Northside Independent School District HB Zachry Middle School Bus

Transcription

1512 South Flores Street
San Antonio, Texas 78204
210.227.2612
210.227.9457 fax
Date : 11/19/15
Northside Independent School District
H.B. Zachry Middle School Bus Canopy Modifications
RFCSP – 2015-160
ADDENDUM NO:1
Date:
November 19, 2015
Project No:
Alamo Architects Job No. 2015-33
Project Name:
NISD H.B. Zachry Middle School Bus Canopy Modifications
Owner:
RE:
100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
This addendum shall be included in and be considered part of the plans and specifications for the above named project.
The Contractor shall be required to sign an acknowledgment of the receipt of this addendum at the time she/he receives
it.
1.
This addendum contains changes to the requirements of the Contract Drawings and Specifications. Such
changes shall be incorporated in the Contract Documents and shall apply to the work with the same meaning
and force as if they had been included in the original Documents. Whenever this Addendum modifies a
portion of a paragraph of the Specifications, or any portion of any Drawing, the remainder of the paragraph or
drawings affected shall remain in force.
2.
The conditions and terms of the basic specifications shall govern work described in this Addendum. Whenever
performance and the quality of quantity of materials, or workmanship are not fully described in this
Addendum, the PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS of the Specifications shall apply to the work
described in this Addendum.
Page 1 of 2
3.
If no similar items of work are included in the basic specifications, the best quality of material and
workmanship standards shall apply and all work shall be subject to the written approval of the Architect.
GENERAL INFORMATION
ITEM NO. 1-001
Attached: Sign In Sheet from the Pre-Proposal Meeting held on November 17, 2015.
ITEM NO. 1-002
Attached: Geo-Tech Report by Terracon dated November 11, 2015
ITEM NO. 1-003
The Date and time for the Site Visit has been set for Monday November 23, 2015 at
1:30 pm, at the H.B. Zachry Middle School, 9410 Timber Path, San Antonio, TX
78250.
END OF ITEMS
Attachments included in this Addendum 01 are:
(1 – 8 ½ x 11) Pre Proposal Conference Sign In Sheet
(37 – 8 ½ x 11) Terracon Geo-Tech Report dated 11-11-15
Page 2 of 2
Geotechnical Engineering Report
H.B. Zachry MS Bus Canopy and Bus Loop
9410 Timber Path
San Antonio, Texas
November 11, 2015
Terracon Project No. 90155253
Prepared for:
San Antonio, Texas
Prepared by:
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
San Antonio, Texas
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ i
1.0
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
2.0
PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 1
2.1 Project Description .............................................................................................. 1
2.2 Site Location and Description ............................................................................. 2
3.0
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 2
3.1 Typical Profile ...................................................................................................... 2
3.2 Groundwater......................................................................................................... 3
4.0
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. ...................................... 3
4.1 Geotechnical Considerations .............................................................................. 3
4.1.1 Expansive Soil Considerations ............................................................. 3
4.2 Earthwork ............................................................................................................. 4
4.2.1 General Site Preparation........................................................................ 4
4.2.2 Canopy Pad Preparation ........................................................................ 5
4.2.3 Fill Materials and Placement ................................................................. 5
4.2.4 Compaction Requirements .................................................................... 6
4.2.5 Grading and Drainage ............................................................................ 6
4.2.6 Earthwork Construction Considerations .............................................. 7
4.3 Foundations ......................................................................................................... 7
4.3.1 Slab-On-Grade Foundation .................................................................... 7
4.3.2 Slab-On-Grade Construction Considerations ...................................... 9
4.3.3 Drilled Pier Foundations ........................................................................ 9
4.3.4 Drilled Pier Construction Considerations............................................11
4.3.5 Foundation Construction Monitoring ..................................................13
4.4 Seismic Considerations .................................................................................... 13
4.5 Pavements .......................................................................................................... 13
4.5.1 Design Recommendations ...................................................................13
4.5.2 Pavement Section Materials .................................................................15
4.5.3 Pavement Joints and Reinforcement ...................................................17
5.0
GENERAL COMMENTS ...............................................................................................18
TABLES
Table 1
Lateral Soil Parameters
APPENDIX A
Exhibit A-1
Exhibit A-2
Exhibit A-3
Exhibit A-4 and A-5
Site Location Plan
Boring Location Plan
Field Exploration Description
Boring Logs
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX B
Exhibit B-1
Laboratory Testing
APPENDIX C
Exhibit C-1
Exhibit C-2
General Notes
Unified Soil Classification System
H.B. Zachry MS Bus Canopy and Bus Loop■ San Antonio, Texas
November 11, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. 90155253
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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.
This geotechnical study has been performed for the proposed bus canopy and bus loop to be
located inside H.B. Zachry Middle School campus at 9410 Timber Path in San Antonio, Texas.
Two borings were drilled to depths of about 5 and 30 feet below the existing grade within the
proposed development area.
Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the subsurface soil conditions
appear to be suitable to support the proposed structure provided the canopy pad area is properly
prepared and foundations properly designed. Pertinent geotechnical issues include the following:

The subsurface conditions consist of Gravelly Fat Clay (CH) underlain by Lean Clay (CL)
and Marl.

The Potential vertical Rise (PVR) at this site is about 2 to 2½ inches.

Groundwater was not encountered during or after the drilling activities.

Both shallow and deep foundation systems may be considered to support the proposed
canopy.

The 2012 International Building Code, Table 1613.3.2 IBC seismic site classification for
this site is Class “C”.

Both flexible and rigid pavements can be considered for the project.
i
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
H.B. ZACHRY MS BUS CANOPY AND BUS LOOP
9410 TIMBER PATH
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
TERRACON PROJECT NO. 90155253
NOVEMBER 11, 2015
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) is pleased to submit our Geotechnical Engineering Report
for the proposed bus canopy and bus loop to be located inside H.B. Zachry Middle School
campus at 9410 Timber Path, San Antonio, Texas. The project scope was performed in general
accordance with Terracon Proposal No. P90150906 dated October 19, 2015.
The purposes of this report are to describe the subsurface conditions observed at the borings
drilled for this study, analyze and evaluate the test data, and provide recommendations with
respect to:



subsurface soil conditions
earthwork
seismic considerations



groundwater conditions
foundation design and construction
pavement design and construction
Boring B-2 was drilled to a depth of only 6 feet as some obstruction was encountered during
drilling. Based on a discussion with Mr. James Berg with NISD, it was decided not to extend the
boring or relocate to another location.
2.0
2.1
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Description
Item
Site layout
Description
See Exhibits A-1 & A-2, Site Location Plan & Boring Location Plan
Construction
New bus canopy and new bus loop.
Finished Floor
Elevation
Not available at the time of this report.
1
2.2
Site Location and Description
Item
Location
Existing improvements
Current ground cover
Existing topography
3.0
3.1
Description
The site is located at H.B. Zachry Middle School campus. Site address is
9410 Timber Path in San Antonio, Texas.
School buildings and pavements.
Asphalt pavement.
The site appeared to be relatively flat and level.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Typical Profile
Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be
generalized as follows:
Description
Approximate
Depth of Stratum
(feet)
---
---
Stratum I
0.5 to 6
GRAVELLY FAT CLAY (CH)
brown, tan and gray
Stratum II
6 to 20
LEAN CLAY (CL) 2 ; brown
Consistency/
Density
Material Encountered
Asphalt thickness – 1 inch
Granular Base Material – 4 to 10 inches
1
; dark
--Medium Stiff to
Very Stiff
Very Stiff to Hard
3
Stratum III
20 to 30
MARL ; tan
Hard
1
The GRAVELLY FAT CLAY (CH) materials could undergo high high volumetric changes
(shrink/swell) should they experience changes in their in-place moisture content.
2
The LEAN CLAY (CL) materials could undergo low to moderate volumetric changes
(shrink/swell) should they experience changes in their in-place moisture content.
3
The MARL is defined in ASTM D 653-90 Standard Terminology Relating to Soil, Rock and
Contained Fluids as ”calcareous clay usually containing from 35 to 65 percent calcium
carbonate." The calcium carbonate is an indication of a cemented matrix of sand, silt, or clay.
When submerged in water, marl will begin to slake. However, when being excavated or drilled
this material typically behaves more like a rock than soil thereby requiring construction
equipment and procedures typically used for rock. This material is not anticipated to undergo
volumetric changes with fluctuations in moisture content.
Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil
types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details of the borings can be found
on the boring logs in Appendix A of this report.
2
3.2
Groundwater
Groundwater generally appears as either a permanent or temporary water source. Permanent
groundwater is generally present year round, which may or may not be influenced by seasonal
and climatic changes. Temporary groundwater water is also referred to as a “perched” water
source, which generally develops as a result of seasonal and climatic conditions.
The borings were dry-augered to their full depths in an attempt to observe for the presence of
subsurface water. Subsurface water was not observed in the borings. Groundwater levels are
influenced by seasonal and climatic conditions which generally result in fluctuations in the
elevation of the groundwater level over time. Therefore, the foundation contractor should check
the groundwater conditions just before foundation excavation activities. The borings were
backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with cold mix after the drilling operations were
completed.
4.0
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.
The following recommendations are based upon the data obtained from our field and laboratory
programs, project information provided to us and on our experience with similar subsurface and
site conditions.
4.1
Geotechnical Considerations
Based on a discussion with the Structural Engineer Mr. Richard Gates, P.E. with Persyn
Engineering, we understand that the proposed canopy may be supported by a slab-on-grade
foundation system. In order to support the structures on shallow foundations, preparation of the
subgrade will be required to reduce the PVR. Alternatively, a drilled pier foundation may also be
used to support the canopy structure.
The foundation being considered to provide support for the planned structure must satisfy two
independent engineering criteria with respect to the subsurface conditions encountered at this
site. One criterion is the foundation system must be designed with an appropriate factor of
safety to reduce the possibility of a bearing capacity failure of the soils underlying the foundation
when subjected to axial and lateral load conditions. The other criterion is movement of the
foundation system due to compression (consolidation or shrinkage) or expansion (swell) of the
underlying soils must be within tolerable limits for the structure.
4.1.1 Expansive Soil Considerations
Based on our findings, the subsurface soils at this site generally exhibit a high expansion
potential. Based on the information developed from our field and laboratory programs and on
method TEX-124-E in the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Manual of Testing
Procedures, we estimate that the subgrade soils at this site exhibit a Potential Vertical Rise
(PVR) of about 2 to 2½ inches in its present condition. The actual movements could be greater
3
if inadequate drainage, ponded water, and/or other sources of moisture are allowed to infiltrate
beneath the structure after construction.
This report provides recommendations to help mitigate the effects of soil shrinkage and
expansion. However, even if these procedures are followed, some movement and cracking in
the canopy structure should be anticipated. The severity of cracking and other damage such as
uneven slabs will probably increase if any modification of the site results in excessive wetting or
drying of the expansive soils.
Site grades should provide effective drainage away from the structure during and after
construction. Water permitted to pond next to the structure can result in greater soil movements
than those discussed in this report. These greater movements can result in unacceptable
differential floor slab movements, cracked slabs and walls, and roof leaks. Estimated
movements described in this report are based on effective drainage for the life of the structure
and cannot be relied upon if effective drainage is not maintained. Recommendations for
preparing the pad to reduce soil movements are provided in the Pad Preparation section of this
report. Proper water management is important. Recommendations regarding this issue are
included in the Grading and Drainage section of this report.
4.2
Earthwork
The following presents recommendations for general site preparation, pad preparation and
placement of engineered fills on the project. The recommendations presented for design and
construction of earth supported elements including foundations, slabs and pavements are
contingent upon following the recommendations outlined in this section. Earthwork on the
project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of earthwork should
include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade preparation, foundation bearing
soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of the project.
4.2.1 General Site Preparation
Construction operations may encounter difficulties due to the wet or soft surface soils becoming
a general hindrance to equipment due to rutting and pumping of the soil surface, especially
during and soon after periods of wet weather. If the subgrade cannot be adequately compacted
to minimum densities as described in the Compaction Requirements section of this report,
one of the following measures may be required:


removal and replacement with select fill;
drying by natural means if the schedule allows.
Prior to construction, any vegetation, pavements, and any otherwise unsuitable materials should
be removed from the construction area. Wet or dry material should either be removed or
moisture conditioned and recompacted. After stripping and grubbing, the subgrade should be
proof-rolled where possible to aid in locating loose or soft areas. Proof-rolling can be performed
4
with a 15-ton roller or fully loaded dump truck. Soils that are observed to rut or deflect
excessively (typically greater than 1-inch) under the moving load should be undercut and
replaced with properly compacted on-site soils. The proof-rolling and undercutting activities
should be witnessed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer and should be performed
during a period of dry weather.
4.2.2 Canopy Pad Preparation
The following subgrade preparation recommendations should be performed for slab-on-grade
foundations prior to foundation construction in order to reduce the PVR to 1-inch. If no subgrade
preparation is performed, movement of the canopy flatwork up to about 2½ inches should be
expected.

After removing the existing pavements, excavate and remove 4 feet of the
subgrade soil from the canopy par area. The pad area includes the limits of the
proposed structure plus a 3-foot (horizontal) overbuild beyond proposed
perimeter of the structure and any movement sensitive flatwork.

The exposed subgrade in the pad should be proof rolled with at least a 15-ton
roller, or fully loaded dump truck, to evidence any weak yielding zones. A
Terracon geotechnical engineer or their representative should be present to
observe proof rolling operations.

Over-excavate any confirmed weak yielding zones, both vertically and
horizontally, to expose competent soil. The exposed subgrade should be
moisture conditioned between -2 and +3 percentage points of the optimum
moisture content and then compact to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry
density determined in accordance with ASTM D 698.

After proofrolling and the replacement of weak yielding zones with competent soil,
place select fill to achieve the desired pad elevation. The select fill should be
placed in loose lifts of no more than 8 inches, be moisture conditioned between -2
and +3 percentage points of the optimum moisture content, and then compacted to
at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with
ASTM D 698.

This method should result in at least 4 feet of select fill soils beneath the grade
supported slab.
4.2.3 Fill Materials and Placement
Select fill and on-site soils should meet the following criteria:
Fill Type 1
USCS Classification
Granular select fill 2
Varies
Acceptable Location for Placement
All locations and elevations.
5
Fill Type 1
USCS Classification
Acceptable Location for Placement
The CH soils are not suitable for use as select fill.
On-Site Soils
CH, CL
CL, SC, GC
Select Fill
(LL≤40) and (7≤PI≤20)
CL soils may be used as select fill provided they
meet the criteria of this report.
All locations and elevations.
1
Controlled, compacted fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and
debris or materials exceeding 3 inches in maximum dimension. A sample of each material type
should be submitted for testing.
2
Granular select fill should be cohesive crushed limestone base material with a maximum aggregate
size of 3 inches. Plasticity Index should range from 5 to 20.
3
A pulverized, well graded uniform mixture of the existing asphaltic concrete and granular base may
be suitable for use as granular select fill if it meets the recommended criteria in this report. The
material should be uniformly mixed and have particles no larger than 2 inches.
4.2.4 Compaction Requirements
Subsequent to proofrolling, and just prior to placement of any fill, the exposed subgrade within
the construction area should be evaluated for moisture and density. If the moisture, density,
and/or the requirements do not meet the criteria described in the table below, the subgrade
should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches; moisture adjusted and compacted to at least
95 percent of the Standard Effort (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION 1
All fill should be placed in thin, loose lifts of about 8 inches,
Fill Lift Thickness
with compacted thickness not to exceed 6 inches.
Compaction of Select Fill, On-Site Soil
95 percent of the material’s standard Proctor maximum dry
and Granular Material
density (ASTM D 698).
The materials should be moisture conditioned between -2
Moisture Content of On-Site Soil, Select
and +3 percentage points of the optimum moisture
Fill and Granular Material
content.
1
Unless otherwise noted within this report all compaction requirements are provided above.
4.2.5 Grading and Drainage
Effective drainage should be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life of
the new improvements. After construction and landscaping, we recommend verifying final
grades to document that effective drainage has been achieved. Grades around the structure
should also be periodically inspected and adjusted as necessary, as part of the structure’s
maintenance program.
Water permitted to pond next to the structure can result in distress in the structure including
unacceptable differential floor slab movements, cracked slabs and walls, and roof leaks. Grade
supported slab and foundation performances described in this report are based on effective
6
drainage for the life of the structure and cannot be relied upon if effective drainage is not
maintained.
Planters and other surface features which could retain water in areas adjacent to the structures
should be properly drained, designed, sealed or eliminated. Landscaped irrigation adjacent to
the foundation systems should be properly designed and controlled to help maintain a relatively
constant moisture content within 5 feet of the structure.
Collect roof runoff in drains or gutters. Discharge roof drains and downspouts onto pavements
and/or flatwork which slope away from the structure or extend downspouts a minimum of 5 feet
away from the structure.
4.2.6 Earthwork Construction Considerations
It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with
conventional earthmoving equipment. Based upon the subsurface conditions determined from
the geotechnical exploration, subgrade soils exposed during construction are anticipated to be
relatively stable. However, the stability of the subgrade may be affected by precipitation,
repetitive construction traffic or other factors. If unstable conditions develop, workability may be
improved by scarifying and drying. Over excavation of wet zones and replacement with granular
materials may be necessary. Lightweight excavation equipment may be required to reduce
subgrade pumping. The use of remotely operated equipment, such as a backhoe, would be
beneficial to perform cuts and reduce subgrade disturbance.
All temporary excavations should be sloped or braced as required by Occupational Health and
Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations to provide stability and safe working conditions.
Temporary excavations will probably be required during grading operations. The grading
contractor, by his contract, is usually responsible for designing and constructing stable,
temporary excavations and should shore, slope or bench the sides of the excavations as
required, to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should
comply with applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA
Excavation and Trench Safety Standards.
4.3
Foundations
The types and depths of foundations suitable for given structures depend on several factors
including the subsurface conditions, the functions of the structures, the loads they will carry, and
the cost of the foundations. Recommendations for slab-on-grade foundation systems and drilled
piers are provided in the following sections.
4.3.1 Slab-On-Grade Foundation
A slab-on-grade foundation may be considered to support the proposed canopy. Parameters
commonly used to design this type of foundation are provided on the table below. The slab
foundation design parameters presented on the table below are based on the criteria published
by the Wire Reinforcing Institute (WRI). These are essentially empirical design methods and
7
the recommended design parameters are based on our understanding of the proposed project,
our interpretation of the information and data collected as a part of this study, our area
experience, and the criteria published in the WRI design manual.
Prepared Subgrade 1
Conventional Method
Net Allowable Bearing Pressures
2
Subgrade Modulus (k)
Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) 1
2,000 psf
80 pci
About 1 inch
WRI Method
Effective Plasticity Index (PI) 3
Soil / Climate Rating Factor (1- C)
30
0.16
1
Based on preparing the pad as discussed in the report.
2
The net allowable bearing pressure provided above includes a Factor of Safety (FS) of at least 3.
The WRI effective PI is equal to the near surface PI if that PI is greater than all of the PI values in the
upper 15 feet.
3
We recommend that the grade beams be at least 30 inches below final grade. These
recommendations are for proper development of bearing capacity for the continuous beam
sections of the foundation system and to reduce the potential for water to migrate beneath the
slab foundation. These recommendations are not based on structural considerations. Grade
beam depths may need to be greater than recommended herein for structural considerations
and should be properly evaluated and designed by the Structural Engineer. The grade beams
or slab portions may be thickened and widened to serve as spread footings at concentrated load
areas.
An allowable lateral resistance developed by friction between the bottom of the foundation and
the underlying soils of 400 psf may be used. The allowable lateral resistance is based on a
factor of safety of approximately 2.
The passive resistance acting on the foundation can be calculated using an allowable of 150 psf
per foot of depth. The allowable passive pressure is based on a factor of safety of about 2.
Unless pavements or on-grade slabs are provided up to and above the footings, the passive
resistance for soil in the upper 1 foot of the final grade should be neglected.
For a slab foundation system designed and constructed as recommended in this report, post
construction settlements should be less than 1 inch. Settlement response of a select fill
supported slab is influenced more by the quality of construction than by soil-structure
interaction. Therefore, it is essential that the recommendations for foundation construction be
strictly followed during the construction phases of the pad and foundation.
The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs-on-grade that will be
covered with wood, tile, carpet or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the
8
slabs will support equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor
retarder, the slab designer and slab contractor should refer to ACI 302 for procedures and
cautions about the use and placement of a vapor retarder.
4.3.2 Slab-On-Grade Construction Considerations
Grade beams for the slab foundation should preferably be neat excavated. Excavation should
be accomplished with a smooth-mouthed bucket. If a toothed bucket is used, excavation with
this bucket should be stopped 6 inches above final grade and the grade beam excavation
completed with a smooth-mouthed bucket or by hand labor. Debris in the bottom of the
excavation should be removed prior to steel placement.
The foundation excavations should be sloped sufficiently to create internal sumps for runoff
collection and removal of water. If surface runoff water or subsurface water seepage in excess
of 1 inch accumulates at the bottom of the foundation excavation, it should be collected and
removed and not allowed to adversely affect the quality of the bearing surface. Special care
should be taken to protect the exposed soils from being disturbed or drying out prior to
placement of the concrete.
4.3.3
Drilled Pier Foundations
As an alternative, drilled piers may be considered to support the proposed canopy. The canopy
structure may be supported on straight-sided piers bearing at a minimum depth of 15 feet below
existing grade. The piers may be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of 10,000 psf
with a factor of safety against a bearing capacity failure of approximately 3.
An allowable side shear value of 1,000 psf, with an assumed factor of safety of at least two (2),
may be used to aid in resisting axial compressive loads on the piers. The side shear should be
neglected for the upper five (5) feet of soil in contact with the pier shaft. Piers should not extend
deeper than 30 feet below existing grade without contacting our office. Minimum pier spacing
should be at least three pier diameters center to center, with the larger pier diameter controlling
the spacing. If design or construction considerations require that the pier spacing is less than
mentioned above, Terracon should be contacted to evaluate the pier capacity.
In addition to the axial compressive loads on the piers, these piers will also be subjected to axial
tension loads due to the near surface clay soils and possibly due to other induced structural
loading conditions. To compute the axial tension force due to the swelling soils along the pier
shaft, the following equation may be used.
Qu
=
35  d
Qu
d
=
=
Uplift force due to expansive soil conditions in kips (k)
Diameter of pier shaft in feet (ft)
Where:
9
This calculated force can be used to compute the longitudinal reinforcing steel required in the
pier to resist the uplift force induced by the swelling clays. However, the cross-sectional area of
the reinforcing steel should not be less than one (1) percent of the gross cross-sectional area of
the drilled pier shaft. The reinforcing steel should extend from the top to the bottom of the shaft
to resist this potential uplift force.
For the straight-sided drilled piers, the uplift force due to swelling soils and any other axial
tension forces due to structural loading conditions can be resisted by the allowable side-shear of
the drilled pier. The allowable uplift resistance of the straight sided drilled piers can be evaluated
using the following equation:
Where:
Qar
=
2· d · Dp + 0.9W p + PDL
Qar
=
Allowable uplift resistance of pier in kips (k)
d
Dp
=
=
Wp
PDL
=
=
Diameter of pier shaft in feet (ft)
Founding depth of pier in natural soils minus the upper 5
feet of shaft in contact with the soil in feet (ft)
Weight of the drilled pier in kips (k)
Permanent sustained dead Load acting on the drilled pier
in kips (k)
The structural engineer may want to factor the dead load value based on their degree of
certainty.
For single, isolated drilled piers, total settlements, based on the indicated bearing pressures for
the structure, should be about 1 inch for properly designed and constructed drilled piers.
Settlement beneath individual piers will be primarily elastic with most of the settlement occurring
during construction. Differential settlement may also occur between adjacent piers. The
amount of differential settlement between adjacent piers could approach 50 to 75 percent of the
total pier settlement. Settlement response of drilled piers is impacted more by the quality of
construction than by soil-structure interaction.
Improper pier installation could result in differential settlements significantly greater than we
have estimated. In addition, larger magnitudes of settlement should be expected if the soil is
subjected to bearing pressures higher than the allowable values presented in this report.
Lateral Loading - The piers supporting the canopy may be subjected to lateral loading. The
criteria for lateral load analysis is presented in Table 1 are for use with the computer program
LPILE. A number of methods, including hand solutions and computer programs, are available
for calculating the lateral behavior of piles and drilled piers. The majority of these methods rely
on “key” soil parameters such as soil elastic properties (E and k s), strain at 50 percent of the
principal stress difference (50), undrained shear strength (c), and load-deflection (p-y) criteria.
The p-y criteria, which are commonly used to model soil reaction, were developed from
10
instrumented load tests and are generally considered to provide the best model of soil behavior
under short-term lateral loading.
Factors of safety are not generally applied to the lateral load analysis. A performance criteria,
or “limit state”, are usually considered. For most foundations subjected to lateral loads, the pier
foundation is designed with a limit of 1 inch of deflection at the top of the pier and 1 degree of
rotation as measured from the vertical axis of the pier. The analysis is generally conducted
using the working loads and the limit state values. The applied loads are then doubled to
evaluate the deflection and rotation at the top of the pier to determine if the foundation will
topple over under extreme overload. This overload condition may indicate that the foundation
would deflect or rotate such that the tower will tilt but the foundation will not experience failure.
Structural limits, such as moment capacity and shear, may control the design and should be
evaluated by the Structural Engineer.
4.3.4 Drilled Pier Construction Considerations
The pier excavations should be augered and constructed in a continuous manner. Steel and
concrete should be placed in the pier excavations immediately following drilling and evaluation
for proper bearing stratum, embedment, and cleanliness. Under no circumstances should the
pier excavations remain open overnight. Due to the presence of hard clay and marl (rock like),
the contractor should be prepared to use high torque, high powered (rock) equipment.
During the time of our drilling operations, subsurface water was not encountered. Subsurface
water levels are influenced by seasonal and climatic conditions which result in fluctuations in
subsurface water elevations. The contractor should be prepared to use temporary casing should
water be encountered and/or sloughing of the excavation sidewalls occur. It is the responsibility
of the foundation contractor to choose the casing, type, depth and method of installation. The
casing method is discussed in the following paragraphs.
Casing Method- Casing should provide stability of the excavation walls and should
reduce water influx; however, casing may not completely eliminate subsurface
water influx potential. In order for the casing to be effective, a “water tight” seal
must be achieved between the casing and surrounding soils. The drilling
subcontractor should determine casing depths and casing procedures. Water that
accumulates in excess of 3 inches in the bottom of the pier excavation should be
pumped out prior to steel and concrete placement. If the water is not pumped out,
a closed-end tremie should be used to place the concrete completely to the bottom
of the pier excavation in a controlled manner to effectively displace the water
during concrete placement. If water is not a factor, concrete may be placed with a
short tremie so the concrete is directed to the bottom of the pier excavation. The
concrete should not be allowed to ricochet off the walls of the pier excavation nor
off the reinforcing steel. If this operation is not successful or to the satisfaction of
the foundation contractor, the pier excavation should be flooded with fresh water to
offset the differential water pressure caused by the unbalanced water levels inside
11
and outside of the casing. The concrete should be tremied completely to the
bottom of the excavation with a closed-end tremie.
Removal of casing should be performed with extreme care and under proper
supervision to reduce mixing of the surrounding soil and water with the fresh
concrete. Rapid withdrawal of casing or the auger may develop suction that could
cause the soil to intrude into the excavation. An insufficient head of concrete in the
casing during its withdrawal could also allow the soils to intrude into the wet
concrete. Both of these conditions may induce “necking”, a section of reduced
diameter, in the pier.
All aspects of concrete design and placement should comply with the American Concrete
Institute (ACI) 318 Code Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI 336.1
Standard Specification for the Construction of Drilled Piers, and ACI 336.3R entitled Suggested
Design and Construction Procedures for Pier Foundations. Concrete should be designed to
achieve the specified minimum 28-day compressive strength when placed at a 7 inch slump
with a 1 inch tolerance. Adding water to a mix designed for a lower slump does not meet the
intent of this recommendation. If a high range water reducer is used to achieve this slump, the
span of slump retention for the specific admixture under consideration should be thoroughly
investigated. Compatibility with other concrete admixtures should also be considered. A
technical representative of the admixture supplier should be consulted on these matters.
Successful installation of drilled piers is a coordinated effort involving the general contractor,
design consultants, subcontractors and suppliers. Each must be properly equipped and
prepared to provide their services in a timely fashion. Several key items of major concern are:

Proper drilling rig with proper equipment (including casing, augers).

Reinforcing steel cages tied to meet project specifications;

Proper scheduling and ordering of concrete for the piers; and

Monitoring of installation by design professionals.
Pier construction should be carefully monitored to assure compliance of construction activities
with the appropriate specifications. A number of items of concern for pier installation include
those listed below.




Pier locations
Vertical alignment
Competent bearing
Steel placement



Concrete properties and placement
Casing removal (if required)
Proper casing seal for subsurface water control
12
If the contractor has to deviate from the recommended foundations, Terracon should be notified
immediately so additional engineering recommendations can be provided for an appropriate
foundation type.
4.3.5 Foundation Construction Monitoring
The performance of the foundation system for the proposed structure will be highly dependent
upon the quality of construction. Thus, we recommend that fill pad compaction and foundation
installation be monitored full time by an experienced Terracon soil technician under the direction
of our Geotechnical Engineer. During foundation installation, the base should be monitored to
evaluate the condition of the subgrade. We would be pleased to develop a plan for compaction
and foundation installation monitoring to be incorporated in the overall quality control program.
4.4
Seismic Considerations
Description
2012 International Building Code Site Classification (IBC) 1
Value
C2
Site Latitude (Degrees)
29.49276˚ N
Site Longitude (Degrees)
98.68145° W
Mapped Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (0.2-Second): (SS) 3
0.073 g
Mapped Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period: (S1) 3
0.026 g
1
The site class definition was determined using SPT N-values in conjunction with section 1613.3.2 in
the 2012 IBC and Table 20.3-1 in the 2010 ASCE-7.
2
Boring extended to a maximum depth of 30 feet, and this seismic site class definition considers that
stiff soil continues below the maximum depth of the subsurface exploration.
3
The Spectral Acceleration values were determined using publicly available information provided on
the United States Geological Survey (USGS) website. The spectral acceleration values can be used
to determine the site coefficients using Tables 1613.3.3 (1) and 1613.3.3 (2) in the 2012 IBC.
4.5
Pavements
Both flexible and rigid pavement systems may be considered for the project. Based on our
knowledge of the project, we anticipate that traffic loads will be produced primarily by automobile
traffic and occasional trash removal trucks.
Due to the presence of expansive clay subgrade, pavement movements up to 2½ inches should be
expected. If pavement movements are to be reduced to tolerable levels, the pavement should be
prepared as the canopy pad.
4.5.1 Design Recommendations
For this project Light, Medium and Heavy pavement section alternatives have been provided. Light
is for areas expected to receive only car traffic. Medium refers to secondary drive areas expected
13
to receive delivery vans and student pick-up/drop off area. Heavy assumes areas with heavy traffic,
such as trash pickup areas, main access drive areas, bus lanes and fire lanes.
The flexible pavement section was designed in general accordance with the National Asphalt
Pavement Association (NAPA) Information Series (IS-109) method (Class 1 for Light and
Medium; Class 2 for Heavy). The rigid pavement section was designed using the American
Concrete Institute (ACI 330R-01) method (Traffic Category A (ADTT=0) for Light and Medium;
A-1 (ADTT=10) for Heavy). If heavier traffic loading is expected, Terracon should be provided with
the information and allowed to review these pavement sections.
Minimum Recommended Flexible Pavement Section Thickness
Raw Subgrade
Modified Subgrade
Light
Medium
Heavy
Light
Medium
Heavy
Duty
Duty
Duty
Duty
Duty
Duty
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
10.0
14.0
16.0
6.0
10.0
12.0
Lime Treated Subgrade
----
----
----
6.0
6.0
6.0
Moisture Conditioned
Subgrade
6.0
6.0
6.0
----
----
----
Granular Base Material
1, 2
1
Asphaltic base material (Type A or B) may be used in place of crushed limestone base material.
Every 2½ inches of crushed limestone base material may be replaced with 1 inch of asphaltic base
material. However, the minimum thickness of the asphaltic base material is 4 inches.
2
Tensar Geogrid (TX-130) may be used to reduce the thickness of the Granular Base by 2 inches.
The Geogrid should be placed at the bottom of the base layer.
Minimum Recommended Rigid Pavement Section Thickness
Raw Subgrade
Modified Subgrade
Light
Medium
Heavy
Light
Medium
Heavy
Duty
Duty
Duty
Duty
Duty
Duty
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
Reinforced Concrete
5.5
6.5
7.0
5.0
6.0
6.5
Lime Treated Subgrade
----
----
----
6.0
6.0
6.0
Moisture Conditioned
Subgrade
6.0
6.0
6.0
----
----
----
1
Dumpster area should be constructed as heavy duty rigid section.
Proper perimeter drainage is very important and should be provided so infiltration of surface
water from unpaved areas surrounding the pavement is minimized. We do not recommend
installation of landscape beds or islands in the pavement areas. Such features provide an
avenue for water to enter into the pavement section and underlying soil subgrade. Water
penetration usually results in degradation of the pavement section with time as vehicular traffic
traverses the affected area.
14
Curbs should extend through the base and at least 3 inches into the soil subgrade below the
base course. This will help reduce migration of subsurface water into the pavement base course
from adjacent areas. A crack sealant compatible to both asphalt and concrete should be
provided at all concrete-asphalt interfaces.
Pavement areas that will be subjected to heavy wheel and traffic volumes, should be a rigid
pavement section constructed of reinforced concrete. The concrete pavement areas should be
large enough to properly accommodate the vehicular traffic and loads. For example:

The dumpster pad should be large enough so that the wheels of the collection
truck are entirely supported on the concrete pavement during lifting of the waste
bin; and

The concrete pavement should extend beyond any areas that require extensive
turning, stopping, and maneuvering.
The pavement design engineer should consider these and other similar situations when
planning and designing pavement areas. Waste bin and other areas that are not designed to
accommodate these situations often result in localized pavement failures.
The pavement section has been designed using generally recognized structural coefficients for
the pavement materials. These structural coefficients reflect the relative strength of the
pavement materials and their contribution to the structural integrity of the pavement. If the
pavement does not drain properly, it is likely that ponded water will infiltrate the pavement
materials resulting in a weakening of the materials. As a result, the structural coefficients of the
pavement materials will be reduced and the life and performance of the pavement will be
shortened. The Asphalt Institute recommends a minimum of 2 percent slope for asphalt
pavements. The importance of proper drainage cannot be overemphasized and should be
thoroughly considered by the project team.
4.5.2 Pavement Section Materials
Presented below are selection and preparation guidelines for various materials that may be
used to construct the pavement sections. Submittals should be made for each pavement
material. The submittals should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer and appropriate
members of the design team and should provide test information necessary to verify full
compliance with the recommended or specified material properties.

Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete Surface Course - The asphaltic concrete surface
course should be plant mixed, hot laid Type C or D Surface. The asphaltic
concrete base course should also be plant mixed, hot laid Type A or B. Each mix
should meet the master specifications requirements of 2004 TxDOT Standard
Specifications Item 341, Item SS 3224 (2011) and specific criteria for the job mix
formula. The mix should be compacted between 91 and 95 percent of the
15
maximum theoretical density as measured by TEX-227-F. The asphalt cement
content by percent of total mixture weight should fall within a tolerance of ±0.3
percent asphalt cement from the specific mix. In addition, the mix should be
designed so 75 to 85 percent of the voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA) are
filled with asphalt cement. The grade of the asphalt cement should be PG 64-22
or higher performance grade. Aggregates known to be prone to stripping should
not be used in the hot mix. If such aggregates are used measures should be
taken to mitigate this concern. The mix should have at least 70 percent strength
retention when tested in accordance with TEX-531-C.
Pavement specimens, which shall be either cores or sections of asphaltic
pavement, will be tested according to Test Method TEX-207-F. The nucleardensity gauge or other methods which correlate satisfactorily with results
obtained from project pavement specimens may be used when approved by the
Engineer. Unless otherwise shown on the plans, the Contractor shall be
responsible for obtaining the required pavement specimens at their expense and
in a manner and at locations selected by the Engineer.

Concrete - Concrete should have a minimum 28-day design compressive
strength of 4,000 psi.

Granular Base Material - Base material may be composed of crushed limestone
base/ crushed concrete meeting all of the requirements of 2004 TxDOT Item 247,
Type A, Grade 1 or 2; including triaxial strength. The material should be
compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined in
accordance with ASTM D 1557 at moisture contents ranging from -2 and +3
percentage points of the optimum moisture content.

Lime Treated Subgrade - The subgrade may be treated with hydrated lime in
accordance with TxDOT Item 260 in order to improve its strength and improve its
load carrying capacity. We anticipate that approximately 6 percent hydrated lime
will be required. This is equivalent to about 30 pounds of hydrated lime per
square yard for a 6-inch treatment depth. However, the actual percentage should
be determined by laboratory tests on samples of the clayey subgrade prior to
construction. The optimum lime content should result in a soil-lime mixture with a
pH of at least 12.4 when tested in accordance with ASTM C 977, Appendix XI
and should reduce the Plasticity Index to 20 or less.
The lime should initially be blended with a mixing device such as a Pulvermixer,
sufficient water added, and be allowed to cure for at least 48 hours. After curing,
the lime-soil should be remixed to meet the in-place gradation requirements of
Item 260 and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density
16
determined in accordance with ASTM D 698 at moisture contents ranging from
optimum and + 4 percentage points above the optimum moisture content.

Moisture Conditioned Subgrade - The subgrade should be scarified to a depth
of 6 inches and then moisture conditioned between -2 and +3 percentage points of
the optimum moisture content, and then compact to at least 95 percent of the
maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D 698.
Details regarding subgrade preparation, fill materials, placement and compaction are presented
in Earthwork section under subsections Fill Materials and Placement and Compaction
Requirements.
4.5.3 Pavement Joints and Reinforcement
The following is recommended for all concrete pavement sections in this report. Refer to ACI
330 “Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots” for additional information.
Contraction Joint Spacing:
12½ feet each way for pavement thickness of 5 or 5½
inches; 15 feet each way for pavement thickness of 6 or
greater.
Contraction Joint Depth:
At least ¼ of pavement thickness.
Contraction Joint Width:
One-fourth inch or as required by joint sealant
manufacturer.
Construction Joint Spacing:
To attempt to limit the quantity of joints in the pavement,
consideration can be given to installing construction joints
at contraction joint locations, where it is applicable.
Construction Joint Depth/Width:
Full depth of pavement thickness. Construct sealant
reservoir along one edge of the joint. Width of reservoir to
be ¼ inch or as required by joint sealant manufacturer.
Depth of reservoir to be at least ¼ of pavement thickness.
Isolation Joint Spacing:
As required to isolate pavement from structures, etc.
Isolation Joint Depth:
Full depth of pavement thickness.
Isolation Joint Width:
One-half to 1 inch or as required by the joint sealant
manufacturer.
None (see note below)
Expansion Joint:
Note:
Long, linear pavements may require expansion joints. However, in this locale,
drying shrinkage of concrete typically significantly exceeds anticipated expansion
17
due to thermal affects. As a result, the need for expansion joints is eliminated
provided all joints (including saw cuts) are sealed. Construction of an unnecessary
joint may be also become a maintenance problem. All joints should be sealed. If all
joints, including sawcuts, are not sealed then expansion joints should be installed.
Distributed Steel: Steel reinforcement may consist of steel bars described as follows:
No 3 reinforcing steel bars at 18 inches on-center-each-way, Grade 60.
No 4 reinforcing steel bars at 24 inches on-center-each-way, Grade 60.
Note:
It is imperative that the distributed steel be positioned accurately in the pavement
cross section, namely 2 inches from the top of the pavement.
All construction joints have dowels.
presented as follows:
Pavement Thickness:
Dowels:
Dowel Spacing:
Dowel Length:
Dowel Embedment:
5.0
Dowel information varies with pavement thickness as
5 to 5½ inches
⅝ inch diameter
12 inches on center
12 inches long
5 inches
6 to 6½ inches
¾ inch diameter
12 inches on center
14 inches long
6 inches
7 inches
7
/8 inch diameter
12 inches on center
14 inches long
6 inches
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.
The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the borings performed at the indicated location and from other information discussed in this
report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur across the site, or due to the
modifying effects of 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 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.
18
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. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. 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.
19
TABLE
TABLE 1
LATERAL DESIGN PARAMETERS
H.B. ZACHRY MS BUS CANOPY AND BUS LOOP
9410 TIMBER PATH
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
TERRACON PROJECT NO. 90155253
Layer
1
2
3
4
Depth to
Bottom of
Layer
(feet)
5
8
20
30
Effective Unit
Weight
(pcf)
120
120
120
125
Undrained Shear
Strength
(psf)
1,000
2,000
4,000
5,000
Soil Strain Factor
(50)
0.010
0.007
0.005
0.004
LPILE Soil Types
Stiff Clay without Free Water
Subgrade Modulus,
k
(pci)
425
620
1,200
1,395
1
Design depth to subsurface water is greater than 30 feet.
2
Stratigraphy shown above is based on our interpretation of soil strength and may not correspond with the descriptive classifications shown on
the boring logs.
3
The lateral load criteria shown above are for use in the computer programs LPILE.
Table 1
APPENDIX A
DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS
NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
Project Manager:
Project No.
AB
Drawn by:
AB
Checked by:
MTG
Approved by:
MTG
90155253
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED
BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS
SITE LOCATION PLAN
Exhibit
9410 Timber Path
San Antonio, Texas
A-1
Scale:
AS SHOWN
File Name:
90155253
Date:
11/4/2015
6911 Blanco Road
San Antonio, TX 78216-6164
DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS
NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
Project Manager:
Project No.
AB
Drawn by:
AB
Checked by:
MTG
Approved by:
MTG
90155253
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED
BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS
BORING LOCATION PLAN
Exhibit
9410 Timber Path
San Antonio, Texas
A-2
Scale:
AS SHOWN
File Name:
90155253
Date:
11/4/2015
6911 Blanco Road
San Antonio, TX 78216-6164
FIELD EXPLORATION DESCRIPTION
A truck-mounted, rotary drill rig equipped with continuous flight augers was used to advance the
borehole. Soil samples were obtained by split-barrel sampling procedures. In the split-barrel
sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampling spoon is driven into the
ground with a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required
to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of a normal 18-inch penetration is recorded
as the standard penetration resistance value. These values are indicated on the boring logs at
the depths of occurrence. If the sampler was driven less than the final 12 inches, the N value is
recorded on the log as the number of blows and amount of penetration. However, if the sampler
was not driven the initial 6-inch seating increment with 50 hammer blows, refusal (i.e. “ref) is
recorded along with the inches driven on the log.
Our field representative prepared the field log as part of the drilling operations. The field log
included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling and our field
representative interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Each boring log
included with this report represents the engineer’s/geologist’s interpretation of the field log and
include modifications based on visual observations and testing of the samples in the laboratory.
The scope of services for our geotechnical engineering services does not include addressing
any environmental issues pertinent to the site.
Exhibit A-3
BORING LOG NO. B-1
PROJECT: H.B. Zachry MS Bus Canopy and Bus Loop
CLIENT: Northside ISD
San Antonio, Texas
about 1 inch
Base Material 10 inches
STRATUM I
GRAVELLY FAT CLAY (CH); dark brown and brown, very stiff
6-7-10
N=17
6-11-12
N=23
5
6.0
STRATUM II
LEAN CLAY with GRAVEL (CL); brown, very stiff to hard
- fat clay layer between 8 and 10 feet
10
THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT.
GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 90155253.GPJ
15
20.0
20
STRATUM III
MARL; tan, hard
25
30.0
30
Boring Terminated at 30 Feet
Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
LL-PL-PI
PERCENT FINES
DEPTH
0.1 Asphalt
0.9
WATER
CONTENT (%)
Longitude: -98.68145°
FIELD TEST
RESULTS
Latitude: 29.49276°
SAMPLE TYPE
LOCATION See Exhibit A-2
WATER LEVEL
OBSERVATIONS
9410 Timber Path
San Antonio, Texas
DEPTH (Ft.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SITE:
Page 1 of 1
16
20
68-24-44
4-8-13
N=21
16
58-21-37
10-19-25
N=44
11
20-38-50/4"
N=88/10"
12
15-32-50/3"
N=82/9"
9
15-30-41
N=71
11
15-50/6"
N=50/6"
8
35-50/3"
N=50/3"
4
39
58-18-40
69
Hammer Type: Automatic
Advancement Method:
Flight Auger
Notes:
Abandonment Method:
Backfilled with Auger Cuttings
Surface capped with asphalt
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
No free water observed
6911 Blanco Road
San Antonio, Texas
Boring Started: 10/31/2015
Boring Completed: 10/31/2015
Drill Rig: CME 75
Driller:
Project No.: 90155253
Exhibit:
A-4
BORING LOG NO. B-2
PROJECT: H.B. Zachry MS Bus Canopy and Bus Loop
CLIENT: Northside ISD
San Antonio, Texas
about 1 inch
Base Material 4 inches
STRATUM I
GRAVELLY FAT CLAY (CH); dark brown, medium stiff to very stiff
3-5-7
N=12
5
6.0
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
LL-PL-PI
PERCENT FINES
DEPTH
0.1 Asphalt
0.3
WATER
CONTENT (%)
Longitude: -98.681569°
FIELD TEST
RESULTS
Latitude: 29.492419°
SAMPLE TYPE
LOCATION See Exhibit A-2
WATER LEVEL
OBSERVATIONS
9410 Timber Path
San Antonio, Texas
DEPTH (Ft.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SITE:
Page 1 of 1
1161 70-26-44
4-4-6
N=10
26
72-23-49
55
2-2-2
N=4
22
71-20-51
54
THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT.
GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 90155253.GPJ
Boring Terminated at 6 Feet
Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.
Hammer Type: Automatic
Advancement Method:
Flight Auger
Notes:
Abandonment Method:
Backfilled with Auger Cuttings
Surface capped with asphalt
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
No free water observed
6911 Blanco Road
San Antonio, Texas
Boring Started: 10/31/2015
Boring Completed: 10/31/2015
Drill Rig: CME 75
Driller:
Project No.: 90155253
Exhibit:
A-5
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Samples retrieved during the field exploration were taken to the laboratory for further
observation by the project geotechnical engineer and were classified in accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described in this Appendix. At that time, the field
descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and an applicable laboratory testing
program was formulated to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials.
Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in
this appendix. The laboratory test results were used for the geotechnical engineering analyses,
and the development of foundation and earthwork recommendations. Laboratory tests were
performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM, local or other accepted standards.
Selected soil samples obtained from the site were tested for the following engineering
properties:



In-situ Water Content
Atterberg Limits
Amount of Material In-Soil Finer than the No 200 Mesh (75-µm) Sieve
Sample Disposal
All samples were returned to our laboratory. The samples not tested in the laboratory will be
stored for a period of 30 days subsequent to submittal of this report and will be discarded after
this period, unless other arrangements are made prior to the disposal period.
Exhibit B-1
APPENDIX C
GENERAL NOTES
DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Macro Core
Ring Sampler
Rock Core
Grab Sample
No Recovery
(HP)
Hand Penetrometer
Water Level After a
Specified Period of Time
(T)
Torvane
(b/f)
Standard Penetration
Test (blows per foot)
(PID)
Photo-Ionization Detector
(OVA)
Organic Vapor Analyzer
Water Level After
a Specified Period of Time
FIELD TESTS
Shelby Tube
Split Spoon
WATER LEVEL
SAMPLING
Auger
Water Initially
Encountered
Water levels indicated on the soil boring
logs are the levels measured in the
borehole at the times indicated.
Groundwater level variations will occur
over time. In low permeability soils,
accurate determination of groundwater
levels is not possible with short term
water level observations.
DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil 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.
LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES
Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The accuracy
of such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey was
conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographic
maps of the area.
STRENGTH TERMS
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS
(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)
Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance
Includes gravels, sands and silts.
CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS
(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)
Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field
visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance
Descriptive Term Standard Penetration or Ring Sampler Descriptive Term Unconfined Compressive Standard Penetration or Ring Sampler
N-Value
N-Value
Blows/Ft.
(Consistency)
Strength, Qu, tsf
Blows/Ft.
(Density)
Blows/Ft.
Blows/Ft.
Very Loose
0-3
0-6
Very Soft
less than 0.25
0-1
<3
Loose
4-9
7 - 18
Soft
0.25 to 0.50
2-4
3-4
Medium Dense
10 - 29
19 - 58
Medium-Stiff
0.50 to 1.00
4-8
5-9
Dense
30 - 50
59 - 98
Stiff
1.00 to 2.00
8 - 15
10 - 18
Very Dense
> 50
>
_ 99
Very Stiff
2.00 to 4.00
15 - 30
19 - 42
Hard
> 4.00
> 30
> 42
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL
Descriptive Term(s)
of other constituents
Trace
With
Modifier
Percent of
Dry Weight
< 15
15 - 29
> 30
GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY
Major Component
of Sample
Boulders
Cobbles
Gravel
Sand
Silt or Clay
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES
Descriptive Term(s)
of other constituents
Trace
With
Modifier
Percent of
Dry Weight
<5
5 - 12
> 12
Particle Size
Over 12 in. (300 mm)
12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm)
3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)
#4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm
Passing #200 sieve (0.075mm)
PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION
Term
Plasticity Index
Non-plastic
Low
Medium
High
0
1 - 10
11 - 30
> 30
Exhibit C-1
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Soil Classification
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A
Coarse Grained Soils:
More than 50% retained
on No. 200 sieve
Gravels:
More than 50% of
coarse
fraction retained on
No. 4 sieve
Sands:
50% or more of coarse
fraction passes
No. 4 sieve
Silts and Clays:
Liquid limit less than 50
Fine-Grained Soils:
50% or more passes the
No. 200 sieve
Silts and Clays:
Liquid limit 50 or more
Highly organic soils:
A
B
C
D
E
Clean Gravels:
Less than 5% fines C
Gravels with Fines:
More than 12% fines C
Clean Sands:
Less than 5% fines D
Sands with Fines:
More than 12% fines D
Inorganic:
Organic:
Inorganic:
Organic:
Cu = D60/D10
Cc =
(D 30 )
2
D 10 x D 60
F
G
If soil contains  15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.
If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.
Group Name B
Cu  4 and 1  Cc  3 E
GW
Well-graded gravel F
Cu  4 and/or 1  Cc  3 E
Fines classify as ML or MH
GP
Poorly graded gravel F
GM
Silty gravel F,G, H
Fines classify as CL or CH
GC
Clayey gravel F,G,H
Cu  6 and 1  Cc  3 E
SW
Well-graded sand I
SP
Poorly graded sand I
SM
Silty sand G,H,I
SC
Clayey sand G,H,I
Cu  6 and/or 1  Cc  3
Fines classify as ML or MH
E
Fines Classify as CL or CH
PI  7 and plots on or above “A” line
PI  4 or plots below “A” line
Liquid limit - oven dried
Liquid limit - not dried
CL
Lean clay K,L,M
J
ML
Silt K,L,M
 0.75
OL
J
Organic clay K,L,M,N
Organic silt K,L,M,O
PI plots on or above “A” line
CH
Fat clay K,L,M
PI plots below “A” line
Liquid limit - oven dried
MH
Elastic Silt K,L,M
Liquid limit - not dried
Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor
Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve
If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles
or boulders, or both” to group name.
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.
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
Group
Symbol
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
 0.75
OH
PT
Organic clay K,L,M,P
Organic silt K,L,M,Q
Peat
If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.
If soil contains  15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.
If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.
If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with
gravel,” whichever is predominant.
If soil contains  30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy”
to group name.
If soil contains  30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add
“gravelly” to group name.
PI  4 and plots on or above “A” line.
PI  4 or plots below “A” line.
PI plots on or above “A” line.
PI plots below “A” line.
Exhibit C-2
210.227.2612
210.227.9457 fax
Date : 11/30/15
H.B. Zachry Middle School Bus Canopy Modifications
RFCSP – 2015-160
ADDENDUM NO:2
Date:
November 30, 2015
Project No:
Project Name:
NISD H.B. Zachry Middle School Bus Canopy Modifications
Owner:
RE:
100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
This addendum shall be included in and be considered part of the plans and specifications for the above named project.
The Contractor shall be required to sign an acknowledgment of the receipt of this addendum at the time she/he receives
it.
1.
This addendum contains changes to the requirements of the Contract Drawings and Specifications. Such
changes shall be incorporated in the Contract Documents and shall apply to the work with the same meaning
and force as if they had been included in the original Documents. Whenever this Addendum modifies a
portion of a paragraph of the Specifications, or any portion of any Drawing, the remainder of the paragraph or
drawings affected shall remain in force.
2.
The conditions and terms of the basic specifications shall govern work described in this Addendum. Whenever
performance and the quality of quantity of materials, or workmanship are not fully described in this
Addendum, the PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS of the Specifications shall apply to the work
described in this Addendum.
Page 1 of 2
3.
If no similar items of work are included in the basic specifications, the best quality of material and
workmanship standards shall apply and all work shall be subject to the written approval of the Architect.
GENERAL INFORMATION
ITEM NO. 2-001
Attached: Plan Holders List date 11-30-15.
PROJECT DRAWINGS
Civil:
ITEM NO. 2-002
Refer to the attached Civil Addendum No.2 dated - 11-24-30 for Revisions and
Clarifications.
Architectural:
ITEM NO. 2-003
SHEET - A1.0, DETAIL 1 – BUS CANOPY PLAN & DETAIL 10 - TRECH DRAIN
DETAIL: Change reference to Downspout detail from 4/A4.10 to 5/A4.10.
ITEM NO. 2-004
SHEET - A1.0, DETAIL 3 – CANOPY ROOF PLAN: Change reference to Roofing
Control Joint detail from 5/A4.10 to 3/A4.10.
END OF ITEMS
Attachments included in this Addendum 02 are:
(1 – 8 ½ x 11) Plan Holders List dated 11-30-15
(1 – 8 ½ x 11) M.W. Cude – Addendum No. 2 dated 11-24-15
Page 2 of 2
210.227.2612
November 30, 2015
210.227.9457 fax
NISD Zachry MS Bus Canopy Renovation
San Antonio, Texas
Company Name
Contact Person
Phone & Fax
area code (210) unless
otherwise noted
RL Rohde GC
Alfonso Sanin
Marksmen GC
Mandy Baublit
Suburban Construction
Gaylon Loontjer
Baron Long Construction
John Long
WR Griggs Construction
Troy Griggs
649-3130
649-3110
379-5353
346-6026
349-5812
377-1586
377-0397
830.931.2121
830.931.2111
General
or Sub
Date Set
Rcv’d
G
11/11/15
G
11/13/15
G
11/19/15
G
11/19/15
G
11/20/15
2015-33 Bidder's List

Northside Independent School District HB Zachry Middle School Bus

Transcription

Similar documents

Help the Silly Bus kids get to school!

April

Roger ID`s Homemade Canopy

Croydon Community Bus flyer merton

How to reach Microcity from the train station by bus

Practice 1.3 KEY

Holiday Houses Costa Brava Airport bus to Barcelona

Quality, Reinforced Fiberglass Canopy Kit

Orihuela Costa // Las Chismosas

Mazak VTC 250 - Northern Oil Tool INC.

Zachry Force Report MarApril 2015, English