HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.20.1978 Soil Foundation Investigation Report SOIL FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION
ACCESS ROAD EXTENDING BAY AREA BLVD.
ACROSS F.M. 528
FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS
FOR:
ENGINEERING SCIENCE , INC.
HOUSTON, TEXAS
307 EAST PASADENA FREEWAY 7701 IRVINGTON 1515 S. PRUETT
PASADENA, TEXAS HOUSTON, TEXAS BAYTOWN, TEXAS
477-0121 697-8485
October 20, 1978
Engineering Science, Inc.
16915 E1 Camino Real
Houston, Texas 77058
Attention: Mr. David P. Guggemos , P.E.
Reference: Soil Foundation Investigation
Lab Job No. : 78-545
Report No. : 7810-1013
Dear Mr. Guggemos ,
We are pleased to transmit herewith our report on the foundation in-
vestigation made recently at the site of the proposed access road
extending Bay Area Boulevard across F.M. 528 in Friendswood, Texas .
- This investigation reveals relatively expansive surface and shallow
formations consisting of silty clay and clay underlain by more stable
clays interbedded with sandy clay seams . This stratigraphy is typical
of Beaumont clay formation of deltaic origin.
These surface soils are classified as poor subgrade soil and therefore,
require stabilization for pavements , A section for the flexible pave-
ment is given in the report.
Driven pile foundations are recommended for bridges . Pile. skin friction
curves for three locations are given in the report.
It has been a pleasure working with you on this project. If we may be
of any further assistance, please call us .
Respectfully,
COASTAL TESTING LABORATORY 0F
� JA
_Al
Jasbir Sin h, E .i 42505: f
• f r �
c
CTL-1 7
P R E F A C E
The recommendations contained in this report are based on data gained from
test borings at the drilling site as shown on Figure one (1 ) , a reasonable
volume of laboratory tests and professional interpretation and evaluation
of such data in view of the project information furnished. Soil conditions
different than those described in this report may be encountered at locations
other than those indicated on Figure one (1 ) or at depths greater than those
as drilled. Coastal Testing Laboratory connot be responsible for such un-
forseeable conditions or for recommendations which are based on inaccurate
or inadequate project information furnished to us.
The reproduction of this report, or any part hereof, in plans or other
engineering documents supplied to persons other than the owner , should bear
language indicating that the information contained therein is for general
information only and not for bidding purposes and that the owner and this ;
laboratory are not liable to such other persons for any representation made
therein. I'
i
I.
I'
i
COASTAL TESTING LABORATORY
I
REPORT OF FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION
TEMPORARY ACCESS ROAD
BAY AREA BOULEVARD ACROSS F.M. 528
FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS
TO:
ENGINEERING SCIENCE , INC.
16915 EL CAMINO REAL
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77058
ATTENTION : MR. D. P. GUGGEMOS , P.E.
SCOPE AND PURPOSE
This report presents the results of the foundation investigation made re-
cently at the subject site to determine the nature and condition of sur-
face and sub-surface soils as affects the design of foundations . In par-
ticular; it was desirable to determine the feasibility of slab-on-ground
type construction , depth to water table in various sections of the site ,
most suitable type and depth of structural foundations , safe soil bearing
pressures and skin friction values. The investigation was made in. accordance
with your instructions .
EXPLORATION , SAMPLING AND FIELD TESTING
Three (3) test borings to a depth of ten (10) feet and three (3) borings to
COASTAL TESTING LABORATORY
CTL-':
- I
a depth of fifty (50) feet were made at the locations shown on Figure one
(1 ) . These were made with a core-drill machine using no drilling water
in order to secure reliable data on ground water and sub-surface soils .
Cohesive soils were sampled by pushing thin-wall steel core barrels ("Shelby
tubes" ) into the natural soil at the bottom of each boring as the drilling
progressed. The penetration resistance of each such undisturbed core was
determined in the field using a Soiltest, Inc. field penetrometer as an
aid in classification and in order to group the same for subsequent detailed
tests .
Samples were taken from all formations pertinent to the design of the struc-
tural foundations .
The Logs of Test Broings are shown on Figures fifteen (15) through twenty
(20) . The definitions of symbols and abbreviations used on the logs are
shown on Figure twenty-one (21 ) .
LABORATORY TESTING
All samples were tested to determine their natural moisture content. Typical
samples of the. surface and shallow formations were tested to determine their
Atterberg plasticity limits . 'Jndistur.bed cores typical of each cohesive
formation likely to, have a. ,bearing on the structural foundation design were
tested to determine moisture content, density and unconfined compressive
strength.
I
- 2 -
COASTAL TESTING LABORATORY
CTL•1
Optimum lime content tests were made on composite samples of surface and
shallow -formations using five (5) , six (6) and seven (7) percent lime.
Standard Proctor and California Bearing Ratio tests were made on typical
samples of the surface soils .
The results of all tests are summzri.zed on Figures two (2) through twelve
(12) .
ENGINEERING ANALYSES
The expansive potential of the surface and shallow formations was determined
by comparing their natural moisture contents with the results of Atterberg
limits tests . Experience has shown that plastic soils having moisture con—
tents equal to or less than their plastic limits are potentially expansive,
with the expansion pressure varying directly with the moisture content. On
the other hand, soils having either low plasticity indices or moderate plas-
ticity indices and moisture -contents -above their plastic limits are essen-
tially non-expansive. Soils having high plasticity indices are subject to
seasonal volume changes regardless of their existing moisture contents .
Safe soil bearing pressures for cohesive formations were calculated from
depth and compressive. strength , using a suitable safety factor against total
dead and live load.
The most suitable type and depth of foundation was determined by a review
of the logs of test borings and the test results . The most suitable depth
was selceted as the minimum depth below the zone of seasonal moisture
�! - 3 -
�' COASTAL TESTING LABORATORY
fluctuations affording reasonably. uniform footing support, reasonably high
safe soil bearing pressure, and adequate vertical clearance with physical
features of the proposed structures .
For soil conditions requiring driven pile foundations , the allowable static
resistance was determined from the results of unconfined compressive tests
on cohesive soil . The safe static load capacity of a pile of given length
and perimeter may be determined from the skin friction curves shown on figures
thirteen (13) and fourteen (14) . '
Total thickness of the flexible pavement section was determined using C.B.R.
values at ninety-five (95) percent compaction . Standard design curves were
used for wheel loads up to 1200 lbs . for medium to heavy traffic. However,
the thickness of sub-base and base are determined from past experience in
this area.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS - SITE CONDITIONS
The subject has varying topography. It has some low spots and sloping sur-
face near creeks. In some areas the site is heavily wooded.
Therefore, prior to construction the entire site should be cleaned of all
vegetation and deletereous matter and shaped to provide drainage to the ex-
. isting surficial soil- and, avoid any ponding of surface water.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS - STRATIGRAPHY
The surface formation consists of a stratum from three (3) to seven (7) feet
- 4 -
COASTAL TESTING LABORATORY
CTL-:.
in thickness of stiff dark gray silty clay and clay having plasticity indices
ranging from thirty (30) to forty (40) percent. These soils are generally
poorly drained and have very low C.B.R. values .
This is underlain to depths of ten (10) feet to twelve (12) feet by a stratum
of stiff to light gray tan clay and silty clay having plasticity indices
ranging from thirty-five (35) to fifty-six (56) percent.
The soil underlying the surface and shallow formations descirbed above is
stiff to very stiff light gray and red clay interbedded with sandy clay
seams of varying thickness .
Hydrostatic water was encountered at depths from eighteen (18) to thirty-
one (31 ) feet. A more detailed stratigraphy may be seen on the logs of
test borings .
SUMMARY OF RESULTS - RECOMMENDATIONS
I SITE PREPARATION :
Strip and scarify the top four (4) to six (6) inches of surface soil in all
building areas to remove the organic and deletereous matter. Adequate
drainage should be provided to drain off the surficial soils. Any additional
fill required under floor slabs should be bank sand or a sandy select soil
having maximum plasticity index of twenty (20) percent. The scarified sub-
grade and all fill should be compacted at approximately optimum moisture con-
tent to a minimum of ninety-five (95) percent of Standard Proctor Density
(AASHO Method T-99) .
COASTAL TESTING LABORATORY
CTL-1:
II APPROACH SLABS:
It is recommended that the top six (6) inches of surficial clay soil under
all the slabs areas should be stabilized using six (6) percent lime by dry
weight. Compact the stabilized subgrade at approximately optimum moisture
content to a minimum of ninety-five (95) percent of Standard Proctor Density
(AASHO Method T-99) .
III FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT:
Following pavement section is recommended for this site. The total thick-
ness is -based on the C.B.R. value of 4.0 percent .and for the wheel loads
up to 1200 pounds.
For the sub-base stabilize top ten (10) inches of the surficial clay soil
using six (6) percent lime by dry weight. After adequate curing of soil
lime mixture it should be compacted at approximately optimum moisture con-
tent to a minimum of ninety-five (95) percent of Standard Proctor Density.
(AASHO Method T-99) . Compaction should be done in not more than six (6)
inch lifts .
For the base provide nine (9) inches in thickness of crushed limestone or any
other approved equal . Compact the base at approximately optimum moisture
content to a minimum of ninety-five (95) percent of Modified Proctor Density
(AASHO Method T-180) .
The surface treatment should consist of a two (2) inches in thickness of hot
mixed-hot laid asphaltic concrete conforming to Texas Highway Department
Specifications , Item 340 , Type "D" .
COASTAL TESTING LABORATOP?Y
1
IV STRUCTURAL FOUNDATIONS :
(a) BRIDGES : It is recommended that the structural loads be
supported on driven pile foundations . These piles should
be designed for skin friction only. Load bearing capacity
of the piles may be determined from the pile skin friction
curves given on Figures thirteen (13) and fourteen (14) .
A point on the curve at required depth should be multiplied
with the effective perimeter of the pile. A safety factor
of two (2) is included in the skin friction values .
(b) CULVERTS : Structural loads for these type of structures
may be supported on shallow spread footings founded at a depth
of eight (8) to ten (10) feet. These footings should be pro-
portioned for a net allowable soil bearing capacity of 4300
PSF for total dead and live loads . This includes a factor
of safety of two (2) .
V SLOPES :
All embankments should be sloped at one to three (1 :3) , vertical to hori-
zontal unless supported by earth retaining systems . These slopes should be
protected from erosion by using vegetation or any other stabilizing material .
COASTAL TESTING LABORATORY
CT�-:
LOCATIONS OF TEST BORINGS
r D
�G -G
• D I
m
D
F.M. 528
B-1
0
-v
0
N
m
D
D
B-2 ® v
co
r
C
fl
DRAINAGE DITCH
B-3
LOW SPOT
B-4.
_ PROPOSED BLACK HANK gL
VD.
B-5
J��-- C.L. CREEK
-,WOODED B-6
� • I
I
Not to Scale
COASTAL TESTING LABORATORY
CTL-'
Figure 1
RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
PROJECT:- BAY AREA BLVD. EXTENSION - - ---- - -
------------`- - COMPRESSION TEST
78-545 9-21-78 Z In
a w r
JOB NO.: DATE: O J Z y u �v
o w N 0 0 ci F TYPE OF MATERIAL
r r J W(n
DRY ATTERBERG LIMITS Q a TYPE
HOLE DEPTH co w w
NO. BELOW MOIST DENSITY 0 FAILURE
.
GROUND PCF LL PL PI
1 0-2 36.7 54 19 35 1 .2 Silty clay
3-5 33.5 86 61 21 40 0.77 9.1 0 Bulge 1 .4 Silty clay
B-10 35.3 82 1 .16 5.9 0 450 Shear 1 .7 Silty clay
2 0-2 41 .5 55 20 35 1 .6 Silty clay
3-5 36.5 80 66 21 45 1 .00 8.5 0 Bulge 2.2 Silty clay
8-10 29.4 2.5 Silty clay
3 0=2 34.1 61 21 40 3.8 Silty clay
3-5 32.6 85 78 24 54 3.57 6.9 0 450 Shear 3.4 silty clay
450 Shear 2.6 Silt cla
8-10 32.8 84 1 .25 3.2 0 lickensided y y
--------- ------------- ----- -- -----..__..----- -- -- - 4 5 hear
13-15 30.9 91 2 .54 9,6 0 8lickensided 3.3 Clay
-----------
. -� --- ---- -;- -- ------------------- ---------- -- -- -- 450 Shear
m 18-20 31 .9 87 2.13 8.5 0 lickensided •8 Clay
N - - -------- - -------
- --- -------------23-25 22.1 101 1 .58 10.7 0 Vertical 3.5 Sandy clay
Shear
28-30 18.3 106 2.43 12.8 0 Shearple 3.5 Sandy clay
33-35 20.4 105 4.13 16.5 0 Multiple 4.5+ Sandy clay
Shear
CTL-G
RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
PROJECT: BAY AREA BLVD. EXTENSION --- -- --
COMPRESSION TEST
U.
h W N
78-545 9-21-78 z Q w W
JOB NO.: DATE: O w `n Z v `2 V
in
Oz
o v Q TYPE OF MATERIAL
w a � wv)
DEPTH DRY ATTERBERG LIMITS F- ¢ TYPE m w w
HOLE LE BELOW MOIST. DENSITY. "---- -- - O0 FAILURE CL
GROUND PCF LL PL PI
3 38-40 25.4 96 3.25 9.6 0 Multiple 4.:5+ Clay
- ---- .- - --- ------ --- S h ea r - - - -
43-45 25.0 130 3.46 9.6 0 450 Shear 2.5 Clay
48-50 26.2 94 4.87+ 3.2 0 NONE � 3.8 Clay
4 0-2 33.5 49 19 30 2.0 Silty clay
3-5 34.6 84 54 19 35 1 .57 9.1 0'. MultipleShear 2.0 Silty clay
8-10 22.8 100 1 .95, 10.1 0 Vertical 2.0 Silty sandy clay
Shear
13-15 32.9 86 1 .38 4.3 0 450 Shear 2.32.3 Clay
5_18-20 28.8 91 1 .79 8.5 0 sli Shear ckensided 2.3 Clay
Vertical 2.3 clay
23-25 22.4 100 1 .29 10.7 0 Shear
Multiple
28-30 19.5 75 4.28 14.9 0 Shear 2.3 Clay
- ------------
33-35 24.7 98 2.99 6.9 0 450 Shear 2.5 Clay
38-40 21 .5 102 4.65 10.7 0 Multiple 4.5+ Clay
fD Shear
`o 43-45 17.6 4.0 Sandy clay
48-50 18.7 4.0 Sandy clay
CTL-G
RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
PROJECT:- BAY AREA BLVD. EXTENSION - - --- -
--- -'--------""-` - -- COMPRESSION TEST
Cew
78-545 9-21-78 z ~-
JOB NO.: DATE:_ -_-- O Q Z N O v
w Q w N o J F< TYPE OF MATERIAL
.� win
a ~ w w m Z vl
HOLE DEPTH % DRY ATTERBERG LIMITS --- w Q a TYPE w w
NO. BELOW MOIST DENSITY FAILURE a ce
.
GROUND PCF LL PL PI
5 0-2 43.8 67 22 45 1 .6 Silty clay
3-5 40.8 74 80 24 56 0.89 8.0 .0 Multiple 0.9 Silty clay
Shear _
8-10 31 .3 88 1 .70 9.6 0 450 Shear 1 .4 Silty clay
6 0-2 30.6 - 43 18 25 _ 3.0 Clay
Multiple
3-5 24.2 97 58 20 38 4.19 7.5 0 Shear 4.2 Clay
8-10 21 .9 99 1_80 5.9 0 Multiple Shen 3.7 Clay -
- 13-15 29.1 91 2.15 11 .7 0 450 Shear 3.3 Clay
18-20 21 .2 102 3.02 17.6 0 450 Shear 3.8 Clay
23-25 21 .6 101 2 .99 6.9 0 450 Shear 4.1 Clay
28-30 19.9 102 3.30 4.8 0 450 Shear 4.1 Clay
33-35 25.7 94 0.74 12.8 0 450 Shear 4.5 Clay - sandy clay
-r,
-'• -__ ---- - -- ertica
38-40 19.3 105 2.19 16.0 0 Shear •5+ Sandy clay
ID - - -
A 43-45 18,3 ,4 Sandy clay
----------------------------------------- ---------------
-- ---------- ----------- - -----------
48-50 17.3 109 1 .66 6.9 0 Shearcal �4 2 Sandy clay
I
CTL-6
OPTIMUM LIME CONTENT
1 . COMPOSITE SURFACE SAMPLE
DEPTH: 0'-2' Feet
MATERIAL : Dark gray silty clay
Lime Liquid Plastic Plasticity Raw
Content Limit Limit Index Plasticity Index
5% 55 37 18 40
6% 56 40 16 40
7% 53 39 14 40
2. COMPOSITE SAMPLE :
DEPTH : 3' -5 '
MATERIAL : Gray & tan clay
Lime Liquid Plastic Plasticity Raw
Content Limit Limit Index Plasticity Index
5% 57 39 18 54
6% 56 39 17 56
7% 55. 42 1.3 56
I I
COASTAL TESTING LABORATORY -
CTL-I: Figure 5
STANDARD PROCTOR TEST
Dark gray clay, slightly sandy (Sample No. 3)
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: 89.5 PCF
OPTIMUM MOISTURE : 28.8%
P
U_ +
U + • •
+ e •
} +
F— + • •
Z +
W +
+
>— + •
o +
+
+ '
+
+
+
+ '
+
0.4 +
75 + + .+ + + + + + + + +. + + + + + + + + + +
20
MOISTURE CONTENT - PERCENT
0.8
Figure 6
STANDARD PROCTOR TEST
Dark gray clay, slightly sandy (Sample No. 5)
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY : 86.7 PCF
OPTIMUM MOISTURE: 29.4
U ..F
I +
+
F- + • •
~ + • •
Z + '
W +
o +
+
.+}. •
c +
+ •
+ •
+ •
+ •
0.4 + '
75 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
20
MOISTURE CONTENT - PERCENT
0.8
Figure 7
sSTANDARD PROCTOR TEST
Dark gray clay, slightly sandy (Sample No. 4)
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY : 94'.8 PCF
OPTIMUM MOISTURE 22.4%
L!._ } . •
U + • •
+
cn +
z +
c + •
+ •
} +
+
+ •
+
+
+
+ •
+ •
+
+ .
+ •
+
+
+ •
0.4 +
80 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
14
MOISTURE CONTENT - PERCENT
0.8
Figure 8
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO
Sample No. 1
60
50 CBR @ 0.2" =4.0%
Yd.95
H 40
w
i
a -yd.90
0
-H
w CBR @ D'J "=3.2% CBR @ 0. 2" = 2.3%
G
0 30
b
ro
0
a
CBR @ 0.1" =, 2.4%
20
10
0
0 .l .2
Penetration - Inches
- Figure 9
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO
Sample No. 3
60
50
yd.95
CBR @ 0.2" = 2. 9%
H 40
a
i
• G
O
N
R' CBR @ 0.1" = 3.4%
G
° 30
b
ro -
'° yd.90
CBR @ 0. 2" = 1 . 7'
20
CBR @ 0.1" = 1.8%
1.0
0
0 l .2
Penetration - Inches
Figure 10
CALIFORNIA BEARING RAT10
Sample No . 4 yd.95
60
Corr. CBR @
0.2" = 4.0%
50
Corr. CBR @ 0.1" = 4.4%
40
H '
a
i
G
0
04
a 30
0
b
W
0
a
20 yd. 90
CBR @ 0.2" = 1.2
CBR @ 0.1" = 1.2%
10
0
0 .1 , 2
Penetration - Inches
Figure 11
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO
Sample No. 5 -yd.95
60
Corr. CBR @
0.2" = 4.I%
50
II
I
40 Corr. CBR @ 0.1" = 4.3%
U) I
w
i
o yd.90
m
R CBR @ 0.2" = 2.3%
G
0 30
-o
ro
o
CBR @ 0.1" = 2.4%
20
10
0
0 1 .2
Penetration - Inches
Figure 12
i
SKIN FRICTION PILL CURVE
j; (Concrete or Treated Wood Piles) I
li
�! BORINGS : 3 and 4
I
0
�+ 5+
1.0 ;
i�
I 20
I
If ,
30
'I
i 40 t1
50
13.5 it
i
f
60 I
- II
.0 4 3 12 16 20 24�'
UNIT St%FL LL RING CAPACITY, TONS Per-Foot
Note: Multiply point on curve by effective
perimeter of pile in feet (F.S . = 2)
li
it
I
--- COASTAL TESTING LABORATORY `
Figure 13
SIUN FRICTION PILE CURVE
1} (Concrete or Treated Wood Piles)
li BORING: 6 .
i
it 0
I: •
II 5
I
I
I
20
i
I
I
,{ 30
if, ia4
t ca l
40 I,
i I!
if
50
13.25
60 +�
4 8 12 16 20. 24 j
1
o
UNIT SAFE ilrAF.I::G CAPACITY', TOMS Per-Foot I'
I:ote: !Multiply point on curve by effective
perimeter of pile in feet (F.S. = 2)
,I
1�
- - - COASTAL TESTING LABORATORY
Figure 14
LOG OF BORING
PROJECT: BAY AREA BLVD. EXTENSION BORING NO: 1
FOR: ENGINEERING SCIENCE , INC. LOCATION : See Figure 1
DATE:
9-21-78 JOB N0: 78-545 ORING TYPE: 4"Auger, 2"Shelby tube DRILLER: HP REPORT NO. 7810-1 013 GROUND ELEV.: Existing
LEGEND
S-Shelby Tube D-Denison Barrel P-Penetration Test J-Jar
I. o _ o aL !-Core ®-Penetration Sample 0-No Recovery
s � z a. o ., Q-Static Water Table V-Hydrostatic Water Table
> 3
0 0 > 2 ° 1 DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM
o m w m
Stiff dark gray silty clay
Stiff light gray silty clay
5
becomes light gray & tan @ 9.0'
1
Complete @ 10.0'
No Water Encountered
COASTAL TESTING LABORATORY Figure 15 CTL-15
LOG OF BORING
PROJECT: BAY AREA BLVD. EXTENSION BORING NO: 2
FOR: ENGINEERING SCIENCE, INC. LOCATION: See Figure 1
DATE: 9-21-78 JOB NO: 78-545 BORING TYPE: 4°AUger, 2"Shelby tube
DRILLER: HP REPORT NO. 7810-1013 GROUND ELEV.Existin
LEGEND
` n _` `o S-Shelby Tube D-Denison Barrel P-Penetration Test J-Jar
r o
L v Z o o a L ®-Core ®-Pe nefrotion Sample O-No Recovery
_ w a a o LL 0-Static Water Table ®-Hydrostatic Water Table
E aE 3
DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM
o in U) w m
Stiff dark gray silty clay
Stiff gray silty clay
5
- light .gray, tan & ._red with calcareous nodules @ 8.0'
10
Complete @ 10.01
No Water Encountered
COASTAL TESTING LABORATORY Figure 16 CTL-15
LOG OF BORING
PROJECT: BAY AREA BLVD. EXTENSION BORING NO: 3
FOR: ENGINEERING SCIENCE , INC. LOCATION : See Figure 1
DATE: 9-21-78 JOB NO: 78-545 BORING TYPE: 4"Auger, 2°Shelby tube
DRILLER: HP REPORT NO. 7810-1013 GROUND ELEV.: Existing
LEGEND
c , n o S-Shelby Tube D-Denison Barrel P-Penetration Teat J-Jor
CL o
c _ o u- '-Core ®-Penetration Sample 0-No Recovery
•
_ • . _• Z a o LL • Q-Static Water 'Table �-Hydrostatic Water Table
0 0 > DESCRIPTION OF . STRATUM
p N h W m
Very stiff dark gray silty clay
Very stiff gray silty clay
5 - becoming tan @ 5.0'
- light gray & tan @ 8.0'
10
\ Very sti.ff light gray & red clay
15 \
\ Stiff tan clay, becoming slickensided
20
Stiff light gray very sandy clay
30 -Stiff tan sandy clay, with silt stones-- _
- hard light gray & tan sandy clay, with silt. & 5ilt. stone
49 Hard light gray & red slightly gray clay
Ld
Z
- very stiff light gray & tan slightly- clayey
50
Complete @ 50.0'
V) Water Level @ Completion 23.0'
w
H
0
z
COASTAL TESTING LABORATORY CTL-15
Figure 17
LOG OF BORING
PROJECT: BAY AREA BLVD. EXTENSION BORING NO: 4
FOR: ENGINEERING SCIENCE, INC. LOCATION : See Figure 1
DATE: 9-21-78 Joe No: 78-545 BORING TYPE: 4"Auger, 2"Shelby tube
DRILLER: HP REPORT NO. 7810-1013 GROUND ELEV.: FXistinq
LEGEND
n `o S-Shelby Tube D-Denison Barrel P-Penetration Test J-Jo►
� a
,-Core ®-Penetration Sample O-No Recovery
.t Z a ' o
a
o : . Q-Static Water Table V-Hydrostatic Water Table.
E ccEX. o' c
c N h - m DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM
VWX
Stiff dark gray silty clay
5
Stiff red silty sandy clay
10
Stiff tan &:-light gray clay, becoming slickensided
15
20 Stiff light gray & tan slickensided clay,becoming silty clay
- encountered water @ 22.0'
Stiff light gray & tan , sandy clay
30 Stiff light :gray & red slickensided clay, with silt & silt stone
- hard red & light gray, slickensided clay, with silt seams
Hard light gray sandy clay
CD
40 ..'
hard tan sandy clay
w
J
- hard tan sandy clay, with calcareous nodules
w 0
Complete @ 50.0'
Water Level @ Completion. 18.0'
COASTAL TESTING LABORATORY cry-ts
Figure 18
LOG OF BORING
PROJECT: BAY AREA BLVD. EXTENSION BORING NO: 5
FOR: ENGINEERING SCIENCE , INC. LOCATION : See Figure 1
DATE: 9-21-78 JOB NO: 78-545 BORING TYPE: 4"Auger, 2°Shelby tube
DRILLER: HP REPORT NO. 7810-1013 GROUND ELEV.: Existing
LEGEND
f a c S-Shelby Tube D-Denison Barrel P-Penetration Test J-Jar
o F- c _ c tz v-Core N-Penetration Sample -No Recovery
c Z �° o . Q-Static Water Table V-Hydrostatic Water Table
n > 3
o Eo aE o o DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM
p N to w m
Stiff dark gray silty clay
- medium dark gray silty clay
5
Stiff light gray, red silty clay, with calcareous nodules
10
Complete @ 10.0'
No Water Encountered
COASTAL TESTING LABORATORY CTL-15
Figure 19
LOG OF BORING
PROJECT: BAY AREA BLVD. EXTENSION BORING No: 6
FOR: ENGINEERING SCIENCE , INC. LOCATION : See Figure 1
DATE: 0-211-78 JOB NO: 78- 545 BORING TYPE: 4°Auger, 2°Shelby tube
DRILLER: _ REPORT NO. 7810-1013 GROUND ELEV.: Existing
LEGEND
n `o S-Shelby Tube D-Denison Barrel P-Penstration Test J-Jar
- c _ `o - u_ I-Core N-Penetration Sample O-No Recovery
r � Z 0 � . D Q-Static Water 'Table V-Hydrostatic Water Table
U.
o o m o o DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM
Stiff gray clay
Hard light gray & tan clay
5
Very stiff light_.gray, 'red clay, with calcareous-nodules
10
15
- water @ 18.0'
20 Very stiff light gray, tan clay, with calcareous nodules
- hard. li ht gray, tan & red clay, with c
Medium red very sandy clay
30 Hard light gray & tan sandy clay
W
40
Z
s
U
111 - calcareous nodules @ 48.0'
a 50
N Complete @ 50.0'
Water Level @ Completion 15.0'
0
COASTAL TESTING LABORATORY Figure 20 CTL-15
i
Key to Soil Symbols and Description
Used in Laboratory Logs
Gravel Very i Silty Sandy Sandy
Organic ! '. ;: Silt Clay
Sand
Silty -
Silt Organic Sand
a
Clay _ Clayey Clayey
\`. Silty Sand . Silt
_ Clayey
= Rock �. ;;. Clay
.�.,
Color
In color.description of sample-, the predominating color is stated first
Consistency of Cohesive Soils
Field Identification: Laboratory Identification:
Very soft - Tall core will slump 0. - 0. 25 tsf
Soft - Core can be pinched 0. 25 - 0.50 tsf
Firm - Easily imprinted with fingers 0. 50 - 1. 00' tsf
Stiff - Can be imprinted with finger 1 . 00 - 2. 00 tsf j
Very Stiff - Can be imprinted very slightly 2. 00 - 4. 00 tsf
with fingers
Hard - Cannot be imprinted with fingers Over 4:00 tsf
Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils
Classification by Standard Penetration Resistance:
Loose - 0 to 10 Blows per foot Dense - 30 to 50 Blows per ft.
Med.Dense 10 to 30 Blows per foot Very Dense.- 50 and above
Blows per ft.
Soil Structure
Slickensided - Cut.by old fracture planes which are slick and glossy.
Fractured - Containing cracks, filled with various materials.
Varved - Composed of thin laminae of varying color and soil types.
Interbedded - Composed of alternate layers of different soil types.
Calcareous - Contains deposits of calcium carbonate.
COASTAL TESTING LABORATORY
Figure 21