO. G-1





MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


100(96)

100(100)

10-18-13(31)

6-8-7(15)

6-9-10(19)

5-10-12(22)

5-8-12(20)

50/5"

32

42

15

15

40

46

66

77

79

64

4

8

12

14

14

21

147.2

107.1

17

27

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

RC

RC

2.5

2.4

399.0

393.0

390.0

388.5

CLAYEY SAND; red-brown, trace gravel

SANDY LEAN CLAY; gray

--- less sandy below 6.5 feet

SANDY LEAN CLAY; red-gray, silty

WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan

LIMESTONE; gray



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

40 ft.

8/28/13

8/28/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


100(74)

92(92)

100(92)

128.5

141.5

167.7

RC

RC

RC

2.3

1.7

2.0

363.5




GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

25

30

35

40

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

40 ft.

8/28/13

8/28/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


3-3-4(7)

2-4-6(10)

4-5-9(14)

3-5-6(11)

3-6-8(14)

6-10-10(20)

4-16-19(35)

7-12-14(26)

4-50/4"

37

45

16

18

75

82

85

64

31

10

15

19

18

17

14

14

21

27

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

392.5

389.5

384.5

378.0

LEAN CLAY; gray, with sand and silt

--- brown, trace gravel

SANDY LEAN CLAY; tan, silty

CLAYEY SAND; tan, silty




GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

45 ft.

8/27/13

8/28/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was advanced to a depth of 25 feet prior to using water in therock core drilling process. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of19 feet below the existing ground surface. After a 10 minute time period,the water level rose to 16 feet.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)


PAGE 1 OF 2BORING NO. H-1





MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


100(90)

100(100)

100(100)

100(80)

148.9

176.4

156.8

182.1

RC

RC

RC

RC

1.7

1.8

2.0

1.9

358.0

LIMESTONE; gray



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

25

30

35

40

45

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

45 ft.

8/27/13

8/28/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was advanced to a depth of 25 feet prior to using water in therock core drilling process. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of19 feet below the existing ground surface. After a 10 minute time period,the water level rose to 16 feet.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


100(100)

23-27-30(57)

6-14-15(29)

9-26-26(52)

21-9-9(18)

4-4-6(10)

3-4-3(7)

10-16-22(38)

50/1"

23 14 25

16

23

37

6

2

10

8

7

6

168.8

9SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

RC

1.8

397.5

389.5

387.0

382.0

CLAYEY SAND; red-brown, with gravel

SILTY SAND and GRAVEL; red-brown

SILTY SAND; red-brown, with gravel

SAND and GRAVEL; tan, trace silt

LIMESTONE; gray



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

50 ft.

8/29/13

8/29/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was advanced to a depth of 20 feet prior to using water in therock core drilling process. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of18.5 feet below the existing ground surface. After a 10 minute timeperiod, the water level rose to 18 feet.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


100(100)

100(100)

100(100)

100(100)

92(88)

195.5

110.3

282.2

187.5

253.7

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

2.3

1.7

2.1

1.8

2.0

350.0




GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

25

30

35

40

45

50

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

50 ft.

8/29/13

8/29/13

M.Radtke

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was advanced to a depth of 20 feet prior to using water in therock core drilling process. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of18.5 feet below the existing ground surface. After a 10 minute timeperiod, the water level rose to 18 feet.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


19 15 45

51

53

6

12

21

25

28

13

15

4MC

MC

MC

MC

MC

MC

MC

374.0

354.0

344.0

3.5' CONCRETE over FILL-SILTY SAND; brown

SANDY SILT; brown

SILTY SAND; brown, with gravel

--- hole terminated at 35' on limestoneBottom of borehole at 35.0 feet.


GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

35 ft.

9/11/13

9/11/13

O. Foster

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was completed using a Geoprobe at 5 foot increments untilrefusal.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)


PAGE 1 OF 1BORING NO. M-1





MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


30 17 28

33

22

8

32

21

25

21

14

11

13MC

MC

MC

MC

MC

MC

MC

368.0

350.5

344.5

5" CONCRETE over FILL-SILTY SAND; brown,with gravel and pieces of glass

SILTY SAND; brown

SILTY GRAVEL; brown

--- hole terminated at refusal, 33.5'Bottom of borehole at 33.5 feet.


GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

33.5 ft.

9/11/13

9/11/13

O. Foster

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Remarks: Boring was completed using a Geoprobe at 5 foot increments untilrefusal.

ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)


PAGE 1 OF 1BORING NO. M-2





MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


90(80)

100(100)

17-20-16(36)

4-4-5(9)

8-11-11(22)

10-16-16(32)

7-8-9(17)

50/5"

31

22

9

8

2

6

3

5

151.3

140.9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

RC

RC

1.6

1.9

400.0

394.0

CLAYEY SAND; gray-brown, with gravel

SAND and GRAVEL; red-brown, with silt

LIMESTONE; gray



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

40 ft.

8/29/13

8/29/13

C.RAST

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)


PAGE 1 OF 2BORING NO. R-1





MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


100(100)

100(100)

100(100)

191.6

187.2

RC

RC

RC

2.3

2.6

364.5




GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

25

30

35

40

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

40 ft.

8/29/13

8/29/13

C.RAST

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


92(70)

100(94)

6-6-8(14)

4-5-4(9)

2-3-5(8)

2-4-3(7)

3-4-9(13)

9-10-30(40)

24

12

20

5

5

6

132.5

142.2

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

RC

RC

2.4

2.0

405.9

404.0

396.0

391.5

2" ASPHALT over 5" GRAVEL

CLAYEY SAND; brown, with gravel

SAND and GRAVEL; red-brown, with silt

SILTY SAND and GRAVEL; tan to light gray

LIMESTONE; gray



GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

40 ft.

8/29/13

8/29/13

C.RAST

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


100(100)

100(100)

96(96)

160.7

189.9

206.8

RC

RC

RC

2.2

2.0

2.0

366.5




GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DE

PT

H(f

t)

25

30

35

40

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

UN

CO

NF

INE

DC

OM

PR

ES

SIV

ES

TR

EN

GT

H (

tsf)ATTERBERG

LIMITS

40 ft.

8/29/13

8/29/13

C.RAST

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

X

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E


ST

RA

IN A

TF

AIL

UR

E (

%)







MA

IN G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

G -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

0/9/

13 1

0:1

4 -

C:\U

SE

RS

\PU

BLI

C\D

OC

UM

EN

TS

\BE

NT

LEY

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\W13

-061

, BR

AZ

OS

RIV

ER

FR

ON

T.G

PJ


October 10, 2013 Brazos Riverfront Development Waco, Texas...th2000 South 15 Street, Waco, Texas...

Documents

Transcript of October 10, 2013 Brazos Riverfront Development Waco, Texas...th2000 South 15 Street, Waco, Texas...