geotechnical engineering report - oakton community · pdf filegeotechnical engineering report...

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

Geotechnical Engineering Report Science & Health Careers Center

Oakton Community College

Des Plaines, Illinois

October 4, 2011

Terracon Project No. 11115059

Prepared for:



Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Naperville, Illinois

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................... 1

2.1 Project Description ............................................................................................... 2

2.2 Site Location and Description ............................................................................... 3

3.1 Typical Profile ....................................................................................................... 3

3.2 Water Level Observations ..................................................................................... 4

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ........................................ 5

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations ................................................................................ 5

4.2 Earthwork .............................................................................................................. 6

4.2.1 Site Preparation......................................................................................... 6

4.2.2 Engineered Fill Material Requirements ...................................................... 7

4.2.3 Fill Placement and Compaction Requirements .......................................... 7

4.2.4 Earthwork Construction Considerations ..................................................... 8

4.2.5 Grading and Drainage ............................................................................... 9

4.3 Drilled Shaft Foundations .....................................................................................10

4.3.2 Drilled Shaft Foundation Design Recommendations .................................10

4.3.2 Drilled Shaft Foundation Construction Considerations ..............................12

4.4 Floor Slab ............................................................................................................13

4.4.1 Floor Slab Design Recommendations ......................................................13

4.4.2 Floor Slab Construction Considerations ...................................................14

4.5 Below Grade Walls ..............................................................................................14

4.5.1 Lateral Earth Pressures ............................................................................14

4.5.2 Subsurface Drainage ................................................................................16

4.6 Pavements ..........................................................................................................16

4.6.1 Pavement Design Recommendations .......................................................16

4.6.2 Pavement Construction Considerations ....................................................18

4.7 Seismic Site Class ..............................................................................................18

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Exhibit A-1 Field Exploration Description

Exhibit A-2 Boring Location Plan

Exhibits A-3 to A-21 Boring Logs

Exhibits A-22 & A-23 ReMi Seismic Testing Results

APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING

Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing

Exhibits B-2 Chemical Test Results

APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit C-1 General Notes

Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Science & Health Careers Center ■ Des Plaines, Illinois October 4, 2011 ■ Terracon Project No. 11115059

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following items represent a brief summary of the findings of our subsurface exploration and

our geotechnical recommendations for the proposed Science & Health Careers Center planned

at Oakton Community College in Des Plaines, Illinois. This summary should be reviewed in

conjunction with the complete report.

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, the anticipated structural

loads (600 to 1,000 kip column loads), and the preliminary building plans provided to us at

the time this report was prepared, it is Terracon’s opinion that the proposed 3-story building

should be supported on drilled shaft foundations. Geotechnical recommendations for

design and construction of drilled shaft foundations are provided in this report.

Existing fill materials (comprised primarily of lean clay with variable amounts of sand and

gravel) were encountered to depths of about 2½ to 6 feet below existing surface grades

at most of the boring locations. Based on conditions encountered in the borings, it

appears that some compactive effort was applied to portions of the fill; however, no

documentation regarding placement and compaction of the fill was provided for our

review. If the existing fill will be left in place below slabs, pavements or other features,

additional observation and testing of the existing fill should be performed to reduce the

risk of adverse slab/pavement performance.

The soils encountered in the upper few feet at the boring locations generally consisted of

lean clays with traces of sand and gravel (both fill and native soils). The moisture content

of these soils was relatively high (ranging from about 18 to 31 percent) at many of the

boring locations. Subgrades comprised of clay soils with relatively high moisture

contents often become unstable when they are disturbed and/or subjected to

construction traffic. Therefore, some undercutting or stabilization of the subgrade will

likely be required to facilitate compaction of new engineered fill or to provide a stable

subgrade for grade supported floor slabs and pavements.

A 10-year flood elevation of 634.1 feet and a 100-year flood elevation of 636.5 feet were

indicated on the preliminary plans provided to us. The ground surface elevation at the

building area borings generally ranged from about 632 to 634 feet. Therefore, even

though the depth to water was variable at the boring locations, and water was not

encountered at some boring locations, it is likely that water will be encountered in

excavations at this site. The contractor should anticipate this and plan for the

appropriate dewatering needed to control seepage and facilitate construction.



Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable ii

Close monitoring of the construction operations discussed herein will be critical in

achieving the design subgrade support. We therefore recommend that Terracon be

retained to provide observation/testing during this portion of the work.

This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It

should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the

report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained

herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the

report limitations.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

SCIENCE & HEALTH CAREERS CENTER

OAKTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE

DES PLAINES, ILLINOIS Terracon Project No. 11115059

October 4, 2011

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed a subsurface exploration for the proposed

Science & Health Careers Center planned at the Oakton Community College campus in Des

Plaines, Illinois. Twenty (20) borings were performed at the site to depths ranging from

approximately 10 to 80 feet below the existing ground surface. Boring logs and a Boring Location

Plan are included in Appendix A.

Borings 1 through 12 were located within the proposed new Science & Health Careers Center

building area. Borings 13 through 15 were located near the existing Oakton Community College

building, and were requested to provide preliminary information for a potential future addition to that

building (not addressed in this report). Borings 16 through 18 were performed in the north part of

Parking Lot D (not currently planned for additional development), and Borings 19 and 20 were

performed in the peninsula on the west side of Oakton Lake (where grades may be lowered to

balance the floodplain area and account for the grade increases in the new development).

This report describes the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations, presents

the test data, and provides geotechnical engineering recommendations regarding the following

items:

site preparation and earthwork

design and construction of drilled shaft foundations

floor slab subgrade preparation

lateral earth pressures

pavement subgrade preparation

recommended minimum pavement sections

seismic site class

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

Project information was provided by Legat Architects and is summarized below.




2.1 Project Description

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Site layout See Appendix A, Exhibit A-2 Boring Location Plan

Structure

The proposed building will be a three-story structure located

in the southern part of the existing Parking Lot D. The

building “footprint” is larger in the upper floors due to

overhangs. The plan areas of the first, second and third

floors will be about 24,000, 28,000, and 36,000 square feet,

respectively.

Current grade within most of the building area is at about 633

feet (USGS datum), and the 100-year flood elevation is

approximately 636.5 feet. Therefore, the first floor elevation

is planned to be at about elevation 640.5 feet.

In the west part of the building, fill will be placed above

current grade to develop a subgrade for a slab-on-grade.

In the east part of the building, the first floor slab will be a

structural slab supported on the building’s foundation system,

and the portions of the columns extending below the first floor

level will be screened by a curtain wall that extends to

existing ground level.

A wall with unbalanced backfill is planned at the junction

between the structural slab and slab-on-grade areas of the

building.

Maximum loads

According to the project structural engineer (Harley Ellis

Devereaux), column loads are expected to range from

approximately 600 to 1000 kips.

Maximum allowable settlement

Maximum allowable settlements for the building were not

provided. The following values were assumed:

Columns: 1 inch

Walls: ¾ inch over 40 feet

Pavements

A new parking lot is planned south of the new building, and

some of the existing pavements in Parking Lot D may be

reconstructed.

Grading

Fills of up to 7 feet are expected to develop the floor slab

subgrade in the west part of the building. Cuts/fills of 2 feet

or less are expected in the remainder of the development

area.




2.2 Site Location and Description

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Location Oakton Community College campus, 1600 East Golf Road,


Current Site Improvements

Existing pavements are present within the north part of the

proposed new building area. The south part of the proposed

new building area is currently a lawn area.

Existing topography

Based on the site topographic plan prepared by Manhard

Consulting, surface elevations within the proposed new

building area currently range from about 632 to 634 feet.

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Typical Profile

Subsurface conditions at each boring location are described on the individual boring logs in

Appendix A. The stratification boundaries shown on the boring logs represent the approximate

depths where changes in material types occur. In-situ, transitions between material types can

be more gradual. Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site

can be generalized as follows:

Description Approximate Depth

to Bottom of Stratum Material Encountered Consistency/Density

Surface 1 1 4 to 18 inches Topsoil / topsoil fill N/A

Surface 2 2 9 to 15 inches

2 to 4 inches of asphalt over 6 to

12 inches of crushed stone

aggregate

N/A

Stratum 1 3 2½ to 6 feet

Fill: lean clay with variable

amounts of sand N/A

Stratum 2 3 to 8 feet Lean clay, trace sand and gravel Medium stiff to stiff

Stratum 3 40 to 80 feet

Lean clay, trace sand and gravel;

with occasional seams/layers of

silty clay, silt and sand

Stiff to very stiff

1. Surface 1 was encountered in Borings 1 through 5 and 16 through 18.

2. Surface 2 was encountered in Borings 7 through 10 and 12.

3. Stratum 1 was encountered in Borings 1 trough 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17 through 20.




3.2 Water Level Observations

The borings were observed during and after the completion of drilling for the presence and level

of water. The water level observations are summarized in the following table.

Observed Water Depth (ft)

1

Boring Number While Drilling After Drilling

1 None 61

5 13½ None

8 39 39

9 68½ 30

10 7 11½

11 14 None

12 14½ 12

13 7 None

14 18 None

15 9½ None

16 6 6

1 Below existing grade

Water was not encountered in the remaining borings at the time of our exploration. However,

the absence of water at a boring location does not necessarily mean that the boring terminated

above the subsurface water level. Trapped water could occur within existing fill materials, and

“perched” water could occur above lower permeability soil layers and within seams/layers of silt

or sand. Due to the relatively low permeability of the cohesive soils encountered in the borings,

longer term observations in cased holes or piezometers, sealed from the influence of surface

water, would be required for a better evaluation of the groundwater conditions on this site.


indicated on the preliminary plans provided to us. The ground surface elevation at the building

area borings generally ranged from about 632 to 634 feet. Therefore, even though the depth to

water was variable in the borings, and water was not encountered at some boring locations, it is

likely that water will be encountered in excavations at this site.

Water levels may fluctuate due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, and other

factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Trapped or “perched” water could

occur above lower permeability soil layers. Water level fluctuations and perched water should

be considered when developing design and construction plans and specifications for the project.




4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, the anticipated structural loads,

and the preliminary building plans provided to us at the time this report was prepared, it is

Terracon’s opinion that the proposed 3-story building should be supported on drilled shaft

foundations. Recommendations for design and construction of drilled shaft foundations bearing in

stiff to very stiff native clay soils are provided in Section 4.3 of this report.

Existing fill materials (comprised primarily of lean clay with variable amounts of sand and gravel)

were encountered to depths of about 2½ to 6 feet below existing surface grades at most of the

boring locations. Based on conditions encountered in the borings, it appears that some

compactive effort was applied to portions of the fill; however, no documentation regarding

placement and compaction of the fill was provided for our review. Since deep foundations

(drilled shafts) are recommended for support of the building’s structural loads, the presence of

existing fill materials to the depths encountered is not expected to affect the foundation design.

The following considerations are provided regarding the impact of the existing fill on new grade

supported building floor slabs and pavements.

If portions of the existing fill will be left in place, the existing fill should be thoroughly observed

and tested before the fill is used to support new slabs and pavements. The existing pavements

in Parking Lot D have been supported on the fill, and these pavements have reportedly

performed in a satisfactory manner for the owner. However, it should be noted that

undocumented fill may contain soft or loose soils or other unsuitable materials; these conditions

may not be disclosed by the widely spaced, small-diameter borings. If these conditions are

present and are not discovered and corrected during construction, larger than normal settlement

resulting in cracking or other damage could occur in slabs, pavements, utility lines and any other

elements supported on or above the existing fill. These risks can be reduced by thorough

observation and testing during construction, but they cannot be eliminated without complete

removal and replacement of the fill. To reduce the risk of adverse performance and provide

more uniform support for slabs and pavements, any fill materials that will be left in place below

new slab and pavements should be observed and tested. Where unsuitable conditions are

observed, the materials should improved by scarification/compaction or be removed and

replaced with engineered fill that is placed and compacted as recommended in this report.

The soils encountered in the upper few feet at the boring locations generally consisted of lean clays

with traces of sand and gravel (both fill and native soils). The moisture content of these soils was

relatively high (ranging from about 18 to 31 percent) at many of the boring locations. Subgrades

comprised of clay soils with relatively high moisture contents often become unstable when they

are disturbed and/or subjected to construction traffic. Therefore, some undercutting or




stabilization of the subgrade will likely be required to facilitate compaction of new engineered fill

or to provide a stable subgrade for floor slabs or pavements.


indicated on the preliminary plans provided to us. The ground surface elevation at the building

area borings generally ranged from about 632 to 634 feet. Therefore, even though the depth to

water was variable at the boring locations, and water was not encountered at some boring

locations, it is likely that water will be encountered in excavations at this site. The contractor

should anticipate this and plan for the appropriate dewatering needed to control seepage and

facilitate construction.

Our recommendations for earthwork, design and construction of drilled shaft foundations, lateral

earth pressures for below grade walls, subgrade preparation for grade supported floor slabs, and

pavements for the facility are presented in the following sections.

4.2 Earthwork

Recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation and placement of

engineered fill for the project are provided below.

4.2.1 Site Preparation

Pavements, curbs, sidewalks and other existing improvements that are currently present within

proposed construction areas should be removed. Existing utilities that would interfere with the

proposed new construction should be removed or relocated. Excavations created by

demolition/removal of existing improvements should be observed and evaluated prior to

placement of new fill. The demolition contractor should be aware of project requirements for

backfilling so that removal of recently placed fill materials and replacement of under controlled

conditions is not necessary when building construction commences.

Organic soils, root systems, and other unsuitable materials should also be stripped from

proposed construction areas during site preparation. The drill crew noted a relatively thick

topsoil layer (up to 18 inches thick) at some of the boring locations. However, since samples of

this layer were not obtained and organic content tests were not performed, additional

exploration (such as shallow test pits) may be advisable so the earthwork contractor can

evaluate the required stripping depth. Organic soils removed during site preparation could be

utilized as fill for landscaped areas, but these materials should not be used as fill beneath the

proposed building or pavement areas.

The soils exposed following removal of existing improvements should be observed and tested

prior to placing new engineered fill and/or construction of new slabs and pavements. The

exposed soils should be proofrolled using a loaded tandem-axle dump truck with a gross weight

of at least 25 tons, or similarly loaded equipment. Areas that display excessive deflection




(pumping) or rutting during proofroll operations should be improved by scarification/compaction

or by removal and replacement with engineered fill.

4.2.2 Engineered Fill Material Requirements

Engineered fill should meet the following material property requirements:

Fill Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Location for Placement

4

Cohesive 2 CL, CL-ML Below/adjacent to slabs and pavements

Granular GW, GP, GM, GC

SW, SP, SM, SC Below/adjacent to slabs and pavements

Unsuitable CH, MH, OL, OH, PT Non-structural locations

1. Engineered fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris.

Cohesive fill materials should have liquid limit less than 45 and a plasticity index less than 20;

cohesive soils that do not meet these criteria should be considered “unsuitable.” Frozen material

should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. A sample of each material

type should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for evaluation prior to use on this site.

2. Based on visual and tactile examination of recovered soil samples and the results of the laboratory

tests, most of the on-site lean clay soils (native and fill) would meet the criteria for engineered fill.

However, any organic materials, rock fragments larger than 3 inches, and other unsuitable materials

should be removed prior to use of the existing fill materials in new fill sections.

3. A large portion of the on-site lean clay soils had moisture contents of 18 percent or greater.

Significant drying (if weather conditions are favorable) and/or incorporation of a chemical modifier

(such as lime or Class C fly ash) will be required to reduce the moisture contents of wet soils so

they can be properly compacted in new fill sections. In our experience, modified Proctor optimum

moisture contents in the range of 11 to 14 percent would be expected for these types of soils.

4. Since deep foundations (drilled shafts) are recommended, recommendations for materials to be

placed below/adjacent to foundations are not provided. However, any backfill for below grade walls

or adjacent to grade beams should meet the material and compaction requirements recommended

in this section and Section 4.2.3.

4.2.3 Fill Placement and Compaction Requirements

Item Description

Fill Lift Thickness

9 inches or less in loose thickness when heavy, self-

propelled compaction equipment is used.

4 to 6 inches in loose thickness when hand-guided

equipment (i.e., a jumping jack or plate compactor) is

used.

Minimum Compaction Requirement 1, 2

Below Slabs-on-grade, Upper 12 inches

of Areas to be Paved

95% of the material’s modified Proctor maximum dry

density (ASTM D 1557). This level of compaction should

extend beyond the edges of footings at least 8 inches for

every foot of fill placed below the foundation base

elevation.




Item Description

Minimum Compaction Requirement 1, 2

Below 12 Inches in Areas to be Paved,

Landscaped Areas

90% of the material’s maximum modified Proctor dry

density (ASTM D 1557)

Moisture Content of Cohesive Soil 4 -2% to +3% of modified Proctor optimum (ASTM D 1557)

Moisture Content of Granular Material 3 Workable moisture levels

1. We recommend that each lift of fill be tested for moisture content and compaction prior to the

placement of additional fill or concrete. If the results of the in-place density tests indicate the

specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test

should be reworked and retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction

requirements are achieved.

2. If granular material is a coarse sand or gravel, is of a uniform size, or has a low fines content,

compaction comparison to relative density (ASTM D 4253/4254) may be more appropriate.

3. The gradation of a granular material affects its stability and the moisture content required for

proper compaction. Moisture levels should be maintained to achieve compaction without bulking

during placement or pumping when proofrolled.

4. Significant drying of the on-site clay soils will be required to reach the moisture content range

recommended for compaction.

4.2.4 Earthwork Construction Considerations

The geotechnical engineer should be retained during the construction phase of the project to

observe earthwork and to perform necessary tests and observations during demolition/removal

of existing improvements, subgrade preparation, proofrolling, placement and compaction of

compacted engineered fills, backfilling of excavations, and just prior to construction of grade

supported building floor slabs.

Clay soils with high moisture contents (greater than 18 percent) were encountered within the

upper several feet of the soil profile at most of the boring locations. These soils will be sensitive to

disturbance from construction activities, particularly if further wetted by surface water or seepage.

Therefore, it is anticipated that some areas of the site will become unstable during proofrolling and

construction operations. The amount of stabilization required would be highly dependent upon

weather conditions during construction and drainage measures implemented during mass grading

and construction.

Some means of subgrade stabilization will likely be required to facilitate construction. In general

(weather permitting), scarifying, drying and recompacting the exposed subgrades is expected to

be the most economical means of improving these soils prior to placing new fill. However, this

option is typically less effective where soft/wet soils are thicker than about one foot, and this

method is also dependent on weather conditions. Alternatives for subgrade stabilization could

include undercutting unsuitable (wet, low strength, and/or disturbed) soils followed by the addition




of crushed stone aggregate (typically on the order of 12 to 18 inches) to improve subgrade

stability, or the incorporation of a chemical additive such as lime, Class C fly ash or portland

cement. The need for stabilization and most appropriate type of stabilization will be dependent

upon soil, groundwater and weather conditions, the construction schedule and methods of

construction that will be used.

As noted above, the 10-year and 100-year flood elevations are reportedly above current surface

grades within the proposed building area. Therefore, it is likely that water will be encountered in

excavations at this site. Seepage should be expected in excavations for this project, and the

contractor is responsible for employing appropriate dewatering methods to control seepage and

facilitate construction. In our experience, dewatering of excavations in clay soils can typically be

accomplished using sump pits and pumps. If excessive seepage from sand seams/layers is

encountered, a more extensive dewatering system (such as multiple sump pits/pumps or well

points) could be required.

Care should be taken to avoid disturbance of prepared subgrades. Unstable subgrade

conditions could develop during general construction operations, particularly if the soils are

wetted and/or subjected to repetitive construction traffic. New fill compacted above optimum

moisture content or that accumulates water during construction can also become disturbed

under construction equipment. Construction traffic over the completed subgrade should be

avoided to the extent practical. If the subgrade becomes saturated, desiccated, or disturbed,

the affected materials should either be scarified and compacted or be removed and replaced.

Subgrades should be observed and tested prior to construction of slabs and pavements.

As a minimum, excavations should be performed in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926,

Subpart P, “Excavations” and its appendices, and in accordance with any applicable local, state,

and federal safety regulations. The contractor should be aware that slope height, slope

inclination, and excavation depth should in no instance exceed those specified by these safety

regulations. Flatter slopes than those dictated by these regulations may be required depending

upon the soil conditions encountered and other external factors. These regulations are strictly

enforced and if they are not followed, the owner, contractor, and/or earthwork and utility

subcontractor could be liable and subject to substantial penalties. Under no circumstances

should the information provided in this report be interpreted to mean that Terracon is

responsible for construction site safety or the contractor’s activities. Construction site safety is

the sole responsibility of the contractor who shall also be solely responsible for the means,

methods, and sequencing of the construction operations.

4.2.5 Grading and Drainage

During construction, grades should be developed to direct surface water flow away from or

around the site. Exposed subgrades should be sloped to provide positive drainage so that

saturation of subgrades is avoided. Surface water should not be permitted to accumulate on the

site.




Final grades should slope away from the building to promote rapid surface drainage.

Accumulation of water adjacent to the building could contribute to significant moisture increases

in the subgrade soils and subsequent softening/settlement. Roof drains should discharge into a

storm sewer or several feet away from the building.

4.3 Drilled Shaft Foundations

Based on the anticipated column loads (600 to 1,000 kips) and the subsurface conditions

encountered at the boring locations, we recommend that the proposed new building be

supported on drilled shaft foundations (also referred to as “caissons” or “drilled piers”). Since

bedrock or hard clay soils were not encountered within the maximum 80-foot depth explored by

the borings, the drilled shafts will derive their capacity from a combination of side friction and

end bearing in the stiff to very stiff native clay soils encountered in the borings.

Belled shafts could be used to increase the end bearing area; the diameter of the bell should not

exceed 3 times the diameter of the shaft. Design recommendations and construction

considerations for drilled shaft foundations are provided in the following sections.

4.3.2 Drilled Shaft Foundation Design Recommendations

Design parameters for drilled shafts are provided in the following table.

DESIGN DATA SUMMARY

Elevation

(feet) Soil Description

Allowable

End Bearing

Pressure

(psf) 1

Allowable

Side

Friction

(psf) 1, 3, 4

Allowable

Passive

Pressure

(psf) 1

Above 630 Frost Zone

(0 to 3½ ft) - - -

625 to 630 Fill / medium stiff to stiff

native clay Ignore 275 2,000

605 to 625

Stiff to very stiff native

clay; with occasional silt

seams/layers sand

seams

Ignore 550 5,000

555 to 605

Stiff to very stiff native

clay; with occasional silt

seams/layers sand

seams

9,000 2 825 9,000




1. The allowable end bearing capacity includes a factor of safety of 3, and the allowable side

friction and passive pressure values include a factor of safety of 2.

2. The drilled shaft should extend below elevation 605 feet to achieve this allowable end

bearing capacity.

3. For belled shafts (if used), side friction resistance should be neglected along the belled

portion of the shaft and for a distance of one bell diameter above the top of the bell.

4. Side friction values provided in the table are for compressive loads. In designing to resist

uplift loads, the allowable side friction values provided for compressive loading could be

used along with the effective weight of the drilled shaft. For belled shafts, the effective

unit weight of the soil above the bell within a cylinder defined by the bell perimeter can

also be used for uplift resistance. Buoyant concrete and soil weights should be used

below the water table. For shafts subjected to uplift loads, the drilled shaft reinforcing

steel should extend through the length were side friction is considered, and reinforcing

steel should extend into the bell if the bell uplift resistance is considered.

The following table provides estimated post-construction settlements of drilled shaft foundations

that are designed and constructed as recommended in this report. Elastic compression of the

drilled shafts should be added to these values.

DESCRIPTION VALUE

Estimated maximum total settlement ¾ inch

Estimated maximum differential settlement ½ inch

Pier caps or grade beams along the building’s perimeter areas should extend at least 3½ feet

below the lowest adjacent final grade for frost protection. Drilled shafts should be spaced at

least 3 shaft diameters apart (center-to-center) or 3 bell diameters if belled shafts are used. If

this spacing cannot be maintained, stresses from adjacent shafts could overlap in the bearing

soils, resulting in larger settlements.

Individual shafts could be designed to resist lateral loads using the allowable passive soil

pressures provided in the above table. The allowable passive pressures would apply to the

projected diameter of the shaft and require some movement to mobilize resistance. Lateral

resistance within the frost depth (3½ feet below final grade) should be ignored. Group action for

lateral resistance of drilled shafts should be taken into account when center to center spacing is

less than 8 diameters in the direction of loading. Design parameters for allowable passive

resistance in the direction of the load should be reduced in accordance with the following table.




Passive Resistance Reduction Factors

Shaft Spacing

(Shaft Diameters) Reduction Factor

8D 1.0

6D 0.7

4D 0.4

3D 0.25

Lateral loads perpendicular to a row of shafts with center to center spacing of 3 diameters or

less would cause the foundations to react essentially as a vertical wall. For this case, an

allowable passive pressure equivalent to that exerted by fluids weighing 150 and 70 pcf above

and below groundwater, respectively, should be used for the projected shaft diameters. With

spacing of greater than 3 diameters, the values provided above for individual shafts may be

used.

As an alternative to using the allowable passive pressure parameters, lateral loading on the

drilled shafts could be analyzed using the LPILE computer program. LPILE analyzes shaft

deflection as a function of the design loads, shaft design and construction, and subsurface

conditions. Soil parameters for LPILE analysis of the drilled shafts are provided in the following

table.

LPILE Soil Parameters

Elevation

(feet)

LPILE

Material

Type 1

Layer

Description

Effective

Unit

Weight 2

(pcf)

Internal

Angle of

Friction

(degrees)

Undrained

Shear

Strength

(psf)

Static Soil

Modulus

Parameter,

k (pci) 5

Strain5

ε50

Above

630 3 Frost Depth 120 - - - -

625 to 630 2 Clay 60 - 1,000 100 0.01

605 to 625 2 Clay 65 - 2,000 500 0.005

555 to 605 2 Clay 70 - 3,000 1,000 0.005

1. LPILE material types: 2 = stiff clay with free water, 3 = stiff clay without free water

2. Maximum water level assumed at elevation 630 feet.

4.3.2 Drilled Shaft Foundation Construction Considerations

Drilled shafts for this project should have a minimum diameter of 30 inches. The bottom of each

drilled shaft excavation should be cleaned of loose material before placing reinforcing steel and

concrete. If water is present in a drilled shaft excavation and cannot be removed by

conventional means (such as pumping), concrete should be placed using a tremie or concrete

pump. Concrete should be placed as soon as possible after the foundation excavation is




completed. Closely spaced shafts should have a staggered construction schedule that allows

for the concrete to set before an adjacent shaft is drilled.

Water was observed shallower than the expected drilled shaft depths at several of the boring

locations; therefore, the contractor should expect that temporary casing will be required for

excavation and construction of the drilled shafts. Temporary casing must also be used if

personnel need to enter the shafts to clean and/or observe the bearing surface.

Care should be taken when removing temporary casing during concrete placement. During

casing removal, the concrete level should be maintained a sufficient distance above the bottom

of the casing to counteract hydrostatic and earth pressure on the annular spacing outside of the

casing. Placement of loose soil backfill around the casing should not be permitted around the

casing prior to removal of the casing. Drilled shaft concrete should be designed with a slump of

approximately 5 to 7 inches to help facilitate removal of temporary casing and reduce the

possibility of concrete arching. Water that accumulates in drilled shaft excavations should be

removed prior to concrete placement, or a tremie method should be used for placement of the

concrete.

4.4 Floor Slab

The following recommendations for grade supported floor slabs would apply to the west part of the

building. We understand the east part of the building will have a structural slab that will be

supported on the building’s foundation system.

4.4.1 Floor Slab Design Recommendations

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Floor slab support

Native soils, tested and evaluated existing fill, or

new engineered fill materials that have been

prepared in accordance with section 4.2 and

tested/approved by the geotechnical engineer

Granular leveling course 2 6 inches of well-graded granular material

Modulus of subgrade reaction

100 pci for a soil subgrade prepared as

recommended in this report

Note: a value of 150 pci can be used at the top of

the compacted granular leveling course

1. Floor slabs should be structurally independent of building footings and walls supported on the

footings to reduce the potential for floor slab cracking caused by differential movements between

the slab and foundation.

2. The floor slab should be placed on a leveling course comprised of well-graded granular material

(e.g., IDOT CA-6 aggregate) compacted to at least 95% of the material’s modified Proctor

maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557)




Joints should be constructed at regular intervals as recommended by the American Concrete

Institute (ACI) to help control the location of cracking. It should be understood that differential

settlement between the floor slabs and foundations could occur.

If moisture vapor transmission through the concrete slab is a concern, a vapor barrier should be

used. The need for, and placement of, the vapor barrier should be determined by the architect

or slab designer based on the proposed floor covering treatment, building function, concrete

properties, placement techniques, and construction schedule. For further guidance concerning

the use of a vapor barrier system, refer to Sections 302 and 360 of the American Concrete

Institute (ACI) Manual of Concrete Practice.

4.4.2 Floor Slab Construction Considerations

On most project sites, the site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase.

However, as construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed by utility excavations,

construction traffic, desiccation, rainfall, etc. As a result, corrective action may be required prior to

placement of the granular leveling course and concrete.

The condition of the floor slab subgrades immediately prior to placement of the granular leveling

course and construction of the slabs. Particular attention should be paid to high traffic areas that

were rutted and disturbed earlier and to areas where backfilled trenches are located. Areas

where unsuitable conditions are located should be repaired by scarification/compaction or by

removing the affected material and replacing it with engineered fill.

4.5 Below Grade Walls

4.5.1 Lateral Earth Pressures

Walls with unbalanced backfill levels (e.g., below grade building walls and/or cast-in-place

concrete cantilever retaining walls) should be designed for earth pressures at least equal to

those indicated in the following table. Earth pressures will be influenced by structural design of

the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of construction and/or compaction and the

strength of the materials being restrained. The “active” condition assumes some wall movement

and is commonly used for free-standing concrete cantilever retaining walls. The "at-rest"

condition assumes no wall movement and is used for design of building walls, dock walls, and

other walls that are fixed and cannot rotate. The recommended design lateral earth pressures

do not include a factor of safety and do not provide for possible hydrostatic pressure on the

walls.




Lateral Earth Pressure Parameters

Pressure

Conditions

Coefficient For

Backfill Type

Equivalent Fluid

Unit Weight (pcf)

Surcharge

Pressure, P1

(psf)

Earth

Pressure,

P2 (psf)

Active (Ka) Granular - 0.33

Cohesive - 0.42

40

50

(0.33)S

(0.42)S

(40)H

(50)H

At-Rest (Ko) Granular - 0.5

Cohesive - 0.58

60

70

(0.5)S

(0.58)S

(60)H

(70)H

Passive (Kp) Granular – 3.0

Cohesive – 2.4

360

290

---

---

---

---

Conditions applicable to the above recommendations include:

For active earth pressure, wall must rotate about base, with top lateral movements of about

0.002 H to 0.004 H, where H is wall height

For passive earth pressure to develop, wall must move horizontally to mobilize resistance.

Uniform surcharge, where S is surcharge pressure

In-situ soil backfill weight a maximum of 120 pcf

Horizontal backfill and surface in front of the wall, compacted to between 95 and 100

percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density

No loading from compaction equipment or other construction equipment

No loading from nearby foundations

No dynamic loading

Ignore passive pressure in frost zone

Backfill placed against structures should consist of granular or cohesive engineered fill. For

the granular values to be valid, the granular fill must extend out from the base of the wall at an




angle of at least 45 degrees from vertical for the active and at-rest cases and at an angle of at

least 60 degrees from vertical for the passive case. To calculate the resistance to sliding, a

value of 0.4 should be used as the ultimate coefficient of friction between the concrete and the

underlying clay soil.

4.5.2 Subsurface Drainage

Drains should be constructed at the base of below grade walls/retaining walls to reduce the risk

of hydrostatic loading. The drain pipe should be located with its invert at the bottom of the wall

and should be surrounded with free-draining granular material graded to prevent the intrusion of

fines. A minimum 2-foot wide layer of free-draining granular material should be placed adjacent

to the wall. For exterior locations, the granular material should extend from the drainage pipes

to within about 2 feet of final grade and be capped with a cohesive fill material that is placed and

compacted as recommended in Section 4.2 of this report. At interior locations, the granular

material should extend up to the floor slab subgrade elevation. As an alternative to filter graded

gravel, free-draining 1-inch nominal size gravel could be used for the drains if the entire system,

including the gravel, is encapsulated with an appropriate geotextile filter fabric.

The drainage networks (pipes) for subdrains should be sloped to provide positive gravity

drainage to sumps equipped for automated pumping or to a down gradient storm sewer or other

suitable outlet that will allow gravity drainage. Redundant pumps with battery backup power

could be considered to reduce the risk of hydrostatic pressure and seepage in the event of

pump and/or power failure. Periodic maintenance of drainage systems is necessary so that they

do not become plugged and inoperative.

A prefabricated drainage structure placed against below grade walls may also be used as an

alternative to free-draining granular fill above the pipe. A prefabricated drainage structure

consists of a plastic drainage core or mesh that is covered with filter fabric to prevent soil

intrusion. The drainage structure is fastened to the wall after the wall has been waterproofed.

4.6 Pavements

4.6.1 Pavement Design Recommendations

Pavement thickness design is dependent upon:

the anticipated traffic conditions,

subgrade and paving material characteristics, and

climate conditions at the project site.

Specific information regarding anticipated vehicle types, axle loads and traffic volumes was not

provided. In developing our recommendations, we have considered that traffic will consist

primarily of automobile traffic and a limited number of delivery trucks and trash collection trucks.

The “Parking Areas” pavement section is for automobile traffic only. The “Drives” pavement

section considers automobile traffic and a maximum of five delivery trucks/trash collection trucks




per day. If heavier vehicle types or higher traffic volumes are expected, Terracon should be

notified and these recommendations should be reviewed.

Recommended minimum pavement sections for parking areas and drives are provided in the

following table.

Pavement Area Minimum Pavement Section

Parking Areas 3” ACC

8” Crushed Stone Aggregate 2

Drives 4” ACC

10” Crushed Stone Aggregate 2

Trash Container Pad 1

7” PCC

4” Crushed Stone Aggregate

1. Portland cement concrete pavements are recommended for areas subject to repeated truck traffic, truck turning areas, and trash container pads. The trash container pad should be large enough to support the container and the tipping axle of the trash collection vehicle.

2. IDOT CA-6 or an approved alternate gradation.

Pavements and subgrades will be subject to freeze-thaw cycles and seasonal fluctuations in

moisture content. The pavement sections provided in the table above were developed based

on local soil and climate conditions. Asphalt, concrete and aggregate base course materials for

pavements should conform to the applicable Illinois DOT "Standard Specifications of Road and

Bridge Construction.” Concrete pavement should be air-entrained and have a minimum

compressive strength of 4,000 psi after 28 days of laboratory curing (ASTM C 31).

Construction traffic on the pavements was not considered in developing the estimated minimum

pavement thicknesses. If the pavements will be subject to construction equipment/vehicles, the

pavement sections should be revised to consider the additional loading.

The pavement sections provided above assume that the subgrade soils will not experience

significant increases in moisture content. Paved areas should be sloped to provide rapid drainage

of surface water and to drain water away from the pavement edges. Water should not be allowed

to accumulate on or adjacent to the pavement, since this could saturate and soften the subgrade

soils and subsequently accelerate pavement deterioration. Periodic maintenance of the

pavements will be required. Cracks should be sealed, and areas exhibiting distress should be

repaired promptly to help prevent further deterioration. Even with periodic maintenance, some

movement and related cracking may still occur and repairs may be required.




4.6.2 Pavement Construction Considerations

Pavement subgrades should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented

in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of this report. Grading and paving is commonly performed by separate

contractors and there is often a time lapse between the end of grading operations and the

commencement of paving. Subgrades prepared early in the construction process may become

disturbed by construction traffic. Non-uniform subgrades often result in poor pavement

performance and local failures relatively soon after pavements are constructed. Depending on

the paving equipment used by the contractor, measures may be required to improve subgrade

strength to greater depths for support of heavily loaded concrete/asphalt trucks.

Before paving, pavement subgrades should be proofrolled with a loaded tandem-axle dump

truck (minimum gross weight of 25 tons) or other approved rubber-tired equipment providing an

equivalent subgrade loading. Proofrolling of the subgrade should help locate soft, yielding, or

otherwise unsuitable soil at or just below the exposed subgrade level. Unsuitable areas

observed at this time should be improved by scarification and compaction or be removed and

replaced with engineered fill.

4.7 Seismic Site Class

Code Site Class

2009 International Building Code (IBC)1 D

1. In general accordance with Table 1613.5.2 of the IBC.

2. The 2009 IBC requires a site soil profile determination extending a depth of 100 feet. The

geophysical testing extended to a depth of 100 feet. The maximum depth explored in the borings

was approximately 80 feet, with the borings terminating in stiff to very stiff clay soils. The site class

was evaluated using the shear wave velocities estimated from the geophysical testing and

conditions encountered in the borings.

Please refer to Appendix A, Exhibit A-1 for a description of the geophysical testing used to

evaluate the IBC seismic site class. The geophysical test results are presented in Appendix A,

Exhibits A-20 and A-21.

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments

can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations

in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and

testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related

construction phases of the project.




Support of slabs and pavements on/above existing undocumented fill is discussed in this report.

Even with the construction observation/testing recommended in this report, a risk remains for

the owner that unsuitable materials within or buried by the fill will not be discovered. This may

result in larger than normal settlement and damage to slabs and pavements supported above

existing fill, requiring additional maintenance. This risk cannot be eliminated without removing

the existing fill from below the building and pavement areas, but can be reduced by thorough

observation and testing as discussed herein.

The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained

from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in

this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the

site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such

variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we

should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations

can be provided.

The scope of geotechnical services for this project does not include either specifically or by

implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or

identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is

concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be

undertaken.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the

project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical

engineering practices. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the

responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project

as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this

report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or

modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION



Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit A-1

Field Exploration Description

The borings were drilled at the approximate locations indicated on the attached Boring Location

Plan (Exhibit A-2). Terracon personnel laid out the boring locations in the field by determining

distances from available reference features with a measuring wheel and estimating right angles.

Surface elevations at the boring locations (rounded to the nearest foot) were interpolated from

the site topographic plan prepared by Manhard Consulting. Differences could occur from

interpolation and from superimposing approximate boring locations on the topographic plan.

The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree

implied by the means and methods used to define them.

The borings were drilled with truck-mounted and ATV-mounted, rotary drill rigs using continuous

flight, hollow-stemmed augers to advance the boreholes. Soil samples were obtained using both

thin-walled tube and split-barrel sampling procedures. In the thin-walled tube sampling

procedure, a thin-walled, seamless steel tube with a sharp cutting edge is pushed hydraulically into

the ground to obtain samples of cohesive or moderately cohesive soils. In the split barrel

sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch (outside diameter) split-barrel sampling spoon is driven

into the ground with a 140-pound automatic hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The

number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches (or less) of a

normal 18-inch penetration is recorded as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance

value. These values, also referred to as SPT N-values, are used to estimate the relative density

of granular soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. The SPT N-values are provided on the

boring logs at the depths of occurrence. The samples were sealed and transported to the

laboratory for testing and classification. Upon completion of drilling, the boreholes were

backfilled with auger cuttings and pavements were surface patched.

The drill crew prepared a field log of each boring. These logs included visual classifications of the

materials encountered during drilling and the driller’s interpretation of the subsurface conditions

between samples. The boring logs included with this report represent the engineer's interpretation

of the field logs and include modifications based on laboratory observation and tests of the

samples.

Geophysical (ReMi) Testing Description

Terracon used a seismic refraction system consisting of a seismograph and using a linear array

of 12 geophones to perform a site-specific seismic class survey. Two tests were performed in

mutually perpendicular directions (approximately north-south and east-west lines) near the

proposed building addition. Refraction microtremors (ReMi) produced by ambient seismic noise

were recorded. These data were processed to derive a shear wave profile and an average

shear-wave velocity along the array for a corresponding depth of about 100 feet. The test

results are presented in this appendix as Exhibits A-22 and A-23.

3000*

4000*

4500*

3000*

3000*

4000*

4000*

5000*

CL

CL

CLML

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

11

9

11

19

15

8

10

12

14

15

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

12

19

18

14

22

16

12

17

10

16

0.31.2

3.5

6

631.5631

628.5

626

Approx. 4" AsphaltApprox. 10" Crushed Stone AggregateFILL: LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, gray, trace brownLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND, brown andgray, stiffLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown, stiff to very stiff

turning gray

Sample 4: with silt seams

Sample 9: with sand

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

Approx. Surface Elev.: 632 ft

BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-8-11NONE WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

Continued Next Page

1600 E. Golf Road PROJECT

9-8-11

Legat Architects

*Pocket Penetrometer**140 Lbs Automatic SPT Hammer

Des Plaines, Illinois Science & Health Careers Center

The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines

SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG

between soil and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be gradual.

Page 1 of 2

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft

TDHFOREMAN

Oakton Community CollegeCLIENT

JOB #

61

ARCHITECT

LOG OF BORING NO. 1

WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-3

5000*

4000*

4000*

6000*

3000*

4000*

CL

CL

CL

CLSC

CLSC

CL

CL

CL

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

15

12

12

11

10

19

11

12

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

13

17

17

18

14

12

16

1480 552

LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, gray, stiff to very stiff

Samples 14 and 15: with sand seams

BOTTOM OF BORING

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-8-11NONE WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


9-8-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 2 of 2

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


JOB #

61

ARCHITECT

LOG OF BORING NO. 1

WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-3

3000*

2500*

5000*

5000*

4000*

4500*

5000*

4000*

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

ML

CL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

18

18

15

18

18

18

18

18

13

18

7

9

8

17

16

13

15

16

18

10

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

22

23

20

18

18

16

17

15

15

14

LL = 37PL = 19PI = 18

0.30.92.5

8

33.5

35

40

632.5632

630.5

625

599.5

598

593

Approx. 3" AsphaltApprox. 8" Crushed Stone AggregateFILL: LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown and grayLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND, brown andgray, stiff

LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown, stiff to very stiff

turning gray

CLAYEY SILT, TRACE SAND, gray,medium denseLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, gray, stiff

BOTTOM OF BORING

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION


BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-10-11NONE WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


9-10-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 1 of 1

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


AT

TE

RB

ER

GLI

MIT

S

CLIENT

JOB #

NONE

ARCHITECT

LOG OF BORING NO. 2

WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-4

3000*

4000*

4000*

3000*

5000*

4500*

5000*

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL-MLML

CL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

15

16

16

18

18

18

18

18

7

16

7

8

9

13

13

9

16

14

15

14

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

19

21

16

16

19

14

16

19

16

18

0.30.9

6

33

36

40

632.5632

627

600

597

593

Approx. 3" AsphaltApprox. 8" Crushed Stone AggregateFILL: LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, dark brown, brown and graySample 2: trace organics


turning gray

SILTY CLAY, TRACE SAND, gray, stiff tovery stiffSample 9: with silt seamsLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, gray, very stiff

BOTTOM OF BORING

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION


BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-10-11NONE WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


9-10-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 1 of 1

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


JOB #

NONE

ARCHITECT

LOG OF BORING NO. 3

WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-5

3000*

4000*

4000*

3000*

3000*

4000*

4000*

4000*

CL

CL

CL-MLML

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

17

10

10

15

13

9

9

11

13

13

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

15

19

16

17

18

14

18

19

14

15

0.31.3

4

8.5

13

40

632.5631.5

629

624.5

620

593

Approx. 3" AsphaltApprox. 12" Crushed Stone AggregateFILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY, TRACEGRAVEL, brown, trace grayLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown and gray, stiff

SILTY CLAY, TRACE SAND, brown,trace gray, stiffSample 4: with silt seams


BOTTOM OF BORING

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION


BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-2-11NONE WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


9-2-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 1 of 1

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


JOB #

NONE

ARCHITECT

LOG OF BORING NO. 4

WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-6

3000*

3500*

6000*

3000*

4500*

4000*

6000*

CL

CL

CL

ML

CL

CL

CL

ML

CL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

16

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

7

8

10

19

15

8

14

11

34

17

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

14

21

18

17

19

13

19

16

16

17

0.30.9

3

13.5

18.5

32

37

40

632.5632

630

619.5

614.5

601

596

593

Approx. 3" AsphaltApprox. 9" Crushed Stone AggregateFILL: LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown and grayLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown and gray, stiff to verystiff

CLAYEY SILT, TRACE SAND, gray,medium dense

LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND, TRACEGRAVEL, gray, stiff to very stiff

Sample 6: with sand

CLAYEY SILT, TRACE SAND, gray,dense

LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, gray, very stiff

BOTTOM OF BORING

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION


BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-10-1113.5 WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


9-10-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 1 of 1

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


JOB #

NONE

ARCHITECT

LOG OF BORING NO. 5

WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-7

3000*

3000*

6000*

4000*

4000*

4000*

5000*

6000*

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

ML

CL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

14

15

18

18

18

18

18

18

15

18

6

7

8

17

11

13

14

16

33

19

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

23

20

19

17

15

15

18

17

16

17

2.5

5.5

33.5

38

40

630.5

627.5

599.5

595

593

FILL: LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, dark brown, dark gray and gray

LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND, brown andgray, medium stiff to stiff


turning gray


LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, gray, very stiffBOTTOM OF BORING

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION


BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-10-11NONE WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


9-10-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 1 of 1

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


JOB #

NONE

ARCHITECT

LOG OF BORING NO. 6

WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-8

3000*

3000*

4000*

4000*

4000*

3000*

4000*

4000*

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

ML

CL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

16

18

10

9

8

12

11

11

9

12

11

10

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

22

21

21

17

19

15

17

19

17

20

LL = 31PL = 18PI = 13

1.1

3

33

36

40

632

630

600

597

593

Approx. 13" Topsoil FillFILL: LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown and grayLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown and gray, stiff to verystiff

turning gray


LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, gray, stiff

BOTTOM OF BORING

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION


BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-7-11NONE WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


9-7-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 1 of 1

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


AT

TE

RB

ER

GLI

MIT

S

CLIENT

JOB #

NONE

ARCHITECT

LOG OF BORING NO. 7

WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-9

2000*

3000*

4000*

3000*

4000*

4000*

4000*

7000*

5000*

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL-MLML

CL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

15

18

18

18

8

18

18

18

18

18

4

6

8

14

8

11

12

11

23

16

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

31

23

21

18

20

16

17

19

15

16

0.3

4

5.5

33

37

632.5

629

627.5

600

596

Approx. 4" Topsoil FillFILL: LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND, darkbrown

Sample 1: trace organicsLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND, brown andgray, medium stiffLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown, stiff

turning gray

SILTY CLAY, TRACE SAND, gray, verystiffSample 9: with silt seams


UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION


BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-7-1139 WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

Continued Next Page


9-7-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 1 of 2

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


JOB #

39

ARCHITECT

LOG OF BORING NO. 8

WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-10

6000*

7000*

5000*

3000*

4500*

6000*

4000*

CL

CL

CL

CLML

CLSC

CL

CL

CL

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

18

18

18

8

10

18

18

18

18

64

20

16

10

16

19

13

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

16

11

16

15

13

15

12

1580 553

LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, gray, stiff to hard

Sample 12: sampler encountered coarsegravel/cobble


Sample 15: with sand seams

BOTTOM OF BORING

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-7-1139 WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


9-7-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 2 of 2

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


JOB #

39

ARCHITECT

LOG OF BORING NO. 8

WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-10

3000*

3000*

4000*

4000*

4500*

4000*

4000*

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

ML

CL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

18

3

18

13

18

18

18

18

18

18

11

7

8

8

10

9

12

11

47

12

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

14

16

19

21

21

13

19

19

16

14

0.5

6

33

36

633.5

628

601

598

Approx. 6" Topsoil FillFILL: LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown

LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown and gray, stiff to verystiff

turning gray



UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION


BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-7-1168.5 WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

Continued Next Page


9-7-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 1 of 2

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


JOB #

30

ARCHITECT

LOG OF BORING NO. 9

WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-11

6000*

4000*

5000*

4000*

4500*

9000+*

4000*

CL

CLML

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

19

34

10

12

13

12

40

13

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

16

15

20

14

12

18

11

1380 554



BOTTOM OF BORING

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-7-1168.5 WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


9-7-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 2 of 2

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


JOB #

30

ARCHITECT

LOG OF BORING NO. 9

WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-11

3000*

2000*

3000*

7000*

4000*

4000*

4000*

4000*

CL

CL

CL

CL

ML

CL

CL

CL

ML

CL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

15

18

18

16

18

18

18

18

18

18

7

6

9

22

17

9

9

10

27

10

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

22

20

20

17

21

22

18

18

16

17

1.5

3

11.5

18

33

36

40

631.5

630

621.5

615

600

597

593

Approx. 18" Topsoil

LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDORGANICS, dark brown, stiffLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown, medium stiff to very stiff

grayish brown





BOTTOM OF BORING

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION


BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-7-117 WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


9-7-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 1 of 1

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


JOB #

11.5

ARCHITECT

LOG OF BORING NO. 10

WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-12

3000*

3480

6000*

4000*

4000*

4000*

4000*

CL

CL

CL

CLML

CL

CL

CL

ML

CL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

16

14

15

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

9

8

21

15

11

13

13

23

11

HSSS

HSSS

HSST

HSSSHS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

109

19

20

19

18

15

17

15

16

17

17

2.5

5

33

37

40

630.5

628

600

596

593

FILL: LEAN CLAY AND LEAN CLAY,TRACE SAND AND ORGANICS, brown,trace gray and dark brownLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND, brown andgray, stiffLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown, stiff to very stiff

turning gray




BOTTOM OF BORING

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION


BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-7-1114 WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


9-7-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 1 of 1

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


JOB #

NONE

ARCHITECT


WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-13

3000*

3000*

3000*

3000*

4500*

4000*

3000*

5000*

5000*

CL

CL

CL

CL-ML

CL

CL

CL

CL

ML

CL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

18

18

18

18

18

18

5

18

18

18

8

7

8

9

15

9

8

16

39

15

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

26

20

20

20

20

16

18

18

16

15

1.5

3.5

8.5

13

32

37

40

632.5

630.5

625.5

621

602

597

594

Approx. 18" Topsoil

LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND, gray, stiff

LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown and gray, stiff

SILTY CLAY, TRACE SAND, brown andgray, stiff

LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, gray, very stiff to stiff


LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, gray, very stiff

BOTTOM OF BORING

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION


BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-2-1114.5 WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


9-2-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 1 of 1

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


JOB #

12

ARCHITECT


WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-14

3000*

6320

4000*

3000*

3000*

3000*

4500*

7000*

CL

CLSCCL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

7

18

22

18

18

18

18

18

18

15

11

9

8

10

9

10

10

13

23

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HSST

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

110

18

22

21

18

22

16

16

17

17

12

3.5

5.5

8

40

632.5

630.5

628

596

FILL: LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, dark brown and brown

LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND, dark brownto brown, stiffLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND, WITHSAND SEAMS, brown and gray, mediumstiff to stiffLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown, stiff to hard

turning gray

BOTTOM OF BORING

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION


BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-12-117 WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


9-12-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 1 of 1

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


JOB #

NONE

ARCHITECT


WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-15

3000*

3000*

3000*

4000*

4000*

4000*

4500*

5000*

5000*

5000*

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

18

15

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

8

8

9

12

11

12

13

15

14

14

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

22

21

20

17

18

15

20

17

16

17

5.5

40

628.5

594

LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND, dark brownto brown, trace gray, stiff

Sample 1: trace organics


turning gray

BOTTOM OF BORING

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION


BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-12-1118 WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


9-12-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 1 of 1

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


JOB #

NONE

ARCHITECT


WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-16

3000*

4000*

4000*

4000*

5000*

4000*

4000*

CL

CLSC

CL

ML

CL

CL

CL

CL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

14

18

18

14

18

18

18

18

18

18

9

5

7

13

11

12

15

14

13

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HSST

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

HS

SS

101

16

18

23

23

19

20

16

18

19

18

6

7.5

18.5

22

40

628

626.5

615.5

612

594

FILL: LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND, darkbrown, brown and gray

LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND, gray, tracebrown, medium stiff to stiffLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown, very stiff

Sample 4: with sand seams


LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, gray, very stiff to stiff

BOTTOM OF BORING

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION


BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-12-119.5 WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


9-12-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 1 of 1

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


JOB #

NONE

ARCHITECT


WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-17

3000*

4000*

CL

SC

SC

CL

1

2

3

4

18

18

18

18

8

7

15

13

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

19

19

14

14

0.30.8

3.5

910

630.5630

627.5

622621

Approx. 4" AsphaltApprox. 6" Crushed Stone AggregateLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown and gray, stiffCLAYEY SAND, brown and gray, loose tomedium dense

LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, gray, stiff to very stiffBOTTOM OF BORING

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION


BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

5

10

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-2-116 WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


9-2-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 1 of 1

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


JOB #

6

ARCHITECT


WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-18

3000*

3000*

4000*

CL

CL

CL

1

2

3

4

18

18

18

18

12

9

9

12

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

14

19

15

16

0.31.3

4

6

10

632.5631.5

629

627

623

Approx. 3" AsphaltApprox. 12" Crushed Stone AggregateFILL: LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown and grayLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND, brown andgray, stiffLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown and gray, stiffturning gray

BOTTOM OF BORING

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION


BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

5

10

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-2-11NONE WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


9-2-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 1 of 1

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


JOB #

NONE

ARCHITECT


WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-19

3000*

3000*

4000*

CL

CL

CL

1

2

3

4

7

16

18

18

8

9

9

10

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

15

19

16

17

0.20.9

3.5

5.5

10

632631

628.5

626.5

622

Approx. 2" AsphaltApprox. 7" Crushed Stone AggregateFILL: LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brownLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND, brown andgray, stiffLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown and gray, stiff

BOTTOM OF BORING

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION


BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

5

10

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-10-11NONE WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


9-10-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 1 of 1

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


JOB #

NONE

ARCHITECT


WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-20

4000*

3000*

CL

CL

1

2

3

4

16

18

18

18

10

12

11

8

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

19

24

23

23

5.5

10

630.5

626

FILL: LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, brown and gray

LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND, brown andgray, stiff

BOTTOM OF BORING

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION


BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

5

10

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-12-11NONE WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


9-12-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 1 of 1

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


JOB #

NONE

ARCHITECT


WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-21

3000*

3000*

CL

CL

1

2

3

4

18

18

18

18

7

11

7

8

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

HSSS

24

24

2019

23

5.5

8

10

630.5

628

626

FILL: LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND, darkbrown and brown

LEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND, brown andgray, medium stiff to stiff

Sample 3: with silt seamsLEAN CLAY, TRACE SAND ANDGRAVEL, gray, stiffBOTTOM OF BORING

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

TESTS

DESCRIPTION


BO

RE

2 1

1115

059.

GP

J P

RO

FIL

E.G

DT

10

/3/1

1

DE

PT

H,

ft.

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

5

10

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

9-12-11NONE WD AB

11115059

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


9-12-11

Legat Architects




SITE

BORING STARTED

GTCRIG


Page 1 of 1

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED KCB


TDHFOREMAN


JOB #

NONE

ARCHITECT


WL

WL

EXHIBIT A-22

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

00 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Dep

th, f

t

Shear-Wave Velocity, ft/s

Vs100' = 1073 ft/s

Run 1: Vs Model

kcberg

Typewritten Text

Exhibit A-22

kcberg

Typewritten Text

kcberg

Typewritten Text

kcberg

Typewritten Text

kcberg

Typewritten Text

kcberg

Typewritten Text

ReMi Seismic Testing Results

kcberg

Typewritten Text

kcberg

Typewritten Text

kcberg

Typewritten Text

Science & Health Careers Center Oakton Community College Des Plaines, Illinois Terracon Project No. 11115059

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

00 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Dep

th, f

t

Shear-Wave Velocity, ft/s

Vs100' = 1096 ft/s

Run 2: Vs Model

kcberg

Typewritten Text

Exhibit A-23

kcberg

Typewritten Text

Science & Health Careers Center Oakton Community College Des Plaines, Illinois Terracon Project No. 11115059

kcberg

Typewritten Text

kcberg

Typewritten Text

kcberg

Typewritten Text

ReMi Seismic Testing Results

kcberg

Typewritten Text

kcberg

Typewritten Text

kcberg

Typewritten Text

kcberg

Typewritten Text

kcberg

Typewritten Text

kcberg

Typewritten Text

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING



Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit B-1

Laboratory Testing

The soil samples obtained from the borings were tested in the laboratory to measure their water

contents. The dry densities of the recovered tube samples were measured. Unconfined

compressive strength tests were performed on selected tube samples, and a pocket

penetrometer was used to help estimate the unconfined compressive strength of other native

cohesive samples. Atterberg limits tests were performed on two samples to provide more

information on the soils’ plasticity and shrink-swell potential. The test results are provided on

the boring logs in Appendix A.

Chemical tests (including pH, resistivity, soluble chlorides, and soluble sulfates) were performed

on two composite soil samples. The results of these tests are summarized on Exhibit B-2.

The soil samples were classified in the laboratory based on visual observation, texture,

plasticity, and the limited laboratory testing described above. The soil descriptions presented on

the boring logs for native soils are in accordance with the enclosed General Notes (Exhibit C-1)

and Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The estimated USCS group symbols for native

soils are shown on the boring logs, and a brief description of the USCS (Exhibit C-2) is included

with this report.

135

Amba

ssad

or D

rive

LAB

OR

ATO

RY

DAT

A SU

MM

ARY

Nap

ervi

lle, I

llinoi

s 6

0540

CH

EM

ICAL

TES

T R

ESU

LTS

Phon

e: 6

30-7

17-4

263

Fax:

630

-357

-948

9w

ww

.terr

acon

.com

PRO

JEC

T:Sc

ienc

e &

Hea

lth C

aree

rs C

ente

rLO

CAT

ION

:O

akto

n C

omm

unity

Col

lege

, Des

Pla

ines

, Illin

ois

CLI

EN

T:O

akto

n C

omm

unity

Col

lege

TER

RAC

ON

JO

B #:

1111

5059

REP

OR

T D

ATE

9/28

/201

1SA

MPL

ING

DAT

ES9/

1/20

11 &

9/7

/201

1Ty

pe o

f Tes

tR

esis

tivity

M

oist

ure

Con

tent

pHTe

mpe

ratu

reC

hlor

ide,

Sol

uble

Sulfa

te, S

olub

leU

nits

ohm

-cm

%C

elsi

usm

g/kg

mg/

kgTe

st M

etho

dsAS

TM G

187

ASTM

D 2

216

ASTM

G51

AASH

TO T

291

AASH

TO T

290

SAM

PLE

ID #

@

room

tem

pera

ture

B-1,

S-2

3.5

'-5' &

B-5,

S-2

, 3.5

'-5'

500

208.

617

.584

0<1

50B-

8, S

-7, 2

3.5'

-25'

&

B-8,

S-7

, 28.

5'-3

0'19

0023

8.6

17.4

<50

190

Rev

iew

ed b

y: P

radi

p Ta

ilor

(

Labo

rato

ry M

anag

er)

Exhi

bit B

-2

APPENDIX C

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit C-1

GENERAL NOTES

DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS:

SS: Split Spoon – 1-3/8" I.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted HS: Hollow Stem Auger

ST: Thin-Walled Tube - 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger

RS: Ring Sampler - 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted HA: Hand Auger

DB: Diamond Bit Coring - 4", N, B RB: Rock Bit

BS: Bulk Sample or Auger Sample WB: Wash Boring or Mud Rotary

The number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18-inch

penetration with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches is considered the “Standard Penetration” or “N-value”.

WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS:

WL: Water Level WS: While Sampling N/E: Not Encountered

WCI: Wet Cave in WD: While Drilling

DCI: Dry Cave in BCR: Before Casing Removal

AB: After Boring ACR: After Casing Removal

Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other times and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short-term observations.

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soil classification is based on the Unified Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils

have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Unconfined

Compressive

Strength, Qu, psf

Standard Penetration or N-value (SS)

Blows/Ft. Consistency

Standard Penetration or N-value (SS)

Blows/Ft.

Ring Sampler (RS) Blows/Ft.

Relative Density

< 500 0-1 Very Soft 0 – 3 0-6 Very Loose

500 – 1,000 2-3 Soft 4 – 9 7-18 Loose

1,001 – 2,000 4-8 Medium Stiff 10 – 29 19-58 Medium Dense

2,001 – 4,000 8-15 Stiff 30 – 49 59-98 Dense

4,001 – 8,000 15-30 Very Stiff 50+ 99+ Very Dense

8,000+ >30 Hard

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY

Descriptive Term(s) of other

Constituents

Percent of

Dry Weight

Major Component

of Sample Particle Size

Trace < 15 Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm)

With 15 – 29 Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75 mm)

Modifier > 30 Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)

Sand

Silt or Clay

#4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm)

Passing #200 Sieve (0.075mm)

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

Descriptive Term(s) of other

Constituents

Percent of

Dry Weight Term

Plasticity

Index

Trace < 5 Non-plastic 0

With 5 – 12 Low 1-10

Modifiers > 12 Medium 11-30

High 30+

Exhibit C-2

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A

Soil Classification

Group

Symbol Group Name

B

Coarse Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained

on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of

coarse

fraction retained on

No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E

GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 E

GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G, H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H

Sands:

50% or more of coarse

fraction passes

No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E

SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 E

SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I

Fines Classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the

No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic: PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line

J CL Lean clay

K,L,M

PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt

K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL Organic clay

K,L,M,N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic: PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay

K,L,M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH Organic clay

K,L,M,P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve

B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles

or boulders, or both” to group name. C

Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded

gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly

graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. D

Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded

sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded

sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

6010

2

30

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with

gravel,” whichever is predominant. L

If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy”

to group name. M

If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name. N

PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line. O

PI 4 or plots below “A” line. P

PI plots on or above “A” line. Q

PI plots below “A” line.

geotechnical engineering report - oakton community · pdf filegeotechnical engineering report...

Documents