The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About63 DP 03-37From: To: Date: Subject: "Art Hughes" <art@madison-construction .com> "Allen Gibbs" <agibbs@cstx.gov> 12/1/2004 9:31 :59 AM HIS-CSTX; CREEK BANK STABILIZATION I spoke with Kristine Andrews with CES, Inc. regarding the question you had about the retaining walls . 1. The Stratagrid 500 (or 600) will not compromise the integrity of the wall if it is "notched" in those area where we do not have the 1 O' distance behind the wall. 2 . The 6" PVC drain line at the base of the wall would actually be placed just above the ground surface at the front of the wall and would drain out through PVC line placed through the wall to relieve any hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. I told Kristine that you may want to call her and visit about any other questions or concerns that you may have . We really need to get started on this wall as soon as possible . We figure it will take 6 weeks to complete it and the hotel is scheduled to open January 20 . Please expedite this process as much as possible. We were led to believe that this would be more of a cursory review as long as we submitted an engineered wall system . Let me know what you need me to do. Art Hughes Madison Construction Corporation P. 0 . Box 3787 Bryan , TX 77805 Tele : 979-268-5520 t, Fax : 979-268-6022 1 1 Lf ~ ~ e-mail art@madison-constructioncom~~ \/('V l~ <:::. = ~ r!t.. ~ ~~ ~/6~f~ ?;) > ~~Lr 0 C ~~-ie <7c:'J 1 ~~ 1' Y<-w<>"" I ~fl-trf ~1{. ~ ~- 41 LDM ~; f\Jl Nov 12 04 02:29p CES 254 -742-2055 p.2 .i .. ---·-·-···-.. ·---··. . ... ·-·. ·-....... ./ G~EB.8L NOTES.: b, DEFINITIONS WALL CONTRACTOR, CONTRACTOR -CHADWICK'S RETAINING WALLS G(NERAL CONTRACTOR -GENERAL CONTRACTOR FOR PROJECT ENGINEER -COMPREHENSIVE ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, INC . (CES) B. GENERAL All CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LATEST EDITION OF TH£ INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AND ALL CITY OF COLLEGE STATION BUILDING REGULATIONS . THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS ANO ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO EXECUTING ANY WORK . THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESOLVE ANY CONFLICTS WITH THE ENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY UNUSUAL OR UNFORESEEN CONDITION OR SITUATION WHICH AFFECTS THE STRUCTURAL STABILllY OR SAFETY OF THE WALL lYPICAL DETAILS, DETAILS NOTED AS lYPICAL, AND GENERAL NOTES APPLY TO ALL PARTS OF THE JOB EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY DETAILED OR NOTED OTHERWISE. IN NO CASE SHALL WORKING DIMENSIONS BE SCALED FROM PLANS, SECTIONS , OR DETAILS ON THIS DRAWING. THIS STRUCTURE IS DESIGNED AS A STABLE UNIT AFTER ALL COMPONENT PARTS ARE IN PLACE. THEREFORE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL SHORING AND BRACING NECESSARY TO INSURE THE STABIL!lY Or ANY AND ALL PARTS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION. ALL CONTRACTORS PERFORMING WORK ON OR RELATED TO THESE PLANS SHALL CONDUCT THEIR OPERATIONS SO THAT ALL EMPLOYEES ARE PROVIDED A SAFE PLACE TO WORK AND THAT THE PUBLIC IS PROTECTED. ALL CONTRACTORS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE -OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS• OF THE U.S . DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AND WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS REGULATIONS . THE ENGINEER SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE IN ANY WAY FOR THE CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS COMPLIANCE WITH THE "OCCUPATIONAL SAFElY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS". SUBJECT TO MORE: STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS IN CONTRACT, DOCUMENTS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE GENERAL PROJECT . IN THE EVENT THAT CERTAIN FEATURES OF THE CONSTRUCTION ARE NOT FULLY SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS OR CALLED FOR IN THE GENERAL NOTES, THEIR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE OF THE SAME CHARACTER AS SHOWN FOR SIMILAR CONDITIONS BUT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ENGINEER'S APPROVAL. ALL DETAILS OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND DIMENSIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION . CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE BASED ON DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS VERIFIED IN FIELD. C, INSPECTIO~ INSPECTION OF SOILS CONDITIONS ANO COMPACTION PER SOILS SECTION BELOW. CONTINUOUS OR PERIODIC INSPECTION AS REQUIRED BY PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS OR CITY ORDINANCE SHALL BE COORDINATED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND FACILITATED BY THE WALL CONTRACTOR FOR THE FOLLOWING WORK AS IT PERTAINS TO THE RETAINING WALLS: 1. PLACING OF ALL STRUCTURAL MORTAR WITH 28 -DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 1800 PSI OR GREATER. STONE RETAINING WALLS GENERAL NOTES HAMPTON INN & SUITES COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Comprehensive Engineering Solutions, Inc. .'519 South Fi~t Stroot, SYite A Temple, Toxo:!I 76504 Voloo: (254) 742-2050 Fox: (254) 742-2055 --- {'iov 12 04 02:2Sp ·~z;;:::=====·=···=··~·-=·-~-=··=···~--~-=--~-~--~--·~···~--~···~-·=·-~-=··~···=:=::::::::::::::::::=:===============·=·~··=··~··-~····=--=--=:====:===:===:==:=.:::::::::=:::::=::::::::;:~ CES 254-742-2055 p.3 2. THE PORTIONS OF MASONRY CONSTRUCTION NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS. APPROVAL BY INSPECTOR DOES NOT MEAN APPROVAL OF CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS . ANY DETAIL WHICH FAILS TO BE CLEAR OR IS AMBIGUOUS MUST REFERRED TO THE ENGINEER FOR INTERPRETATION OR CLARIFICATION. ALL OTHER TESTS SHALL BE DONE IN CONFORMANCE WlrH APPLICABLE BUILDING CODE. Q, .. _$QILS & EQUt:lll8IIQNS ALL RETAINING WALL FOOTINGS SHALL BE CARRIED TO A MINIMUM OF 24.. BELOW LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE, AND SHALL BE FOUNDEO ON FIRM 8E:ARINC, NATURAL SOILS, OR ON APPROVED COMPACTED FILL. FOOTINGS MAY OR MAY NOT BE REQUIRED (REFER TO TYPICAL SECTIONS). FOOTINGS MAY BE POURED NEAT PROVIDED THAT THE SIDES OF THE EXCAVATION WILL NOT SLOUGH IN AND 2" ARE ADDED TO FOOTING WIOTH. BOTIOM OF FOOTINGS SHALL 8E SLOPED. ALL FOOTINGS SHALL BE CENTERED UNDER THE SUPPORTED WALL PER DETAILS. ALL EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE FREE OF WATER AND DEBRIS PRIOR TO POURING FOUNDATION CONCRETE. BEFORE BACKFILLING REMOVE ALL FORMS ANO DEBRIS. ALL BACKFILL SOIL SHALL BE FREE OF ROCKS ANO DEBRIS . ALL BACKFILL SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SOILS REPORT . E. CONCRETE l:ORILAND CEMENT: SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C-150, TYPE I OR 1YPE IL A~QR~~Tf.; NATURAL SAND, GRAVEL AND CRUSHED STONE AGGREGATE SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C-3.3 IF REQUIRED BY SPECS. MAXIMUM WATER/CEMENT RATIO .55. ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE SUPPLIED BY AN APPROVED READY MIX PLANT . ALL CONCRETE MIXES SHALL BE DESIGNED BY AN APPROVED LABORATORY. MIX OESIGNS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION IF REQUIRED BY SPECS . CONCRETE SHALL 28-DAY MINIMUM ULTIMATE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 3000 PSI WHEN PROPORTIONED PER METHOD I OF THE APPLICABLE CODE. MAXIMUM CONCRETE SLUMP SHALL BE 4 .. ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE VIBRATED . ALL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS SHALL BE IN STRICT CONFORMANCE WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE AC! CODE . CONCRETE FOOTINGS SHALL CURE FOR 3 DAYS 8ErORE CONSTRUCTION OF CORE OF WALLS IS STARTED . ALL REINFORCING STEEL, DOWELS, ANCHOR BOLTS, ANO OTHER INSERTS SHALL BE FIRMLY SECURED IN PROPER POSITION PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE. SEE ARCHITECTURAL/CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR LOCATION ANO EXTENT OF EXTERIOR WALKS ANO PAVEMENT. STONE RETAINING WALLS GENERAL NOTES HAMPTON INN & SUITES COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Comprehensive Engineering Solutions, Inc . 31 g South First Street, Svito A. Temple. Texas 76S04 Voice: (25"4) 7-42-2050 F°Qx : (254) 742~2055 ~ov 12 04 02:29p CES 254 -742 -2055 p.4 ALL CONCRETE WORK SHALL BE TESTED ANO INSPECTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE BUILDING CODE FOR 3000 PSI CONCRETE BY A LABORATORY OR TESTING AGENCY . TEST AND INSPECTION REPORTS SHALL BE: SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER, CONTRACTOR ANO BUILDING DEPARTMENT. ALL CEMENT AND REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE FROM TESTED STOCK. ALL REINFORCING NO. 4 AND LARGER SHALL BE GRADE 60. CONCRETE THAT DOES NOT REACH THE SPECIFIED 28 DAY WORKING STRESSES BASED ON ABOVE TESTS SHALL BE RCTESTED PER IBC. IF THE REQUIRED ADDITIONAL TESTS FAIL TO REACH THE SPECIFIED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH , THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE REEVALUATED 8Y THE ENGINEER FOR THE LOWER STRENGTH CONCRETE AND , IF IT FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIRED STRUCTURAL STANDARDS. THE CONCRETE SHALL BE REMOVED. ALL THE REMEDIAL WORK. INCLUDING ANY DESIGN WORK 8Y THE ENGINEER AND ANY RE -TESTING, SHALL BE PAID FOR BY THE WALL CONTRACTOR. E. SlQt:!E M6SDt:!BX WhLL WALL MATERIALS FOR CORE AND FACE TO BE VERIFIED AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. APPEARANCE OF FACE STONE PER OWNER . BATIER INDICATED ON DETAILS MAY VARY BY 1 ", REAR OF WAL L MAY MATCH FRONT BATTER . 6-lNCH DRAINS SHALL BE PROVIDED BEHIND WALL AS SHOWN IN DETAI L. PVC PIPE SHALL DRAIN INTO STORM DRAIN SYSTEM _ WALL BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL HAVE A P .I. LESS THAN 15. BACKFILL WITHIN 36• OF THE BACK FAC E OF THE WALL SHALL BE GRAVITY COMPACTED 6Y EQUIPMENT OR BY HAND. NO VIBRATORY COMPACTION EQUIPMENT SHALL BE USED WITHIN 35• OF BACK FACE OF WALL . ALL FINISHED PARKING, WALKING SURFACES ANO LANDSCAPING SHALL BE GRADED AND SLOPED TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM WALL . A CHAIN LINK FENCE OR PEDESTRIAN HANDRAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED F'OR ANY AREA WHERE THE VERTICAL DROP IS GREATER THAN 32 INCHES. FENCE OR HANO RAIL SHALL NOT BE TIED TO STRUCTURAL WALL. G.MISCELLANEOUS; PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION , CONTRACTOR SHALL VERY ANO FIELD LOCATE ALL UTILmEs_ UTILITIES SHOWN ON WALL PLAN ANO/OR SECTIONS MAY NOT REPRESENT ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NEAR WALL CONSTRUCTION . CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT PROPER SHORING TO PROTECT THE INTEGRllY OF THE EXCAVATION (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NEARBY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND ADJACENT FOUNDATIONS). TRENCH SHORING SHALL BE DESIGNED BY OTHERS. ENGINEER ASSUMES THAT ADJACENT 8UILOING FOUNDATIONS IMPART NO SURCHARGE LOADING ON WALL OWNER TO VERIFY WITH GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION . OWNER TO CONSULT WITH TRENCH SHORING SPECIALIST PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION FOR RETAINING WALL . IF OWNER DOES NOT OBTAIN ADDITIONAL BORINGS PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, OWNER TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR VERIFYING THAT SOILS ENCOUNTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION ARE ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED BY BORINGS AND DESIGN CRITERIA DEVELOPED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT . PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. OWNER SHALL HAVE EXPERIENCED GEOTECHNICAL PERSONNEL TO OBSERVE CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS AND DOCUMENT THAT CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED OURING CONSTRUCTION CONFORM TO THE ASSUMED GENERALIZATIONS IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. BASE OF FOOTING SHALL BE SITUATED AT LEAST 2 FEET BELOW THE MAXIMUM SCOUR DEPTH OF THE ADJACENT CREEK ALONG THE •REACH .. OF THE CREEK ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED WALL FOOTING SHALL BE FOUNDED AT LEAST 3 FEET INTO THE FOUNDING FORMATION OF GRAY, SHALEY CLAYS (GEOTECHNICAL PERSONNEL TO VERIFY). '''''"'''' '• .:--':~ ~ .. ~.f...?:('_~ljlll -...... 'f-,.-*-. ' = r,,_/ ····.IS' '1 ;:,/ ..... ~~ _ ....................... ~ ............ ,,,_ ~ KRISTINE B. .AM>REWS ~ ~·:;;:~:··•oooo.oo """OoooooU OO •:;c.;;•:: ~~-· .. ~O?~ .-'~-= 111~ej:s·-•••• ~~~;~...::.=-STONE RETAINING WALLS '•• t.'AL " ... -GENERAL NOTES l~ ~:_' .;-- ol 5 HAMPTON INN & SUITES COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS Compreh e n s ive Engineering Solut ion s, Inc _ J 19 South Finit Street. Suite A Temple, Texos 76504 Voice : (254) 742-20~0 F'ox : (2~) 742-2055 rov 12 04 02:29p CES 254 -742-2055 p.5 NOTES : 1. FOR WEEP HOLES AND DRAIN PIPE INSTALLATION AND SPACING SEE GENERAL NOTES . 5 MAX . -/';_\~--~ rZ If_\~·----,-........---~ IMPORTED GRANULAR ~ (SANDY) BACKFILL NON-WOVEN GEO TEXTILE ROCK RUBBLE CORE MORTARED RUBBLE CORE 12" (W) x 24 • (H) MIN. CLEAN COARSE AGGREGATE (ClfAN COARSE AGGREGATE ~ME AS STONE WALL INTERIOR). 5• PVC DRAIN (200 ' MAX) 5· TYPICAL SEC TION -STRUC TURAL WALL A ·· ·· ' (_1 ~ NTS 5 MAX. -~ 11 f'' 'Y/ --~~. 12"-24 " 12· (W) x 24• (H) f.AIN . CLEAN COARSE AGGREGATE (CLEAN COARSE AGGREGATE SAME AS STONE WALL INTERIOR). 6" PVC DRAlN (200' MAX) CONCRETE BASE W/ N0.5 0 11 . s-'o" TO STONE FINISH PER ARCH. SPEC. BACK AND FACE OF WALL TO BE MORTARED WITH 'TYPE N MORTAR OR PORTLAND MORTAR MIX . T'(f.1~~~--·-?~_g_JlQ_t:J_=:-_~_"!°RU_cT~B~~--~.i\~.L B (2) NlS -.J HAMPTON INN & SUITES COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS STONE RETAINING WALLS SECTIONS Compreh ensive Engineering Solutions, Inc. 31 g South fi~t Street, Suite A Temple, Tex<n 715:504 Voice : (254) 742-2050 fax: (254) 742-2055 ~----.. , ___________ _ .... ~ov 12 04 02:30p CES 254-742-2055 p.6 20 MAX. r(-~-~.~~---L IMPORTED GRANULAR ~ ---'--'·-··'"'"-"' STONE FINISH PER ARCH. SPEC. -(SANDY) BACKFILL ,--·----- }!---1 0' + (TYP }------:>!~~ ________ .... _ NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE STRATAGRID 500 _..- OR EQUIVALENT MORTARED RUBBLE CORE CONCRETE BASE W / N0.5 O 11" BACK AND FACE OF WALL TO BE MORTARED WITH TYPE N MORTAR OR PORTLAND MORTAR MIX FOR A THICKNESS OF 8~-12 ... :::PICAL SECT I ON-STRUCTU.~-~!:--~f\LL C (~) 20 MAX. ----I 1 r<.. ~\-W---.....----,_,,, IMPORTED GRANULAR~ ____ ;..:.·-... ~~~ \(SANDY) BACKFILL ,----- ~ )'--1 O' + (TYP }------,.-......~"" STRATAGRID 600 ________ ~-- OR EQUIVALENT NON-WOVEN ___.,-· GEOTEXTILE ~ MORTARED RUBBLE CORE 18' -o· 6' MJ(lYP) -----K~~~~~,..c~--, MAX. 1r (W) x 24u (H) MIN .. -{-----_j~~<ct~~ CLEAN COARSE AGGREGATE (CLEAN COARSE AGGREGATE SAME AS STONE WALL INTERIOR). 6'" PVC DRAIN (200' MAX) CONCRETE BASE W/ N0.5 C STONE FINISH PER ARCH . SPEC . BACK AND FACE OF WALL TO BE MORTARED WITH TYPE N MORTAR OR PORTLAND MORTAR MIX FOR A THICKNESS or 8ff-12·. GRAY, Sl-IALEY CLAY -ELEV. 238 (TO BE VERIFIED) TYPICAL SE CTI 0 N ~-STRUCTURAL WALL D --·· ,i--:-,:.Pro:x.Jec;=-:t~Mo=·:.....,' ~=....Ll~--"-:::.::Do91<;1='-':::.....=!9Y-c:...,· GJ-!!A:i_ __ -J11 · · ··· .. {4_. /t-file~NG-Me_! _W""""AL'-='L=·=-dw~ __ _..__0ro_w_,,_0y-'-;_..:..;K""8"-'A'------m NOTES : -HAMPTON INN & SUITES l 1. FOR WEEP HOLES AND DRAIN PIPE COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS INSTALLATION AND SPACING SEE GENERAL NOTES. STONE RETAINING VVALLS Comprehensive rngineering Solutions, Inc. SECTIONS J1 Q S<x.ith Fi...t Street. Sult. A. Temple. TelCoa 76504 -~·::::==:::::::::::::::::::==:=:=:=::=::::::::===:::::::=:::::::::::::=:===::=:==:=~=:=~=~=·co=;=(~~~~)=-7=~~~=~~~~-~~====r=o=x:=(=254:=:)=7~4~2-=2=055::=:~ NTS . Gf;NERAL NOTES : A. DEFINITIONS WALL CONTRACTOR, CONTRACTOR -CHADWICK'S RETAINING WALLS GENERAL CONTRACTOR -GENERAL CONTRACTOR FOR PROJECT ENGINEER -COMPREHENSIVE ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, INC . (CES) B. GENERAL ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LATEST EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AND ALL CITY OF COLLEGE STATION BUILDING REGULATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO EXECUTING ANY WORK . THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESOLVE ANY CONFLICTS WITH THE ENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY UNUSUAL OR UNFORESEEN CONDITION OR SITUATION WHICH AFFECTS THE STRUCTURAL STABILITY OR SAFETY OF THE WALL. TYPICAL DETAILS, DETAILS NOTED AS TYPICAL, AND GENERAL NOTES APPLY TO ALL PARTS OF THE JOB EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY DETAILED OR NOTED OTHERWISE. IN NO CASE SHALL WORKING DIMENSIONS BE SCALED FROM PLANS, SECTIONS, OR DETAILS ON THIS DRAWING . THIS STRUCTURE IS DESIGNED AS A STABLE UNIT AFTER ALL COMPONENT PARTS ARE IN PLACE . THEREFORE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL SHORING AND BRACING NECESSARY TO INSURE THE STABILITY OF ANY AND ALL PARTS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION . ALL CONTRACTORS PERFORMING WORK ON OR RELATED TO THESE PLANS SHALL CONDUCT THEIR OPERATIONS SO THAT ALL EMPLOYEES ARE PROVIDED A SAFE PLACE TO WORK AND THAT THE PUBLIC IS PROTECTED . ALL CONTRACTORS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE ·ocCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS" OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AND WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS REGULATIONS . THE ENGINEER SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE IN ANY WAY FOR THE CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS COMPLIANCE WITH THE "OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS", SUBJECT TO MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS IN CONTRACT, DOCUMENTS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE GENERAL PROJECT. IN THE EVENT THAT CERTAIN FEATURES OF THE CONSTRUCTION ARE NOT FULLY SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS OR CALLED FOR IN THE GENERAL NOTES , THEIR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE OF THE SAME CHARACTER AS SHOWN FOR SIMILAR CONDITIONS BUT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ENGINEER'S APPROVAL. ALL DETAILS OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND DIMENSIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE BASED ON DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS VERIFIED IN FIELD . C. INSPECTION INSPECTION OF SOILS CONDITIONS AND COMPACTION PER SOILS SECTION BELOW. CONTINUOUS OR PERIODIC INSPECTION AS REQUIRED BY PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS OR CITY ORDINANCE SHALL BE COORDINATED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND FACILITATED BY THE WALL CONTRACTOR FOR THE FOLLOWING WORK AS IT PERTAINS TO THE RETAINING WALLS : 1. PLACING OF ALL STRUCTURAL MORTAR WITH 28-DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 1800 PSI OR GREATER. '''''"''11,, -''t: OF' 1' 11 .: '.<..~---······-.. ~ .... !, :~":-··*··-.:-v'1 = (?.·· ··.IS' '1 ;:/ \~~ , .................................... -, ~ KRISTINE B. ANDREWS ~ ~-:; ... :O OH OOOHOO Oeooeooeooooe!(l;":; ~-P.\ ~~993 ----~.: i,p"'~·-:cr; _... ~: , ~~ ... . .. _,_ ,,,s~···········<-~r::..:::'• lONAL ......... ,,,,, "''''' STONE RETAINING WALLS GENERAL NOTES HAMPTON INN & SUITES COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Comprehensive Engineering Solutions, Inc. 319 South First Street, Su ite A Temple, Texas 76504 Voice: (254) 742-2050 Fax: (254) 742-2055 . 2 .. THE PORTIONS OF MASONRY CONSTRUCTION NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS. APPROVAL BY INSPECTOR DOES NOT MEAN APPROVAL OF CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS. ANY DETAIL WHICH FAILS TO BE CLEAR OR IS AMBIGUOUS MUST REFERRED TO THE ENGINEER FOR INTERPRETATION OR CLARIFICATION. ALL OTHER TESTS SHALL BE DONE IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE BUILDING CODE. D. SOILS & FOUNDATIONS ALL RETAINING WALL FOOTINGS SHALL BE CARRIED TO A MINIMUM OF 24" BELOW LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE, AND SHALL BE FOUNDED ON FIRM BEARING, NATURAL SOILS, OR ON APPROVED COMPACTED FILL. FOOTINGS MAY OR MAY NOT BE REQUIRED (REFER TO TYPICAL SECTIONS). FOOTINGS MAY BE POURED NEAT PROVIDED THAT THE SIDES OF THE EXCAVATION WILL NOT SLOUGH IN AND 2" ARE ADDED TO FOOTING WIDTH. BOTTOM OF FOOTINGS SHALL BE SLOPED. ALL FOOTINGS SHALL BE CENTERED UNDER THE SUPPORTED WALL PER DETAILS . ALL EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE FREE OF WATER AND DEBRIS PRIOR TO POURING FOUNDATION CONCRETE . BEFORE BACKFILLING REMOVE ALL FORMS AND DEBRIS . ALL BACKFILL SOIL SHALL BE FREE OF ROCKS AND DEBRIS. ALL BACKFILL SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SOILS REPORT. E. CONCRETE PORTLAND CEMENT: SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C-150, TYPE I OR TYPE II . AGGREGATE : NATURAL SAND, GRAVEL AND CRUSHED STONE AGGREGATE SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C-.3.3 IF REQUIRED BY SPECS . MAXIMUM WATER/CEMENT RATIO .55. ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE SUPPLIED BY AN APPROVED READY MIX PLANT. ALL CONCRETE MIXES SHALL BE DESIGNED BY AN APPROVED LABORATORY. MIX DESIGNS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION IF REQUIRED BY SPECS . CONCRETE SHALL 28-DAY MINIMUM ULTIMATE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 3000 PSI WHEN PROPORTIONED PER METHOD I OF THE APPLICABLE CODE. MAXIMUM CONCRETE SLUMP SHALL BE 4 ". ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE VIBRATED . ALL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS SHALL BE IN STRICT CONFORMANCE WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE ACI CODE . CONCRETE FOOTINGS SHALL CURE FOR 3 DAYS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF CORE OF WALLS IS STARTED . ALL REINFORCING STEEL, DOWELS, ANCHOR BOLTS, AND OTHER INSERTS SHALL BE FIRMLY SECURED IN PROPER POSITION PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE. SEE ARCHITECTURAL/CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR LOCATION AND EXTENT OF EXTERIOR WALKS AND PAVEMENT. "'''""''''• _ ........ "" OF r 11 ~ '\~.··········-~~,, .:.-l';.·· * ··.. ,, :: C,,'.·· ··.IJ' '1 ~:/ \~~ , .................................... ~ ~ KRISTINE B. ANDREWS : ~-···~··························:····-1~\ 80993 /~; V'~ .. ·tctSTeff..···~7 'i(ss;··········'i.-+-~~ 111 0 AL ::-.'' .... \ ,, .... STONE RETAINING WALLS GENERAL NOTES HAMPTON INN & SUITES COLLEGE STATION , TEXAS Comprehensive Engineering Solutions, Inc. 319 South First Street, Suite A Temple, Texas 76504 Voice: (254) 742-2050 Fox: (254) 742-2055 · Al:L CONCRETE WORK SHALL BE TESTED AND INSPECTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE BUILDING CODE FOR 3000 PSI CONCRETE BY A LABORATORY OR TESTING AGENCY. TEST AND INSPECTION REPORTS SHALL BE SUBMITIED TO THE ENGINEER, CONTRACTOR AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT. ALL CEMENT AND REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE FROM TESTED STOCK. ALL REINFORCING NO. 4 AND LARGER SHALL BE GRADE 60. CONCRETE THAT DOES NOT REACH THE SPECIFIED 28 DAY WORKING STRESSES BASED ON ABOVE TESTS SHALL BE RETESTED PER IBC . IF THE REQUIRED ADDITIONAL TESTS FAIL TO REACH THE SPECIFIED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE REEVALUATED BY THE ENGINEER FOR THE LOWER STRENGTH CONCRETE AND, IF IT FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIRED STRUCTURAL STANDARDS, THE CONCRETE SHALL BE REMOVED . ALL THE REMEDIAL WORK, INCLUDING ANY DESIGN WORK BY THE ENGINEER AND ANY RE-TESTING, SHALL BE PAID FOR BY THE WALL CONTRACTOR. F. STONE MASONRY WALL WALL MATERIALS FOR CORE AND FACE TO BE VERIFIED AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR . APPEARANCE OF FACE STONE PER OWNER. BATIER INDICATED ON DETAILS MAY VARY BY 1 ", REAR OF WALL MAY MATCH FRONT BATIER. 6-INCH DRAINS SHALL BE PROVIDED BEHIND WALL AS SHOWN IN DETAIL. PVC PIPE SHALL DRAIN INTO STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. WALL BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL HAVE A P.I. LESS THAN 15. BACKFILL WITHIN 36" OF THE BACK FACE OF THE WALL SHALL BE GRAVITY COMPACTED BY EQUIPMENT OR BY HAND. NO VIBRATORY COMPACTION EQUIPMENT SHALL BE USED WITHIN 36" OF BACK FACE OF WALL. ALL FINISHED PARKING, WALKING SURFACES AND LANDSCAPING SHALL BE GRADED AND SLOPED TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM WALL. A CHAIN LINK FENCE OR PEDESTRIAN HANDRAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ANY AREA WHERE THE VERTICAL DROP IS GREATER THAN 32 INCHES. FENCE OR HAND RAIL SHALL NOT BE TIED TO STRUCTURAL WALL. G. MISCELLANEOUS: PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR SHALL VERY AND FIELD LOCATE ALL UTILITIES. UTILITIES SHOWN ON WALL PLAN AND/OR SECTIONS MAY NOT REPRESENT ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NEAR WALL CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT PROPER SHORING TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE EXCAVATION (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NEARBY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND ADJACENT FOUNDATIONS}. TRENCH SHORING SHALL BE DESIGNED BY OTHERS . ENGINEER ASSUMES THAT ADJACENT BUILDING FOUNDATIONS IMPART NO SURCHARGE LOADING ON WALL. OWNER TO VERIFY WITH GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. OWNER TO CONSULT WITH TRENCH SHORING SPECIALIST PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION FOR RETAINING WALL. IF OWNER DOES NOT OBTAIN ADDITIONAL BORINGS PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, OWNER TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR VERIFYING THAT SOILS ENCOUNTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION ARE ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED BY BORINGS AND DESIGN CRITERIA DEVELOPED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, OWNER SHALL HAVE EXPERIENCED GEOTECHNICAL PERSONNEL TO OBSERVE CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS AND DOCUMENT THAT CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION CONFORM TO THE ASSUMED GENERALIZATIONS IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. BASE OF FOOTING SHALL BE SITUATED AT LEAST 2 FEET BELOW THE MAXIMUM SCOUR DEPTH OF THE ADJACENT CREEK ALONG THE "REACH" OF THE CREEK ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED WALL. FOOTING SHALL BE FOUNDED AT LEAST 3 FEET INTO THE FOUNDING FORMATION OF GRAY, SHALEY CLAYS (GEOTECHNICAL PERSONNEL TO VERIFY). STONE RETAINING WALLS GENERAL NOTES Comprehensive Engineering Solutions, Inc. 319 South First Street, Suite A Temple, Texas 76504 Voice: (254) 742-2050 fox : (254) 742-2055 NOTES : 1. FOR WEEP HOLES AND DRAIN PIPE INSTALLATION AND SPACING SEE GENERAL NOTES . \~ IMPORTED GRANULA~ (SANDY) BACKFILL NON-WOVEN GEO TEXTILE ROCK RUBBLE CORE MORTARED RUBBLE CORE 12" (W) x 24 .. (H) MIN . CLEAN COARSE AGGREGATE (CLEAN COARSE AGGREGATE SAME AS STONE WALL INTERIOR). 6" PVC DRAIN (200' MAX) STONE FINISH PER ARCH. SPEC. BACK AND FACE OF WALL TO BE MORTARED WITH TYPE N MORTAR OR PORTLAND MORTAR MIX . GRAXt, SHALEY CLAY "'ELt.v. 238 (TO BE VERIFIED) ----"r---L.-.-- 1),. \. '<(! ::ICAL SECTION-STRUCTURAL WALL A CD 12" (W) x 24" (H) MIN. CLEAN COARSE AGGREGATE (CLEAN COARSE AGGREGATE SAME AS STONE WALL INTERIOR). 6" PVC DRAIN (200' MAX) CONCRETE BASE W/ N0.5 0 11" 5-'0" TO 7'-0" STONE FINISH PER ARCH . SPEC . BACK AND FACE OF WALL TO BE MORTARED WITH TYPE N MORTAR OR PORTLAND MORTAR MIX. GRAXt. SHALEY CLAY r "'ELt.v. 238 (TO BE VERIFIED) :;:PICAL SECTION-STRUCTURAL WALL B ® STONE RETAINING WALLS SECTIONS Comprehensive Engineering Solutions, Inc . 319 South First Street, Suite A Temple, Texas 76!504 Voice: (254) 742-2050 Fox: (254) 742-2055 20 IMPORTED GRANULA~ ---~..,,,_ (SANDY) BACKFILL r ----- )l.-1 O' + (TYP >----.l!a,li:::::::r'. -------- NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE STRATAGRID 500 --- OR EQUIVALENT ---- MORTARED RUBBLE CORE '.14 ' 4' MJ (lYP) _____ Q ;•• I --·• .. 12'-0" MAX . STONE FINISH PER ARCH . SPEC . BACK AND FACE OF WALL TO BE MORTARED WITH TYPE N MORTAR OR PORTLAND MORTAR MIX FOR A THICKNESS OF 8"-12". -~-----. 12" (W) x 24" (H) MIN . ·~------·-= CLEAN COARSE AGGREGATE (CLEAN COARSE AGGREGATE ~AME AS STONE WALL INTERIOR). 6" PVC DRAIN (200' MAX) CONCRETE BASE W/ N0.5 @ 11 " :;:PICAL SECTION-STRUCTURAL WALL C @ 20 IMPORTED GRANULA~ \ (SANDY) BACKFILL r ---- ~ )<--10' + (1YP >--~P::::::':"f:" STRATAGRID 600------------.· OR EQUIVALENT NON-WOVEN ~ ~--- GEOTEXTILE __.......- MORTARED RUBBLE CORE ; ~.:..~'C: I -------·. ..· .. Q .. 6' M (TYP) . .•· .: .• · -{-------. . . .. 12" (W) x 24 .. (H) MIN . ·~ . CLEAN COARSE AGGREGATE (CLEAN COARSE AGGREGATE ~ME AS STONE WALL INTERIOR). 18'-0" MAX . STONE FINISH PER ARCH . SPEC . BACK AND FACE OF WALL TO BE MORTARED WITH TYPE N MORTAR OR PORTLAND MORTAR MIX FOR A THICKNESS OF 8"-12". GRA'!i, SHALEY CLAY "'ELt.v. 238 (TO BE VERIFIED) 6" PVC DRAIN (200' MAX) 2' -6"---1 CONCRETE BASE W/ N0.5 @ TYPICAL SECTION-STRUCTURAL WALL NTS NOTES : 1. FOR WEEP HOLES AND DRAIN PIPE INSTALLATION AND SPACING SEE GENERAL NOTES. STONE RETAINING WALLS SECTIONS HAMPTON INN & SUITES COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS Comprehensive Engineering Solutions, Inc. 319 South First Street, Suite A Temple , Texas 76504 Voice: (254) 742-2050 Fax: (254) 742-2055 {0.'00 -,J . l l ...-( LQ -ocv '§S LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL (Y3 --ll&l CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION TO : CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ATTN: SPENCER THOMPSON We Are Sendin You X ATTACHED UNDER SEPARATE COVER Prints X Plans VIA: DATE: Sam les Submittals The followin uantities and descri tions are included: VIA HAND DELIVER 11/16/04 Hampton Inn & Suites College Station, TX Product Data QTY DESCRIPTION OF ITEM (Items in Bold are Included) 1 SET OF PLANS AND SPECS BY CES, INC. FOR CREEK BANK RETAINING WALL SYSTEM. 1 PARTIAL SURVEY PLAT BY GOODWIN-LASITER, INC. SHOWING CREEK BANK TOPO. 1 GEOTECH SURVEY AND REPORT BY CME TESTING ON BASE OF CREEK BANK. These are Transmitted as Checked Below: X For Ap roval Approved as Submitted Resubmit For Your Use A roved as Noted Submit As Requested Returned for Correction Return Corrected Prints For Review & Comment REMARKS: Please review these documents and let me know if you have any questions. Thank You, Art Hughes Pro· ect Mana er MADISON CONSTRUCTI ON L.P. -P.O . BOX 3787 •BRYAN, TEXAS 77805-3787 •TELE 979-268-5520 •FAX 979-268-6022 Engirye~rlng & EnvtronmentaJ -~ -C'ons~Jrants,Jnc; --_ ,. .:-. -. - January 7, 2005 Mr. Billy Martin c/o Hotel Management Company, LP 1203 University Drive East College Station, TX 77840 Re: Report of Limited Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Study for Proposed Retaining Wall Along Carters Creek New Hampton Inn & Suites Site on State Highway 6 Near University Drive; College Station, Texas CSC Project Number 105005 Dear Mr. Martin: Enclosed please find two copies of CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc .'s (CSC 's) report entitled "Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Retaining Wall Along Carters Creek; New Hampton Inn & Suites Site; State Highway 6 Near University Drive ; College Station, Texas." The physical address of the site is 925 S. Earl Rudder Freeway in College Station, Texas . The report documents our findings and recommendations with regard to subsurface exploration of the above- referenced site that was conducted on December 28 , 2004 and December 29, 2004 . Our work was performed in accordance with a directive from Mr. Art Hughes, project manager for Madison Construction, LP, the general contractor for the project, and the representative for Hotel Management Company, LP. In general , the soils comprising the stratigraphy along the alignment of Carters Creek consist of surficial and near-surface deposits that vary from sandy, lean clays to silty and clayey sands that overlie deeper deposits of fat clay s, shaley, fat clays and clayey sands . CSC recommends that the proposed retaining wall be supported in the deeper formation of fat clay or shaley, fat clay that varied in color from dark gray to greenish-gray . The base of the retaining wall footing should penetrate at least 3 feet into the founding formation. These fat clays and shaley, fat clays are relatively strong and should provide adequate support of anticipated foundation loads for the proposed retaining wall. As can be seen from a review of the subsurface profile for the borings drilled at the site (Figure 2 of attached report), the surface of the very stiff to hard, dark gray and greenish-gray, fat clay or shaley, fat clay formations varied from approximately elevation EL. 236 to EL. 241. Note that these elevations were determined based upon the stratigraphy encountered at the four (4) boring locations . It is possible that the surface of the fat clay or the shaley, fat clay formations will vary between the boring locations from the cited range of elevations. 3407 Tabor Road Phone (979) 778-2810 Bryan , Texas 77808 Fax (979) 778 -0820 Mr. Billy Martin, c/o Hotel Management Company, LP Transmittal of Report of Limited Subsurface Exploration and Geoteclmical Study for Proposed Retaining Wall Along Carters Creek New Hampton Inn & Suites Site; College Station, Texas Page2 Please contact us at (979) 778-2810 if you have any questions or need additional information concerning this matter. We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you on this project. Respectfully, M. Frederick Conlin, Jr., P.E. Senior Engineer MFC:mf Enclosure Via Hand Delivery cc: Mr. Art Hughes, Project Manager Madison Construction, LP 1640 Briarcrest Drive, Suite 125 Bryan, TX 77805-3787 Via Hand Delivery (two (2) copies of report -one bound and one unbound) Mr. John Rusk, P.E. Goodwin-Lasiter, Inc. Engineers Architects Surveyors 1509 Emerald Parkway, Suite 101 College Station, TX 77845 Via Hand Delivery (two (2) copies of report -both bound) CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. REPORT OF LIMITED SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICALSTUDYFOR PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ALONG CARTERS CREEK -NEW HAMPTON INN & SUITES SITE STATE IDGHWAY 6 NEAR UNIVERSITY DRIVE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Prepared for Hotel Management Company, LP 1203 University Drive East College Station, Texas 77840 Prepared by CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 3407 Tabor Road ~'~-~ -~OFT:~~ ;' <":1~~~··· •• ·~~ ,, {~*··· * ·.* •• *• ··*" ••••••••••••••••••• ~ M F CONLIN , JR. ·~·················· . f' i·· 44481 ,,9i°<I.~~ N s ~~ p~ \\~~ION~ ''''''"~ Bryan, Texas 77808 January 7, 2005 ih.~~~ M . Frederick Conlin, Jr., P.E. t. -W . R. Cullen, P .E. Quality Control Reviewer Senior Engineer CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENT AL CONSULT ANTS, INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Propos ed Retaining Wall Along Carters Cree k 1.0 INTRODUCTION Hampton Inn & Suites Site Coll ege Station. T ex.as This report documents the results of the limited subsurface exploration and geotechnical study of geologic conditions performed along the portion of the southern or southwestern bank of Carters Creek that forms the northern and eastern boundary of the New Hampton Inn & Suites site. The project site is located on the eastern side of the State Highway 6 access or service road approximately 100 to 200 feet south of the intersection with University Drive (FM 60) in College Station, Texas . The physical address of the site is 925 S. Earl Rudder Freeway. The study was performed in accordance with the request of Mr. Art Hughes, project manager with Madison Construction, LP, the general contractor retained by the owner of the site (Hotel Management Company, LP) to construct the proposed hotel facility . The referenced request was transmitted to CSC in a telephone conversation of December 23, 2004. Field activities for this project were initiated and completed on two separate days, December 28 , 2004, and December 29 , 2004. Laboratory testing for the project was completed on January 5, 2005 . A summary of the field and laboratory phases of the project and a discussion of design values for the planned foundation system for the retaining wall are presented for review and consideration. 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Information concerning the project was obtained from a meeting and conversation with Mr. Art Hughes of Madison Construction, LP (Madison), and Mr. John Rusk, P.E. of Goodwin-Lasiter, Inc. (GLI), the civil/site design engineers for the project. We understand that the owner of the referenced site would like to construct a retaining wall as part of the stabilization efforts for the earthen slopes of Carters Creek that form the northern and eastern boundaries of the referenced project site. The retaining wall would also permit a more extensive development of the hotel site and the adjacent property . We also understand that owner has retained Comprehensive Engineering Solutions, Inc. (CES) to design a gravity retaining wall for the project and that CES has requested that some subsurface soils information be provided for determining the allowable bearing pressure for the bl;lse of the wall. Consequently, we understand that the purpose of the present geotechnical study is limited to determining an acceptable bearing stratum and allowable bearing pressure for the base of the proposed CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENT AL CONSULT ANTS, INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Proposed Retaining Wall Along Carters Creek Hampton Inn & Suites Site College Station. Texas retaining wall . We believe that infonnation or recommendations concerning backfill soils and lateral earth pressures against the wall are not required at the present time, but that only information concerning classification of the potential backfill soils is required. 1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE EXPLORATION AND STUDY The specific objectives of the exploration and study were to: • Secure general information on the subsurface conditions by conducting a limited field exploration and soil sampling program along the high bank of the slope of Carters Creek at the site of the hotel. • Obtain and test in the laboratory selected recovered samples during the field exploration. • Evaluate the subsurface information developed from the field exploration and laboratory testing programs. • Develop general recommendations based upon an engineering analysis of the subsurface information at the boring locations to guide the development of recommendations for the founding depth and allowable bearing pressure for the base of the proposed retaining wall. It should be recognized that the exclusive purpose of this study was to develop general recommendations for the foundation of the proposed structures. This study did not directly assess, or even attempt to address, specific envirorunental conditions encountered at the site (i.e., the presence of pollutants or other substances in the soil, rock, or groundwater). In addition, this geotechnical study did not specifically address historical uses of the site and the surrounding areas from an environmental perspective. 1.3 REPORT FORMAT The immediately following sections of this report present descriptions of the field exploration and laboratory testing phases of the study . The final sections of the report present discussions of the results of the field and laboratory phases of the study, i.e ., a description of the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations. Finally, discussions of the engineering analysis of the data, and recommendations for foundation support of the proposed residential structures are presented. Appendix A includes the boring logs, and the key to terms and symbols used on the boring logs. Appendix B contains a table presenting the laboratory test results . 2 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENT AL CONSULT ANTS, INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Proposed Retaining Wall Along Carters Creek Hampton Inn & Suites Site College Station. Texas 2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM 2.1 GENERAL OUTLINE OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM The current field exploration program consisted of a total of four (4) sample borings that were advanced along the high bank of Carters Creek on the eastern side of the referenced project area . The approximate locations of the borings are illustrated on Figure 1 -Comprehensive Plan of Borings, in Appendix A to this report. All of the borings were located as near as practical to the edge of the existing high bank of the creek. The borings were designated as B-7 through B-10 and is a continuation of the numbering sequence observed in a previous report for the retaining wall prepared by CME Testing And Engineering, Inc. (CME) and dated September 14, 2004. The borings were advanced to a depth of approximately 40 feet below the ground surface elevation existing at each of the referenced boring locations. 2.2 DRILLING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES All of the borings drilled as part of the current field study were advanced with a truck-mounted rotary drill rig. The borings were initially drilled using dry augering techniques to depths in the range of 15 to 20 feet below the existing surface grade. Wet rotary drilling operations in which water is added to the boring as a drilling fluid were utilized below the referenced depth range due to the presence of granular soils (sands and gravels) in the stratigraphy and the presence of water in the adjacent creek below the referenced depth level. Both cohesive (clays) and granular (sands and gravels) soils were encountered within the stratigraphy during the drilling operations. Samples of cohesive soils were obtained by mechanically pushing a 3-inch-diameter, thin-wall sampler ("Shelby" tube) in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 1587. Samples of cohesionless soils were obtained by driving a 2-inch, split-barrel sampler and conducting a standard penetration test. In the standard penetration test, a 2-inch, O.D. standard, split-barrel sampler is driven into the soil for three successive 6-inch increments with blows from a 140-lb hammer. The vertical travel of the hammer is 30 inches, in accordance with ASTM D 1586. The number of blows required to drive the sampler over the depth interval from 6 to 18 inches is defined as the standard 3 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Proposed Retaining Wall Along Carters Creek Hampton Inn & Suites Site College Station, Texas penetration number (N). However. if a limiting blow count of 50 blmYs is reached during any 6-inch interval, the test is terminated and an N-value of 50 is recorded along with the corresponding penetration in inches. Test termination also occurs if a total of 100 blows has been applied or if the sampler has not advanced after 10 successive hammer blows. The N-values determined for this study are presented at appropriate depths on the individual boring logs (Appendix A). The relatively undisturbed and disturbed soil samples were obtained at the depth intervals specified on the individual boring logs . 2.3 LOGS OF BORING A field geotechnologist was present during the field exploration to describe the subsurface stratigraphy and to note obvious anomalies in the subsurface stratigraphy that may have been present at specific boring locations. Descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered at the individual boring locations are shown on the individual boring logs presented in Appendix A of this report. Types of samples recovered during the field study and corresponding depths at which the samples were collected, as well as results of field tests (e.g., Standard Penetration Tests), are also indicated on the individual boring logs. The "Key to Symbols and Soil Classification" sheet explaining terms and symbols are presented immediately following the logs. The logs represent CSC's interpretation of the subsurface conditions based upon the field geologist/engineer's notes together with engineering observation and classification of the materials in the laboratory. The lines designating the interfaces between various strata represent approximate boundaries only, as transitions between materials may be gradual. 2.4 GROUNDWATEROBSERVATION As previously discussed, the borings were drilled utilizing dry auger drilling techniques for the initial portion of the drilling and wet rotary drilling thereafter. Consequently, groundwater levels could be observed during at least a portion of the drilling operations. Groundwater observations were also made within a one-week period following completion of the drilling activities. Groundwater observations are discussed in Section 4.0 ofthis report. 2.5 SAMPLE CUSTODY All samples of subsurface materials obtained in the borings were removed from the samplers and visually classified in the field. Representative samples were sealed in appropriate packaging and placed in core boxes for transportation to the laboratory for further analysis. The samples will be stored for at least 30 days following the date of this report. At the end of the 30-day storage period, the samples will be 4 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENT AL CONSULT ANTS, INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Proposed Retaining Wall Along Carters Creek Hampton Inn & Suites Site College Station. Texas discarded unless a written reques t is received from the O\\·ner requesting that the samples be stored for a longer period . 5 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENT AL CONSULT ANTS, INC . Report of Geotechnical Study Proposed Retaining Wall Along Carters Creek Hampton Inn & Suites Site College Station. T exas 3.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Samples of subsurface materials recovered from the borings were examined and classified by the geotechnical engineer . Following visual examination of the samples, the engineer assigned various classification and strength tests on selected samples to aid both in confinning visual soil classification and to determine the engineering strength and compressibility characteristics of the foundation materials . A brief discussion of laboratory tests performed as part of the laboratory program for the project is presented in the following sub-sections of this report. A tabular summary of the results of the laboratory testing program is presented in Appendix B. Results of the laboratory testing programs are also presented symbolically and numerically on the individual boring logs. As previously stated these symbols and terms are explained on the K ey to Symbols and Soil Classification sheet presented immediately following the logs. 3.1 CLASSIFICATION TESTS Tests were performed in order to classify the foundation soils in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487) and to determine the soil-moisture profile at the boring location. The Atterberg limit determinations were performed in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 4318. In addition to the selected Atterberg limit tests , grain-size distribution tests were also performed. The percent of soil particles passing the U.S . Standard sieve size No. 200 (ASTM D 1140) was determined. The soil fractions passing the No. 200 sieve size are the silt-and clay-size particles and are generally referred to as "fines." The unit dry weight of the samples was also determined in accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 2166 . The natural moisture content of individual samples was determined in accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 2216. 3.2 STRENGTH TESTS E mphasis was also directed toward an evaluation of the strength or load-carrying capacity of the foundation soils . Strength tests were performed to develop an estimate of the undrained cohesion of the soils . The unconfined compression test (ASTM D 2166) was performed in the laboratory on relatively undisturbed samples of cohesive soils to determine the compressive strength characteristics . In addition, 6 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENT AL CONSULT ANTS, INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Proposed Retaining Wall Along Carters Creek Hampton Inn & Suites Site College Station,. Tex.as hand penetrometer tests were performed both in the field and in the laboratory on undisturbed soil samples to develop an approximate indication of the undrained cohesive strength. 7 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENT AL CONSULT ANTS, INC. Repo11 of Geotechnical Study Propos ed Retaining Wall Along Carters Creek 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS 4.1 GENERAL SURFACE CONDITIONS Hampton Inn & Suites Site College Station. T exas The site of the proposed retaining wall is situated along the upper southern or western bank of the Carters Creek charmel. The site can currently be described as a developed hotel site. The site has an existing building and paved parking and drive areas. The paved areas extend to near the edge of the high bank of the creek channel slope at some locations. The proposed retaining wall will be situated between the end of the paved areas and the top of the channel bank. The existing slopes of the creek bank are rather steep and are estimated to range from 0.5:1 to 1.5 :1 (horizontal distance to vertical distance ratio). The flow line of the creek is believed to be in the order of 20 feet below the top of the adjoining bank. 4.2 GENERAL SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY 4.2.1 Soils Classification Criteria The soils were generally classified in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS , ASTM D 2487). Classification of the soils was primarily based upon test results derived from the laboratory testing of the various soils strata within the stratigraphy. The laboratory-performed classification tests consisted of determining the percent "fines " of the soils and of determining the Atterberg limits of the soils. The percentages of fines, i.e., the silt-and clay-size particles , were measured by determining the percentage of soils that would pass or be "finer than" the No . 200 U.S . Standard sieve size. Soils with a percent fines content of 50 percent or greater would classify as clays or silts under the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D 2487). Conversely , by definition, sands and/or gravels would have a percentage of fines of less than 50 percent. The Atterberg limit tests are composed of the liquid limit (LL) test and the plastic limit (PL) test, along with the shrinkage limit test. The LL and PL tests were performed as part of the classification testing of the present study. These limits distinguish the boundaries of the several consistency states of plastic soils . The LL represents the moisture content at which the soil is on the verge of being a viscous fluid (i.e., a "very wet" condition), and the PL represents the moisture content at which the soil behaves as a non- plastic material (i.e., a "slightly moist" condition). The plasticity index (PI) of soil is defined as the range of moisture contents at which the soil behaves as a plastic material and is defined as the difference between 8 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENT AL CONSULT ANTS, INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Proposed Retaining Wall Along Carters Creek Hampton Inn & Suites Site College Station. Texas the liquid limit and the plastic limit (LL -PL= Pl). The magnitude of the PI of a soil is typically considered to be an indication of the clay content and the volumetric change (shrink-swell) potential of the soils , although the volumetric change can also vary with the type of clay mineral and the nature of the ions adsorbed on the clay surface. Although the soil classifications utilized in the subsequently presented descriptions and discussions generally follow the criteria established by the uses, there is one exception with respect to clays of moderate plasticity that are designated by the letters CM. Highly plastic clays with a liquid limit equal to or greater than 50 are given a CH designation (C for clays and H for high plasticity) under the USCS . Clays with liquid limits lower than 50 are designated as CL (L for low plasticity) soils under the current USCS. However, when Arthur Casagrande performed the original work for the soil classification system, he proposed an intermediate classification in which clays with a liquid limit between 30 and 49 were termed CM (M for moderate) soils, or clays of moderate plasticity. Although not adopted by ASTM, the CM designation is still sometimes used to describe in greater detail the soils with plasticities between the low and high ranges. 4.2.2 Generalized Description The subsurface stratigraphy across the study area as determined by the present field study is shown in detail on the individual boring logs in Appendix A and should be consulted for a detailed description of the stratigraphy at a particular location on the site. In general, the stratigraphy was relatively consistent at the four ( 4) boring locations, but there were some important differences between the borings as described in the following paragraphs. It should be recognized that the actual subsurface stratigraphy at different locations on the site might vary from the generalized description subsequently presented. The soils through the upper 24 to 26 feet of the stratigraphy, which represent the major portion of the "backfill" soils behind the wall and above the elevation of the creek flow line, generally consist of alternating strata of firm to very stiff, sandy, lean clays and strata of loose to medium dense, silty sands and clayey sands . The formations below the range of 24 to 26 feet at the boring locations generally consisted of fat clays or shaley, fat clays and of deeper deposits of clayey sands. The clays appear to be very strong and possess relatively low compressibility characteristics with respect to the anticipated foundation loading. The results of the hand penetrometer tests and the unconfined compression tests performed on the clays indicated that the clays possess consistencies, i.e., strength categorizations, in the range of very stiff to 9 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENT AL CONSULT ANTS, INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Proposed Retaining Wall Along Carters Creek Hampton Inn & Suites Site College Station. Texas hard . In addition. the Standard Penetration Tests performed on the deep er clayey sand indicated that th e relative density of the sands was in the range of den se to very dense. 4.3 SUBSURFACE WATER CONDITIONS As previously discussed, the borings were initially advanced using dry rotary augering drillin g techniques to depths in the order of 15 to 20 feet below the existing surface grade. The boreholes were monitored for groundwater levels during drilling activities but no water was observed to be entering the boring above the referenced depth range. However, granular soils were present within the stratigraphy and exhibit a tendency to cave in to the open borehole. Therefore, wash rotary drilling techniques employing water as a drilling fluid to stabilize the sides of the borehole and to remove soil cuttings were employed below the referenced depth range, and it was therefore not possible to directly observe the presence of groundwater in the lower portions of the stratigraphy. The boreholes were also monitored for the presence of groundwater after a period of approximately 6 to 7 days following completion of drilling . Groundwater was observed at a depth of approximately 20 feet below the existing surface grade at one of the boring locations. However, we observed that soils had caved in to the remaining boreholes within the depth range of 6 feet to 21 feet below the existing surface grade. The "cave-in" generally occurred within the granular soil strata present within the stratigraphy . In addition, there are granular soils present within the stratigraphy at the site that may communicate directly with adjacent banks of Carters Creek. Consequently, it is likely that groundwater levels at the site will be strongly influenced by the level of water in the adjacent creek. It is also important to note that groundwater elevations may vary seasonally . Groundwater levels can be affected by such factors as the water level in the adjacent creek, precipitation, infiltration, and evapotranspiration, among others . Groundwater levels at the time of construction may vary from those measured at the time of the field study and are important since they have the potential to influence construction operations. Furthermore, it should be understood that the groundwater conditions that were observed during the performance of this short-term study were obtained to evaluate probable impacts to construction activities and should not be considered a comprehensive assessment of long-term groundwater conditions at the site. 10 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENT AL CONSULT ANTS, INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Proposed Retaining Wall Along Carters Creek Hampton Inn & Suites Site College Station. Texas 5.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following analysis and recommendations were limited to the allowable bearing pressures and settlement characteristics that could be utilized in the design of the proposed gravity retaining wall. 5.1 FOUNDATION SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED EROSION PROTECTION WALL We understand that a gravity retaining wall that will likely consist of a grouted stone-wall supported on a concrete footing will be constructed at the referenced site. We also understand that the only information required from this geotechnical report is a description of the nature of the soils comprising the banks of the creek channel (already discussed and shown on the logs of boring) and recommendations concerning allowable bearing pressure and magnitudes of settlement that could be used in the design of the referenced wall footing. The design values for the wall footing are presented in the following sections of this report. 5.2 FOOTING FOUNDING FORMATION AND DEPTH The footing along the base of the planned erosion control block wall is expected to be founded at a relatively shallow depth compared to the elevation of the creek flow line . We recommend that the base of the retaining wall footing be founded in the formation of very stiff to hard, dark gray to greenish-gray, fat clay to shaley, fat clay that was encountered in all four (4) of the boring drilled as part of the present study. We recommend that the footing be founded at least 3 feet into the founding formation or to a minimum depth of 1 foot below the level of the formation at which the clays exhibit a consistency in the very stiff to hard range. The consistency of the founding soils can be verified by the pocket penetrometer test at the time of the excavation of the footing. These minimum recommended penetrations into the founding formations are recommended to increase the likelihood that the base of the foundation elements are bearing below the upper, more weathered, and consequently weaker, zones of the formation. In addition, the base of the footing should be situated at least 2 feet below the maximum scour depth of the adjacent creek along the "reach" of the creek adjacent to the proposed wall. Based upon the logs of boring, the surface of the clay is believed to be present in the depth range of 24 to 26 feet below ground surface elevation at the boring locations. Based upon the elevations provided by GLI , which are listed on the individual logs of boring, the surface of the recommended founding clay formation is present in the elevation range from EL 236 to EL 241. Based upon the minimum recommended 11 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENT AL CONSULT ANTS, INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Propose d R etaining Wall Along Carte rs Cree k Hampton Inn & Suites Site Co ll ege Station. T exas foundin g depth penetration of 3 fee t below the surface of the fo unding cl ay fo rmation. th e el evation of th e ba se of the retaining wall footing is expected to be in the range of EL. 23 3 to EL 238 . The competency of the formation present at the recommend depth ranges should be field verified during the excavation process . 5.3 FOOTING BEARING VALUES The elongated character of the shallow foundation system supporting the wall indicates that it will function as a continuous footing and bearing pressures were therefore calculated for a continuous footing. The continuous footing should be dimensioned in accordance with a net allowable unit bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf) under sustained loading conditions (i .e ., dead load plus continuous live load) and 6,000 psf under total or maximum load conditions (i .e., dead load and the combination of live, wind, and seismic forces that produce the maximum loading to the foundation). These recommended bearing values were based upon the computed theoretical ultimate bearing capacity that was reduced by factors of safety of at least 3 and 2 , respectively, for the given design conditions. Footings should have a minimum base width of 4 feet to reduce the potential for puncture or rotational type shear failures of the foundation soils . 5.4 FOOTING SETTLEMENT Settlement of the footing under the anticipated magnitudes of continuous loading should not exceed 1 inch. 5.5 FOOTING CONSTRUCTION Difficulties may arise in excavating to the recommended founding depth if the groundwater level and/or the level of water in Carters Creek are high at the time of construction. The need to provide for a temporary dewatering system as subsequently discussed should be considered by the contractor. In addition, if water levels within the channel of Carters Creek are high at the time of construction, the need for a cofferdam to provide a relatively dry working environment for construction of the wall may have to be considered. Other criteria concerning footing construction that should be considered during the design and construction phases of the project are as follows : • The footing excavation should be checked for .size and inspected to ensure that all loose material has been removed prior to placement of the concrete. 12 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENT AL CONSULT ANTS, INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Proposed Retaining Wall Along Carters Creek Hampton Inn & Suites Site College Station. Texas • The side slopes of the footing excavations may slough into the open excavations, particularly with granular soils . Any such fall-in should be removed from the excavation. The need for wooden forms to maintain the stability of the footing excavation should be anticipated. In addition, if the excavations occur during or immediately after periods of heavy rainfall, there may be problems with temporarily high or perched groundwater. The possible need for stormwater interceptor ditches , sumps, and sump pumps should also be anticipated. If the groundwater flows become excessive, there may even be the need for a temporary de-water system, such as may include well points, at the site. • Prompt placement of concrete into the footing excavation, following completion of digging, cleaning, and inspection of the excavation, is strongly recommended. Precautions should be taken during placement of the reinforcement and concrete to prevent any loose excavated soil from entering into the excavation. Any clods of earth that slump into the footing excavation during concrete placement should be promptly removed. Under no circumstances should a footing be excavated that cannot be filled with concrete before the end of the workday. • The reinforcing steel placed in the footing should extend to no closer than 3 inches from the base or sides of the excavation as required by the American Concrete Institute (ACI). • Verification of the construction process and the dimensional characteristics of the footings should be performed as part of the project quality assurance (QA) program. 13 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENT AL CONSULT ANTS, INC. Repo1t of Geotechnical Study Proposed Retaining Wall Along Carters Creek Hampton Inn & Suites Site College Station. Texas 6.0 BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations contained in this report are based, in part, on the project information provided to CSC . If statements or assumptions made in this report concerning the location and design of project elements contain incorrect information, or if additional information concerning the project becomes available, the owner should convey the correct or additional information to CSC. The field exploration, which provided information concerning subsurface conditions , was considered to be in sufficient detail and scope to form a reasonable basis for the conceptual planning of the foundation systems of the proposed development. Recommendations contained in this report were developed based upon a generalization of the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations across the site and the assumption that the generalized conditions are continuous throughout the areas under consideration. However, regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface exploration, there is always a possibility that subsurface conditions encountered over a given area will be different from those present at specific, isolated boring locations . Consequently, it is recommended that additional borings be performed at specific structure locations before finalizing the design of the foundation systems for the proposed structures. In addition, experienced geotechnical personnel should be employed to observe construction operations and to document that conditions encountered during construction conform to the assumed generalizations which formed the basis for the recommendations presented in this report. In addition, the construction observers should document construction activities and field testing practices employed during the earthwork and foundation construction phases of the project. Questionable procedures and/or practices should be reported to the design team , along with timely recommendations to solve the problem(s). The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the find ings, recommendations , specifications, or professional advice contained herein have been made after preparation in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practice in the field of geotechnical engineering in this geographic area . No other warranty is implied or expressed. 14 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENT AL CONSULT ANTS, INC. APPENDIX A Figures, Boring Logs, and Key to Symbols and Soil Classification Used on Boring Logs LOG OF BORING NO. B-7 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ALONG CARTERS CREEK HAMPTON INN AND SUITES COLLEGE STATION, TE XAS TYPE : 4• -DRY AUGER/ WASH ROTARY DRIU£R: CADARETTE/ V~ llri · -~· DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL SURFACE ELEVAnON: 264.16 I~ rllftr)(. brown ,.,A.,eV S.&NI mo•crt ru-m, brown and grayish-brown sandy, lean CLAY, w/ traces of orl(anic matter{roots), moist 111---1'-ii~ riery stiff, brown and brownish-tan, very sandy, ean CLAY, with large pockets of while 1----l!Ei~l;-Y~alcareou.s nodules, dry · .. IV Very stiff, grayish-brown and brown, sandy, · V\ ean CLAY, with occasional inlerbedding with 1-----1!'1.>('~1oJ1---.1 seams of tan sand, slightly cemented, slightly -~~ [X moist -~-- -5 - == Si o = -~--.-rx -10-~ ~ -~ ==~P. stiff, grayish-tan, very sandy, lean CLAY, slightly moist ... .<l ... :: 'i t: II= ... t-B :> .. 11. Cl --.... ; ~~ 0 ii'i ::::> - 34 15 17 7 LOCATION : See Pion of Borings 181 -POCKET PENCTROMETER 0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST t:.. -TRINXIAI... SHEAR TEST COHESION, TON/SQ. FT. 0 .25 0 .50 0 . 75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1. 75 • Plastic Water Liquid Limit Content, % Limit +--------·--------+ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 l:r+U+ ;;, lll---l)iml....ill--lt------------------1--t----lf---1---+---+--+--+--+-~ : : : !Loose. grayish-tan, silty SAND, very moist : : : _ -becoming very moist to wet below 18' -20-: : : [X I NOTE: Switched from dry auger to wet rotary drilling below 20' --r----... 1---... 111--·il · .. 111--·U· .. >---: : : x .-with seams of gravel below 18' ,...25-... 1---··· 1---..• 1----... I -..... ' !Very stiff to hard, dark gray to greenish-gray, ~ shaley, fat CLAY, dry 9 17 ==~[X ~~~ 36 -~~ NOTE: -1. See Following Page for Continuation of Log. -~ l:r+U+ COMPL£TION DEPni: 40' (SEE FOLLOWING PAGE) DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING : SEE FOLLOWING PAGE DATE : 12/28/04 DATE : SEE FOLLOWING PAGE I CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. I LOG OF BORING NO. B-7 (Coatia•e4) PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ALONG CARTERS CREEK HAMPTON INN AND SUITES COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE : 4' ' DRY AUGER/ WASH ROTARY DRtUER: CADAREITE/ VI'S DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL • -., 0 -~ P. ~ ~ O'l O'l SURFACE ELEVAnON : 264.16 ,____ ~ Very stiff lo hard dark gray lo greenish-gray, ,____ ~ ~ey. fat CLAY, dry = ~ [ -becoming hard. slightly moist below 33' -s ~§ lt---ta.~ LOCATION : See Pion of Borings 181 --POCKET PENETROMETER 0 -UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST l>. -TRWXIN... SHEAR TEST COHESION, TON/SQ. FT. 0 .25 0 .50 0 .75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2 Plastic ll'ater Liquid limit Content, % Limit +--------·--------+ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 99.3 1. Fines 1~--u+ ff---·----------+ 0-- 3.2 ~ ~ :x Dense dark gray, clayey SAND, slightly moist ~40 ~-t--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----tlt---it--t--~t----i~--t~--t~-+~-+~-+~-i ---------'-45--- -- -50-------- -55------- -t-60----- Table 1. Yater t.e.el Obse"ations 1. Borehole dry lo 20' depth at time o( drilling on 12/28/<Mo; borehole drilled with water below 20'. 2. Borehole cued at 18.5' depth on K>l/<Mo/05 (7 days after drilling). COMPLETION DEPTH: 40' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING : See Table 1 Above I DATE: 12/28/04 DATE: See Table 1 /lbove I CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. I LOG OF BOJtING NO. B-8 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ALONG CARTERS CREEK HAMPTON INN AND SUITES COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE: 4• f DRY AUGER/ WASH ROTARY DRlu.ER: CADARETTE/ VAS LOCATION : See Pion of Borings DESCRlPTION OF MATERIAL SURFACE ELEVATION: 263.90 r<ery stiff brown. sandy, lean CLAY, with traces pf organic matter (roots), slightly moist 181 --POCKET PENETROMETER 0 --UNCONFlNED COMPRESSION TEST A t:,. -TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST ~ l t COHESION, TON/SQ. FT. t ~B~o_o_.~25_0_.~50_o_.~75_1_.oo~-1~.2~5_1~.50~-1~.7_5_~2 11 ll. o "-Plastic Water Liquid !II ... ll:i Limit Content. :i:: Limit ~ -~ +--------·--------+ iil § 10 20 30 4-0 50 60 70 181 -~· ~-.~, .. ~ .. 1-+-l~J.oose--.-lig~-~h~t~b-ro-wn-.-sil=t-y.-fin=-e~SAND~-.~slig~.~h~U-y--1~-~~-ll--+--+-3-7-1+~-=-·-+--~-1--~.__--1I __._ L . ,.. ru•es '110ist _,.. r -~~~~~---------------~~-11--111----<l----<1--~-~-~----i-----1---11 ,__ ~. [X !Very stiff, brown. very sandy, lean CLAY, - 5 -·~ ISlighUy moist ,..___ ....... ,,"",......., ::==. ~~ rv -becoming grayish-brown, more sandy from ,.____ ~ I/\ 6' to 9' :== ~ ~ j x~ ~ >-10-. ,.. ,__ ·llli Loose tan and gray, silty SAND, slightly moist -··· -:: : [X I NOTE: Switched from dry auger to wet I ~ . . . . rotary drilling below 15' . 9 10 10 7 l:r-+U + •+---._56.5 r. Fi~es 181 .. ___ ._ __ + 55.6 7. Fines ~ ... t--t------------------1--1---1---1-----1,__---1,__--t----t---+----1 i----... t----... Medium dense, brown. silty, fine SAND, very moist to wet ,.____ ,.____ --20- :::x-... ••• i-- --··· -··· - i----. . . . . . [X !Very stiff, grayish-brown. silty, fat CLAY, ~Uy moist ,_ -Yi.th a layer of fine gravel from 25' to 26' 16 I~ . ., __ le-----+ 98 .0 r. Fil es lo--I---1---l---l----'l----<,__--<l--~----1-----1---11 -.S Very stiff, dark gray to greenish-gray,· fat CLA1 .,: with a slightly shaley and blocky structure, -""-""'1111 rilighUy moist ·'------__ -"·S-~ ~ lli...""'111111,__ ,__ ~ INOTE: ~ 1. See Following Page for Continuation of Log . I COMPlETION DEPTH: 4-0' (SEE FOLLOWING PAGE) DATE : 12/28/04 DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: SEE FOLLOWING PAGE DATE: SEE FOU.OWING PAGE I CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc . --- LOG OF BORING NO. B-8 ( Coatlll•ei) PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ALONG CARTERS CREEK HAMPTON INN AND SUITES COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE : 4' ,i DRY AUGER/ WASH ROTARY DRILL£R: CADARETTE/ VAS DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL LOCATION : See Plan of Borings 18! --POCKET PENETROMETER 0 --UNCONFlNED COMPRESSION TEST t:.. --TRIAIXW. SHEAR TEST COHESION, TON/SQ. FT . 0 .25 0.50 0 .75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 • Pla5lic lr ater Liquid SURFACE ELEVA110N: 263.90 Umit Content, % Umit +--------·--------+ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 - l:l--1.H ~.2 • 0 ,...__ 18! _ ~ Very lllitt, dark gray to greenish-gray, fat Cl.A) .._____.,"..... with a slightly shaley and blocky structure, = ~ slightly moist (Continued from pre-riaus page) =: ~ [ -with occasional pockets of light gray sand ~ ~-. ·. below 33' ~ Medium dense to dense, dark gray, to m--..-~ ~ma:~-gray, very clayey SAND, slightly moist +f* --+ 25.4 % Fi. ~es 96.3 0 - :==~I -~ t-40-~ 1------------------il--i --------- -45------ t-50---------- '-55- - -60----- Table 1. Yater Level Ob3ern.tions 1. Borehole dry to 15' depth al time ~f drilling on 12/28/().(; borehole drilled with water below 15'. 2. Yater level measured al 20' depth on ~1/().(/05 (7 days after drilling). Borehole fcaved at 24' on 01/().(/05. COMPL£llON DEPTH : 40' DATE : 12/28/04 DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING : See Table 1 !<bove DATE : See Table 1 ~ve ---CSC Eng1neenng & Environmental Consultants, Inc. --- LOG OF BORING NO. B-9 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ALONG CARTERS CREEK HAMPTON INN AND SUITES COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS lYPE: 4• ~ DRY AUGER/ WET ROT.ARY ORIU£R: CADARETTE/ Vf.S .., .<: DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ~ ~ e 0 ., :5 ~ "a r ~ ~ .... v~ v• SURFACE EIEVATION: 263.50 ... ..; .. t: .... )r; ... tBP ., ll. A'-• :::: ~ ,. 0 s:l iii ::::> :== ~ mL-Loose, light broYn, clayey SAND, with >----~~ pieces of broken concrete rubble, - LOCATION : See Pion of Borings !8! --POCKET PENETROMETER 0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST 6 --TRWXIAI.. SHEAR TEST COHESI ON, TON/SQ. n'. 0 .25 0 .50 0 .75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 ' Plastic Yater Liquid Llm.it Content, % Limit +--------·--------+ 1 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 >----P:::\? slightly moist ~~· ''"Stiff-.-. -gra-J'IS-. -h--b-ro_Yn __ an_d_b_ro_Yn_,-fa_t_CU._Y_. _ __, _ -1---...,1--__,1------1-,RSl....---+---t---+----+----; slightly moist to moist 1-=--....,.,.,.,---.,...,---:----...,:--:,-----=:-=--lt---t---t-----<t------t----t--+--+--+--I Iii: x Very stiff, grayish-brown, sandy lean CU.Y, tH ~ + ==-;--: .~ · with occasional reddish-brown. ferrous nodules 14 ... ---...--+ ·• -~,.r-...., dry to slightly moist 50.7 :r. FiI es === ~ ~ 10 IH.~+ \ ~ 1----1~~1:--:i -becoming broYn below a· 11----li '<-~ ~ ~ ~io-~~ t--... -··· - -··· :::x~ ... ···~ ---~20- >--- 1----... -becoming gray below 18.5' ....--....-- ....--: : : -with seams of gravel up to 3/8"-at 23' 10 8 7 = . ~ . :X Very stiff, dark gray and greenish-gray, shaley 2o -1---1-----11------t----t~OS!--+--+--+-~ ~ I ,__ fat CLlY, slightly m oist -· 11--·HllllOiilll 'ri -with thick gravel seams and layers below IV 28.5' II' 62 :;a: I ~1--~~~~~~~~--1 1r---i1f--il--+--+--+~+--+--+--+---i :== lj NOTE: -.,.,iii 1. See Following Page for Continuation of Log. -\.:.'\.: r\.X . COMPLETION DEPTii : 40' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING : SEE FOLLOWING PAGE DATE: 12/28/D-4-12/29/04 DATE: SEE FOLLOWING PAGE I CSC Engineering & EnVIronmental Consultants, Inc. I LOG OF BORING NO. B-9 (CoathaaN) PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ALONG CARTERS CREEK HAMPTON INN AND SUITES COL L EGE STATION, TE XAS TYPE : -4' ti DRY AUGER/ WASH ROTARY DRILLER : CADARETTE/ VAS LOCATION: See Pion of Borings ... .<:: DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ..; ~t: .... .., .. t-2 p ., p.. A'-. SURFACE ELEVATION : 263.50 ~ ::! e3 0 ~ iii ~ ,..__ ii3 Very stiff, dark gray and greenish-gray, r-~ shaley, fat CLAY, slightly moist (Contiued :::== '0 ~ I\ from previous DU:e) / >----~ Very dense, dark gray to greenish-gray, Yerf 18! --POCKET PENETROMETER 0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST A --TRWXIAL SHEAR TEST COHESION, TON/SQ . FT. 0 .25 0 .50 0 . 75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1. 75 , Plastic Water Liquid Limit Content, !I:: Limit +--------·--------+ 10 20 30 -40 50 60 70 _ l?'\:"\ r-clayey SAND, Yi.th seams and layers of dark >& x gra! to greenish-gray, shaley, fat CLAY, 60 >:...~ moist ~>&,___;& +----•--+ 38.6 r. Fi. ~es t---;& ~~~ ,___~ ~~-t--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--1...---1---H~--t~--t~-+~-+~-+~-+-~-+-~~ll >---- >---- >---- -,___ --,___ >-45-t---,___ ,___ ,___ >---- >---- >---- >---- r--50- ~55- r-- ,_60-,___ ,___ ,___ >---- Table 1. Yater LeYel Observations 1. Borehole dry to 15' depth at time of drilling on 12/28/().(; borehole drilled with Yater below 15'. 2. Borehole caved at 21' depth on 01 /().(/05 (6 days after drilling). I COMPlETION DEPTH : -40 ' DATE : 12/28 /0 -4 and 12/29/0-4 DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING : See Table 1 N:>ove DATE : See Table 1 Above I CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. --- LOG OF BORING NO. B-10 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ALONG CARTERS CREEK HAMPTON INN AND SUITES COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE : 4• f ORY AUGER/ WASH ROTARY 0Rlll.£R: CADARETTE/ VAS DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL g • ~ ] -a i ! a SURFACE EUVATION: 267.13 ;==: ~ ·~ -=:-FILL-Firm to stiff reddish-brown, sandy, lean f--~~ -:: CLAY, moist f---~ - t-----1. ~~·~ .= 1---l' ""1~· ~ -~io-:: :: .. .. Cl. • .. 0 iii ... .Cl ... 0 t: II: t-8 p Q"-. ... ~ -a ::> LOCATION : See Plan of Borings 18! --POCKET PENETROMETER 0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST A --TRIAIXW.. SHEAR TEST COHESION, TON/SQ. FT. 0.25 0 .50 0 .75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 , Plastic Water Uquid Umit Content, % Umit +--------·--------+ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 +-•--+ 63.0 7. Fil es 1----11~~~-,;;...i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-1~~~~---li---,i-----1~-t~-t~-t~-.r--t-~-111 ~ Very stiff, grayish-brown. sandy, lean CLAY, dry ,_ 5 -~· . . Possible Fill) •.: -with some small white calcareous nodules ~low 6' ==I -~~~14-H----------~·~,__ _ ~\; Medium dense, tan, clayey SAND, with fine grav~ -~ ~ents, slightly moist =IO-~ -with a 1' layer of fine sand, dry al 11' 1:1-u+ e + ----+ 59.6 7. Fi1es lit-I .~+ ==~ 1----IM'~·~· -1-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--l~l--H~-+~-+~-+-~-+-~-+-~-+-~-+-~~ .......--,,.,.t?""""'~"' Stiff to very stiff, gray, sandy, lean CLAY, l----ll ldv""-'111. _ slightly silly, slightly moist ..... x 11 +-r-.-+ 18! 86.9 7. Fil~es -15 ~~ -becoming less sandy from 15' to 17' -~·""""1--n-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--l1---<•~~r~-t-~-t-~-+-~-+-~-t-~-t-~+---i : : : Medium dense, tan and gray, silty SAND, fine to - : : : [ ~edium grained, slightly m oist . . . I NOTE: Switched from dry auger to wet : : : . rotary drilling below 15' - f-- f-- >-20- f-- --··· -... -··· -~·~1--11-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--l~i---H~--t-~-t-~-t-~-t-~-t-~-t-~-t-~~1 == ~ [X Medium dense, gray, clayey, fine SAND, moist ~~,_ :::::= S ,_ !Very stiff to hard, dark gray and _ .""-.: greenish-gray, fat CLAY, with a slightly shaley "-.."Ill I structure, sligh tly m oist .......--, ... ~ t---1 ... ~ ~<?__::~ -~ ~OTE : -..._"'111111 1. See Following Page for Continuation of Log. 13 91.2 18! CH.E+ +-·-------+-2.15 0-99.3 7. Fil~es COMPLETION DEPTH : 40' (SEE FOLLOWING PAGE) DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING : SEE FOLLOWING PAGE DATE : 12/29/04 DATE : SEE FOlLOWING PAGE I CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. I LOG OF BORING NO. B-18 (Ceatiiu~) PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ALONG CARTERS CREEK HAMPTON INN AND SUITES COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 1YP£: .<,• II DRY AUGER/ WASH ROTARY DRIU£R: CADAAETTE/ VAS DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL • 0 Cl '8 1 ~ O'l SURFACE ELEVATION : 267.13 == ~ Very stiff to hard, darlc gray and greenish-gra' '-if at Cl.A.Y, with a slightly shaley structure, ~ ~ !slightly moist § [ -becoming dark gray below 33' -becomin« sandy below 38' LOCATION : See Pion of Borings 18! -POCKET PENETROMETER 0 -UNCONFlNED COMPRESSION TEST 6. -TRWXIAL SHEAR TEST COHESION, TON/SQ. Fl'. 0 .25 0 .50 0 . 75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1. 75 , Plastic Water Llquid Umit Content, X Lim.it +--------·--------+ 10 20 30 -4-0 50 60 70 n-us+ ~§ ~§ :=§~ • ~~ .......... 11-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~___,11---i1-100_.~511-~+-~+-~1--~1--___,f---___,~~-o--1 --------55- '-60-.___ .___ .___ '--- !Table 1. Yater Lem Obserntions 1. Borehole dry to 15' depth at time pf drilling on 12/29 /<M,; borehole drilled with 'Water below 15'. 2. Borehole ca'l'ed at 6' on 01/<M,/05 (6 kiays after drilling). I COMPLETION DEPTH : 40' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING : See Tobie 1 Above I DATE : 12/29/04 DATE : See Tobie 1 Above I CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants , Inc . --- KEY TO SYMBOLS AND SOIL CLASSIFICATION Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487) SAMPLE TYPES COMPRESSl\1£ STRENGTH TESTS AND LABORATORY TEST DA TA Q9 + 0 6. lhin-Wdl Spil-&:n-9' Rod Core Cooe Disturbed Ho Hand Toc-.a>e lk>coofined Compr-000 !HJ T <be w fT C3toble Pcnetrome\cr RecoYcty Pcoetromc:tcr RccoYcty T riaxid Sa~ Major Divisions Group Symbols Typical Names 0 z ~ 4 i ~ GW ~~<20··; Well-Graded Grovels , Grovel-Sand Mixtures, Little 0< Ho Fines g ~ & 0: /:, :.: ~- Cf) u f=.., g ~ ~ 1-----1-":-.. i"-_,-.:~.,...·"'·'~. _+--P-oori_y_G-ro_d_cd_Gr_o_vc_l:s,-G-ro_vc_l_--So_n_d--i _JOcr:~ o GP t..•·; ~ ~ ~ ~ 1--u_2_--+---~·:.,.~ ...... :,..,.. ··~·:r-~:'ri-· ___ M_il_ctur_es_._L_1t_t_1e_oc_H_o_Fi_on_es __ -1 ~I~~ c ~ I a::: c vi J;;.. .. GM <..:>~.!!. ... i.::gt c ~~ 0 ~:8 -., o o .. t..c :::q~ ):~6 u. &-~ 0 z (/) >-<( _J (.) -u c 0 Cf) .__ _J en " " .. _, 0 =:'. IO £ c _, 0 .., f= ~ ::::; GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH ...... ...... ...... . . . . . . ...... ...... ~ fu~. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Siity Gro'<ds. GroYd-Sond-Sill Mix lures aayey Gro'l'els. Crowl-Sond-aay Mixtures Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, UIUe 0< Ho tones Poorly Graded Sond3, GroYdly Sands, Little 0< No Floes SHy Sands, Sand-Sill Mixtures aoyey Sands, Sond-aay Mixtures lnorqonlc Sits with Sli9flt Plo&llclly lnD<"900ic Ooys of Low to Medium Plasticity, Gravelly aays, Leon Ooys Orqonlc Sits and Or9onlc Sity aoys of Low Pla&tlclty lna<gonic Silts, Micoceous 0< Diotomoceous Fine Sood or Silty Sais, Elastic sats Inorganic Ooys of Hi9fl Plasticity, Fat Ooys Organic aoys of Mcd"lllm to Hi<jl Plasticity, Organic Silts HARDNESS CLASSIFICATION OF INTACT ROCK APPROX. RANGE OF UNIAXW... COMPRESSION STRENGTH HARDNESS (P.S.L) EXTREMELY HARO > 13,900 VERY HAAD 6,940 -13,900 HARO 3,470 -6,9-«l SOFT 1,740 -3,470 ~RY SOfT 70 -1, HO 301; F oner -P..-ctt1I line< than Ho. 200 ~ Relative Density of Coarse Strained So il s Penclrolion Resistance H Vofue (Stows/Ft•) 0-4 4 -10 10-30 30-50 Ovcr 50 Descrlpllvc Term Ve<y Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Oen:se • Based on drlvin9 a eplit-borrel campier wtth o 140 lb weight dropped 30 inches Soil Modifiers ~ CLAYEY SILTY Consistency T errns of Fine-Grained Soils Compress I....: · .. Strcn9th. qu (ton/~ ft) O to 0.25 0.25 to 0.50 0.50 'fq_ 1.00 i.oo to_r 2.oo 2.00: to ~.DO Ovcr 4.00 D~criptlw Temi Very Soft Soft Firm Stiff Very Stiff Hord Groundwater Levels '\J -STATIC WATER l£VEL T -HYOOOSTATIC WATER--LEVEL Rock Classification SILTSTONE LIMESTONE CLAYSTONE SANDSTONE COAL CSC TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. ------------------ CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. APPENDIXB Summary of Laboratory Test Results CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENT AL CONSULT ANTS, INC. ... r .. a..-·u Me = ····~-·g ._-·-··-·····---·· ---·-i ··· .. ; -.. --;·.-·---·;t---... ~~~--·-·i«~~~~~~~.;,~~~m;,::-~:;.~uiTWiii' SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Proposed Retaining Wall Along Carters Creek at New Hampton Inn & Suites; College Station, Texas Mobture Dry Liquid Plnstic Pins ti city Comp1·esslon Lntenll Type Percent Fines Do1ing Snmple Depth Content Den,lty Limit Limit Index Strength Strnln P1-essure of (-#200 Sieve) No. No. (ft) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) (tsf) (%) (psi) Failure (%) Conunent.s 8-7 S-1 0-2 PP 1= 1.0 tsf S-2 2-4 PP 1= 4 .5+ tsf S-3 4-6 PP 1= 4.5+ tsf S-4 6-8 PP 1= 4.5+ tsf S-5 8-10 PP 1= 4.5+ tsf S-6 13.5-15 PP 1= 1.5 tsf S-7 18.5-20 PP 1 not applicable S-8 23.5-25 PP 1 not applicable S-9 28 .5-30 PP 1= 4 .5+ tsf S-10 33-35 30.8 69 22 47 99 .3 PP 1= 4 .5+ tsf S-11 38-40 PP 1= 3 .0 tsf Notes: 1. PP= Pocket or hand penetrometer reading ofunconfined compression strength in tons per square foot (tsf) (Typical). B-1 ., • ~ !:!!'!:!!' -e-a --11a1c 11"'l'' _111;11.1il1W; aifW".l.aitQ;&J 11!~1-IHll*lliC a•li'UlllmiAIMQtil!i.111':1 llll UIC.:. ll#IWWftmmllll llDRllllAS •! ---·~ CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. ·---··· ----.... _ --- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Proposed Retaining Wall Along Carters Creek at New Hampton Inn & Suites; College Station, Texas l\IoL,ture DQ· Liquid Plnstlc Plnstlcit)• Compression Lnte1'lll Type Pe1·cent Fines Bol'ing S11mple Depth Content DerL,lt)• Limit Lhnlt Index Sh'engtli Strnln Pressm·e of (-#200 Sieve) No . No. (ft) (%) (Jlcf) (%) (%) (%) (tsl) (%) (psi) Fnilure (%) Comments B-8 S-1 0-2 PP 1= 3.5 tsf S-2 2-4 13 .0 21 14 7 37 .1 PP 1= 3.0 tsf S-3 4-6 PP 1 not applicable S-4 6-8 11.8 31 16 15 56 .5 PP 1= 4.5+ tsf S-5 8-10 16.7 44 18 26 55 .6 PP 1= 3.5 tsf S-6 13 .5-15 PP 1 not applicable S-7 18.5-20 PP 1 not applicable S-8 23 .5-25 31.l 54 20 34 98.0 PP 1= 4.5 tsf S-9 28 .5-30 PP 1= 4.5 tsf S-10 33-35 30 .7 88 .2 3.6 5.3% 0 Split PP 1= 4.5+ tsf S-11 38-40 24 .0 96 .3 37 17 20 1.4 5.3% 0 Bulge 25 .4 PP 1= 4.5 tsf Notes: l. PP= Pocket or band penetrometer reading of unconfined compression strength in tons per square foot (tsf) (Typical). B-2 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENT AL CONSULT ANTS, INC. -·-· ··• ··-··-··-· •·•· ---·-·•• -·· -·-·-· -· · ·· -·-·· - ------·;·a1--eaWrec·2 • 'mm mrn1nnr ·rq.,-=rrr°"'9~.l.J3itar,irftJ!i9r'll!O:Pr."l\•:i!"f~·a11n:r~~~ SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Proposed Retaining Wall Along Carters Creek at New Hampton Inn & Suites; College Station, Texas B01ing Snmple Depth No. No . (ft) B-9 S-1 0-2 S-2 2-4 S-3 4-5.5 S-4 6-7 .5 S-5 8-9 .5 S-6 13 .5-15 S-7 18 .5-20 S-8 23 .5-25 S-9 28 .5-30 S-10 33 .5-35 S-11 38-40 Notes: Mol~ture Dr~· Content Density (%) (pct) 16.7 33 .7 Liquid Limit (%) 37 45 Pins tic Limit (%) 17 18 Pl11stlclty Comp1·esslon Lateral lndeI Sh'ength Stniln Pressm·e (%) (tst) (%) (psi) 20 27 I . PP= Pocket or hand penetrometer reading ofunconfined compression strength in tons per square foot (tsf) (Typical). B-3 T~·pe Percent Fines of (-#200 Sieve) Fallm·e (%) 50 .7 38.6 Comments PP 1= 1.5 tsf PP 1= 2.5 tsf PP 1= 4.5 + tsf PP 1= 4.5+ tsf PP 1= 4.5+ tsf PP 1 not applicable PP 1 not applicable PP 1 not applicable PP 1 not applicable PP 1 not applicable PP 1 not applicable " • Boring Sn mple No . No. B-10 S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 S-9 S-10 S-11 Notes: CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENT AL CONSULT ANTS, INC. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Proposed Retaining Wall Along Carters Creek at New Hampton Inn & Suites; College Station, Texas Depth (ft) 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 13 .5-15 18-20 23 .5-25 28-30 33-35 38-40 Mobtw·e Content (%) 21.2 11. 7 24.4 30 .4 21.3 DI)' Density (pct) 91.2 100 .5 Liquid Limit (%) 34 37 33 61 Phis tic Limit (%) 16 17 17 24 Plnstlclt)' Index (%) 18 20 16 43 Comp1·esslon Strength (tst) 4 .3 3 .1 Stmln (%) 4.6% 5.4% Lnterul Pressure (psi) 0 0 Type of Fullw·e Split Bulge/Split Percent Fines (-#200 Sieve) (%) 63 .0 59 .6 86.9 99 .3 I . PP= Pocket or hand penetrometer reading of unconfined compression strength in tons per square fuot (tsf) (Typ ical ). B-4 Conunents PP 1 not applicable PP 1 not applicable PP 1= 4.5 tsf PP 1= 4 .5+ tsf PP 1= 4.5+ tsf PP 1 not applicable PP 1 not applicable PP 1= 4 .0 tsf PP 1= 4 .5+ tsf PP 1= 4 .5+ tsf PP 1= 4 .0 tsf CMETESTIN MENUE, SUITE C • COLLEGE STATIO 979.764.8700 • FAX 979.764.6900 September 17 , 2004 Mr. Billy Martin c/o Hotel Management Company, LP 1203 University Drive East College Station, TX 77840 Re : Report of Limited Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Study for Proposed Creek Slope Erosion Protection Wall Along Carters Creek New Hampton Inn Site on State Highway 6 Near University Drive; College Station, Texas Dear Mr. Martin: Enclosed please find three copies of CME Testing and Engineering, Inc . 's (CME) report entitled "Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Creek Slope Erosion Protection Wall Along Carters Creek; New Hampton Inn Site on State Highway 6 Near University Drive; College Station, Texas ." The physical address of the site is 1205 University Drive East. The report documents our findings and recommendations with regard to subsurface exploration of the above-referenced site that was conducted on July 30, 2004, and August 26, 2004. Our work was performed in general accordance with our proposal to Hotel Management Company, LP dated July 15 , 2004 . In general , the soils comprising the stratigraphy along the bottom of the creek consist of silty sands and clayey sands throughout the 6 to 8 feet depth of exploration. However, clays and shaley clays of high plasticity but low strength were encountered below 5 feet depth, but significantly increased in strength below 7 feet depth. The clays below the 7 feet depth elevation are relatively strong and should be able to support anticipated foundation loads for the proposed slope erosion protection wall . Please contact us at (979) 764-8700 if you have any questions or need additional information concerning this matter . We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you on this project. Respectfully, M . Frederick Conlin, Jr., P .E . Senior Engineer MFC :mf Enclosure Via U.S. Mail cc : Mr. Art Hughes , Project Manager Madison Construction, LP 1640 Briarcrest Drive, Suite 125 Bryan, TX 77805-3787 Via Hand Delivery h?/d&~ Paul L . Evans Laboratory Manager REPORT OF LIMITED SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL STUDY FOR PROPOSED SLOPE EROSION PROTECTION WALL ALONG CARTERS CREEK -NEW HAMPTON INN SITE STATE IDGHWAY 6 NEAR UNIVERSITY DRIVE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Prepared for Hotel Management Company, LP 1203 University Drive East College Station, Texas 77840 Prepared by CME Testing and Engineering , Inc . 1806 Welsh Avenue , Suite C College Station, Texas 77840 September 14, 2004 JYl .~~ 1!J t~ M. Frederick Conlin, Jr., P .E. W.R. Cullen, P .E . Senior Engineer Quality Control Reviewer CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING I INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Hampton Inn-Carters Creek Ban1c Repair Study, Texas TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION . .......... .. ... . . ...... .. . . ......... ...... .. . . ... .. . . ... .............. .............................. .... ............ 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 1 1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE EXPLORATION AND STUDY ........................... 2 1.3 REPORT FORMAT ......................................................................................................... 2 2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM........................................................................................ 3 2 .1 GENERAL OUTLINE OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM ....................... 3 2 .2 DRILLING AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES . ... .......... ........ ...................... ..... ............... 3 2 .3 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATION ............................................................................... 4 2 .4 BORING LOGS .. .................................... .. ............................................ ....... .. . .. . . . .. .. ........ 4 2 .5 SAMPLE CUSTODY ....................................................................................................... 4 3.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM ................................................................................... 5 3 .1 CLASSIFICATION TESTS .............................................................................................. 5 3 .2 STRENGTH TESTS........................................................................................................ 5 4 .0 SITE CONDITIONS.................................................................................................................. 6 4 .1 GENERAL SURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................. 6 4.2 GENERAL SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY ................................................................ 6 4.2 .1 Soils Classification Criteria................................................................................... 6 4 .2 .2 Generalized Description ........................................................................................ 7 4.3 SUBSURFACE WATER CONDITIONS .......................................................................... 8 5 .0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 9 5.1 FOUNDATION SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED EROSION PROTECTION WALL........... 9 5 .2 FOOTING FOUNDING FORMATION AND DEPTH ..................................................... 9 5.3 FOOTING BEARING VALUES ....................................................................................... 10 5 .4 FOOTING SETTLEMENT .............................................................................................. 10 5 .5 FOOTING CONSTRUCTION.......................................................................................... 10 6.0 BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 12 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A -Figures, Boring Logs , and Key to Symbols and Soil Classification Used on Boring Logs Appendix B-Summary of Laboratory Test Results 11 CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING I INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Hampton Inn-Carters Creek Bank Repair Study, Texas 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the results of the limited subsurface exploration and geotechnical study of geologic conditions performed along the banks of Carters Creek that form the rear or northeastern portion of the project site known as the New Hampton Inn . The project site is located on the eastern side of the State Highway 6 access or service road approximately l 00 to 200 feet south of the intersection with University Drive (FM 60) in College Station, Texas. The study was performed in accordance with a proposal from CME to Mr. Billy Martin of Hotel Management Company, LP , that was dated July 15 , 2004 . Field activities for this project were initiated and completed on two separate days , July 30, 2004, and August 26 , 2004, and laboratory testing for the project was completed on August 13 , 2004 . A summary of the field and laboratory phases of the project and a discussion of design values for the planned foundation system are presented for review and consideration. 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Information concerning the project was obtained from a telephone conversation with Mr. Art Hughes of Madison Construction, L.P ., on July 9, 2004, and subsequent conversations . Some information was also obtained from a drawing prepared by the project design engineers , Goodwin-Lasiter, Inc . That drawing was labeled as C-1 -Embankment Stabilization and dated June 2004 . We understand that some distress has been experienced in the earthen slopes of Carters Creek that form the eastern or northeastern boundary of the referenced project site. We also understand that Goodwin- Lasiter, Inc . (GLO has been retained to make recommendations for alleviation of the distress. GLI has requested that some subsurface soils information for the slopes be provided, and especially the depth below the slope of the surface of the shaley clay which is exposed at the bottom of the adjacent creek channel. The referenced shaley clay formation is also indicated on some of the borings that were part of a previous geotechnical study for the project site that was labeled as ''Hampton Inn & Suites , College Station, Texas," dated March 24 , 2003, and performed by Rogers Engineering Services (RES). That previous geotechnical report is hereinafter referenced as the RES report. We understand that extensive strength testing of the soils across the bottom of the creek slope is not required at the present time but that only some general information concerning classification of the soils and permeability of the soils is required . 1 CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING I INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Hampton Inn-Carters Creek Bank Repair Study, Texas 1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE EXPLORATION AND STUDY The specific objectives of the exploration and study were to: • Secure general information on the subsurface conditions by conducting a limited field exploration and soil sampling program to a limited depth along the bottom of the slope of Carters Creek at the site of the proposed hotel. • Obtain and test in the laboratory selected samples recovered during the field exploration. • Evaluate the subsurface information developed from the field exploration and laboratory testing programs. • Develop general recommendations based upon an engineering analysis of the subsurface information at the boring locations to guide the formation of the conceptual or preliminary foundation design plans for the proposed erosion protection wall along the bank of the creek. It should be recognized that the exclusive purpose of this study was to develop general recommendations for the foundation of the proposed structures . This study did not directly assess , or even attempt to address , specific environmental conditions encountered at the site (i .e., the presence of pollutants or other substances in the soil , rock, or groundwater). In addition, this geotechnical study did not specifically address historical uses of the site and the surrounding areas from an environmental perspective . 1.3 REPORT FORMAT The immediately following sections of this report present descriptions of the field exploration and laboratory testing phases of the study . The subsequent final sections of the report present discussions of the results of the field and laboratory phases of the study, i .e ., a description of the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations. Finally, discussions of the engineering analysis of the data, and recommendations for foundation support of the proposed residential structures are presented. Appendix A includes the boring logs , and the key to terms and symbols used on the boring logs . Appendix B contains a table presenting the laboratory test results . 2 CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING I INC. Report ofGeotechnical Study Hampton Inn-Carters Creek Bank Repair Study, Texas 2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM 2.1 GENERAL OUTLINE OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM CME originally planned to drill a total of five (5) sample borings along the bottom of the bank of Carters Creek on the eastern side of the referenced project area using manual augering and sampling techniques . The approximate locations of the borings are illustrated on Figure 1 -Plan of Borings , in Appendix A to this report . All of the borings were located on whatever flat areas existed near the bottom of the creek bank in close proximity to the surface of the water in the creek. A schematic representation of a typical drilling site is presented in Figure 2 of Appendix A. Unfortunately, the boring at the location designated as B-1 in Figure 1 could not be drilled due to site access limitations that were mainly attributable to heavy vegetation growth and steep slopes of the creek bank . The borings were planned to be advanced to a total depth of approximately 8 feet below the existing ground surface elevation or to the top of the previously referenced shaley clay formation, whichever occurs first. Unfortunately, shaley clays were not encountered within the depth of exploration at any of the boring locations designated as B-2 through B-5 in Figure 1. Therefore, boring B-6 was drilled at a later date and used casing to stabilize the borehole and permit the borehole to be advanced to the top of the shaley clay strata. 2.2 DRILLING AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES The proposed boring locations are situated very near the bottom of the bank of the channel of Carters Creek and adjacent to the east side of the paved parking area of the building currently under construction . Therefore, access to the proposed drill sites was limited. In order to provide access to the drill sites with a truck-mounted drilling rig , extensive grading of ramps within the earthen bank would have had to been performed . We understand that such grading operations would have been ex pensive and detrimental to the adjacent paved areas and therefore were avoided . Consequently, we understand that it was desired to use manual drilling and sampling techniques for the field ex ploration portion of this study. Manual drilling techniques were utilized and involved advancing the borehole using a 3-inch diameter manually turned auger. Both disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples of soils were obtained continuously in the boreholes to a maximum depth of 8 feet below the existing surface grade of the borings . Disturbed samples of the soils were obtained from the auger and placed in plastic bags to minimize moisture loss . Samples of cohesive soils were obtained by manually driving a 2 inch-diameter, thin-wall 3 CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Hampton Inn-Carters Creek Bank Repair Study, Tex as sampler (tube) into the soils , where possible . The samples were placed in core boxes for transportation to our laboratory for analysis Upon removal from the respective samp lers , the soil samples were visually classified by a geotechnologist and an estimate of the undrained shear strength of the undisturbed cohesive soils made using a hand penetrometer. The tube samples were extruded in the laboratory and used in strength tests to determine the approximate undrained shear strength of the subsurface soil formations . 2.3 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATION As previously discussed, the borings were drilled utilizing dry rotary augering drilling techniques so that the presence of groundwater could be observed both during drilling operations and immediately following completion of those operations . The groundwater observations are discussed in a subsequent section of this report . At the completion of the drilling operations , all of the boreholes were plugged with soil cuttings to provide some hydraulic integrity . 2.4 BORING LOGS A field geotechnologist was present during the field exploration to describe the subsurface stratigraphy and to note obvious anomalies in the subsurface stratigraphy which may have been present at specific boring locations . Descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered at the two boring locations are shown on the individual boring logs presented in Appendix A of this report. The "Key to Symbols and Soil Classification " sheet ex plaining the terms and symbols used on the logs is presented immediatel y following the logs . The logs represent CME 's interpretation of the subsurface conditions based upon the field geotechnologist 's notes together with engineering observation and classification of the materials in the laboratory. The lines designating the interfaces between various strata represent approximate boundaries onl y, as transitions between formations may be gradual . 2.5 SAMPLE CUSTODY All samples of subsurface materials obtained in the borings were removed from the samplers and visually classified in the field . Representative samples were sealed in appropriate packaging and placed in core boxe s for transportation to the laboratory for further analysis . The samples will be stored for at least 30 days following the date of this report . At the end of the 30-day storage period, the samples will be discarded unless a written request is received from the owner requesting that the samples be stored for a longer period . 4 CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Hampton Inn-Carters Creek Bank Repair Study, Texas 3.0 LABO RA TORY TESTING PROGRAM Samples of subsurface materials recovered from the borings were examined and classified by the geotechnical engineer and various laboratory tests assigned for selected samples . The laboratory tests were performed to aid in soil classification and to determine the engineering characteristics of the foundation materials . The laboratory test results are presented in a summary tabular form in Appendix Band some of the test results are also presented both numerically and symbolically on the boring logs in Appendix A. 3.1 CLASSIFICATION TESTS Tests were performed in order to classify the foundation soils in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487) and to determine the soil-moisture profile at the boring locations . The Atterberg limit determinations were performed in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTMD4318 . In addition to the selected Atterberg limit tests, grain-size distribution tests were also performed . The percent of soil particles passing the U.S . Standard sieve size No . 200 (ASTM D 1140) was determined . The soil fractions passing the No . 200 sieve size are the silt-and clay-size particles and are generally referred to as "fines ." The unit dry weight of the samples was also determined in accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 2166 . The natural moisture content of individual samples was determined in accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 2216 . 3.2 STRENGTH TESTS CME also attempted to include an evaluation of the strength or load-carrying capacity of the foundation soils through strength testing. Strength tests were performed on cohesive soils (clays) to develop an estimate of the undrained cohesion of the soils . The unconfined compression test (ASTM D 2166) is typically performed in the laboratory on relatively undisturbed samples of cohesive soils to determine the compressive strength characteristics . In addition, hand penetrometer tests are typically performed both in the field and in the laboratory on undisturbed soil samples to develop an approximate indication of the undrained cohesive strength . However, due to the granular nature of the soils sampled at the project site, no cohesive soils suitable for testing were recovered during the field exploration and consequently, no strength tests were performed in the geotechnical laboratory. However, some pocket penetrometer tests were performed on the short samples of clayey shale recovered from the bottom of boring B-6 . 5 CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Hampton Inn-Carters Creek Bank Repair Study, Texas 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS 4.1 GENERAL SURFACE CONDITIONS Currently, the site along the bottom of the slope of Carters Creek where the borings were drilled can be described as an undeveloped , natural waterway . The site has thick clusters of trees and tall native grasses . Accumulations of dead vegetation and other debris are present along the creek channel. The slopes of the creek bank are rather steep and are estimated to range from 0 .5 :1 to 1. 5: 1 (horizontal distance to vertical distance ratio). 4.2 GENERAL SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY 4.2.1 Soils Classification Criteria The soils were generally classified in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS , ASTM D 2487). Classification of the soils was primarily based upon test results derived from the laboratory testing of the various soils strata within the stratigraphy . The laboratory-performed classification tests consisted of determining the percent "fines " of the soils and of determining the Atterberg limits of the soils . The percentages of fines , i .e ., the silt-and clay-size particles, were measured by determining the percentage of soils that would pass or be "finer than" the No. 200 U .S. Standard sieve size . Soils with a percent fines content of 50 percent or greater would classify as clays or silts under the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D 2487). Conversely, by definition, sands and/or gravels would have a percentage of fines of less than 50 percent. The Atterberg limit tests are composed of the liquid limit (LL) test and the plastic limit (PL) test, along with the shrinkage limit test. The LL and PL tests were performed as part of the classification testing of the present study . These limits distinguish the boundaries of the several consistency states of plastic soils . The LL represents the moisture content at which the soil is on the verge of being a viscous fluid (i .e ., a "very wet" condition), and the PL represents the moisture content at which the soil behaves as a non- plastic material (i.e ., a "slightly moist" condition). The plasticity index (Pl) of soil is defined as the range of moisture contents at which the soil behaves as a plastic material and is defined as the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic limit (LL -PL = Pl). The magnitude of the PI of a soil is typically considered to be an indication of the clay content and the volumetric change (shrink-swell) potential of the soils , although the volumetric change can also vary with the type of clay mineral and the nature of the ions adsorbed on the clay surface. 6 CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Hampton Inn-Carters Creek Bank Repair Study, Texas Although the soil classifications utilized in the subsequently presented descriptions and discussions generally follow the criteria established by the uses , there is one exception with respect to clays of moderate plasticity that are designated by the letters CM. Highly plastic clays with a liquid limit equal to or greater than 50 are given a CH designation (C for clays and H for high plasticity) under the USCS . Clays with liquid limits lower than 50 are designated as CL (L for low plasticity) soils under the current USCS . However, when Arthur Casagrande performed the original work for the soil classification system, he proposed an intermediate classification in which clays with a liquid limit between 30 and 49 were termed CM (M for moderate) soils , or clays of moderate plasticity . Although not adopted by ASTM, the CM designation is still sometimes used to describe in greater detail the soils with plasticities between the low and high ranges . 4.2.2 Generalized Description In general , the stratigraphy along the bottom of the creek within the typical 6 to 8 feet depth of exploration was somewhat similar, although there were important differences between the soils at the five boring locations. The stratigraphy at particular locations on the site is indicated in detail on the individual logs of boring. A general description of the different soil strata comprising the stratigraphy at the site is presented in the following paragraphs . The soil stratigraphy consists most entirely of granular soils, i .e ., sands, within the referenced exploration depth . The granular soils can be described as silty sands and clayey sands that are generally gray to gray and tan in color. The laboratory test results on the recovered samples indicate that the percentage of fines in the sands ranges from 2 .2 to 47 .9 percent, with an average value of 30 .9 . The high percentage of fines demonstrates that there is a wide variation in the silt and clay content of the sands . The LL values range between 0 (i .e ., non-plastic) and 47 , and the corresponding PI values range from 0 (i .e ., non-plastic) to 29 . These granular soils would therefore classify as SM (silty sands) or SC (clayey sands) under the uses. Strata of high plasticity sandy clays and shaley clays were encountered below approximately 5 feet depth at the boring B-6 location . Although no classification tests were performed on the recovered samples, the clays are believed to classify as CH type soils (clays of high plasticity) under the USCS . Based upon the results of the pocket penetrometer tests performed on the short, recovered samples, the consistencies (strength categorizations) of the clays range from soft in the 5 to 7 feet depth range to very stiff below 7 feet . Therefore, the clays below the 7 feet depth range appear to be very strong and relatively low compressibilities with respect to the anticipated foundation loading . The field drilling crew did perform some rough elevation determinations for the ground surface at the boring B-6 location . The ground surface is believed to be at approximately EL . 243 . However, this elevation should not be relied upon unless it is 7 CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING I INC . Report of Geotechnical Study Hampton Inn-Carters Creek Bank Repair Study, Texas confirmed by registered surveyors . Based upon the assumed ground surface elevation, the elevation of the top of the very stiff shaley clay s is estimated to be approximately EL . 23 8 . 4.3 SUBSURFACE WATER CONDITIONS As previously discussed, the borings were advanced using dry rotary augering drilling techniques to the maximum 8 to 10 feet depth of exploration. The boreholes were monitored for groundwater levels both during and immediately following completion of drilling activities . Groundwater was observed in all of the boreholes during drilling . As might be expected with a granular stratigraphy next to an existing creek, the groundwater levels roughly corresponded to the level of the water in the creek. Consequently, there appeared to be direct communication between the soils encountered at the boring locations and the adjacent creek. It is also important to note that groundwater elevations may vary seasonally. Groundwater levels can be affected by such factors as the water level in the adjacent creek, precipitation, infiltration, and evapotranspiration, among others. Groundwater levels at the time of construction may vary from those measured at the time of the field study and are important since they have the potential to influence construction operations . Furthermore, it should be understood that the groundwater conditions that were observed during the performance of this short-term study were obtained to evaluate probable impacts to construction activities and should not be considered a comprehensive assessment of long-term groundwater conditions at the site . 8 CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC . Report ofGeotechnical Study Hampton Inn-Carters Creek Bank Repair Study, Texas 5.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The primary considerations in the design of a safe and economical foundation system for a wall providing erosion resistance for the bank of a creek are the bearing capacity and settlement characteristics of the foundation formations . These factors were considered in the development of the recommendations presented in subsequent paragraphs . 5.1 FOUNDATION SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED EROSION PROTECTION WALL We understand that the severe erosion of the bank of the existing creek will be addressed by the construction of a grouted stone wall supported on a concrete footing. We also understand that the only information required from this geotechnical report is a description of the nature of the soils along the bottom of the creek channel (already discussed) and design values for the referenced wall footing . The design values for the wall footing are presented in the following sections of this report . 5.2 FOOTING FOUNDING FORMATION AND DEPTH The footing along the base of the planned erosion control block wall is expected to be founded at a relatively shallow depth compared to the elevation of the creek flow line . We understand that current plans call for the footing to be founded in the formation of stiff to very stiff, clayey shale that is believed to be present below the surficial and near-surface granular formations across the site . As previously discussed, the gray shaley clays were encountered below a depth of approximately 5 feet at the boring B-6 location, with the more competent portion of the formation being present below a depth of 7 feet or an elevation of approximately EL. 238 (to be field verified). Similarly, in the previously referenced RES report, a formation described as "black slate [sic] and shale" was encountered at a depth of approximately 28 feet at the location of boring B-3 on the high bank of the creek. Based upon the surface elevation listed on the log of boring for B-3 , the surface of the "black shale" is believed to be at approximately EL. 246 . We recommend that the footing be founded at least 3 feet into the founding formation of gray, shaley clays or at a minimum depth of 1 foot below the level of the formation at which the clays exhibit a consistency in the stiff to very stiff range . The consistency of the founding soils can be verified by a simple pocket penetrometer test at the time of the excavation of the footing . In addition, the base of the footing should be situated at least 2 feet below the maximum scour depth of the adjacent creek along the "reach" of the creek adjacent to the proposed wall . 9 CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING I INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Hampton Inn-Carters Creek Bank Repair Study, Texas 5.3 FOOTING BEARING VALUES The elongated character of the shallow foundation system supporting the wall indicates that it will function as a continuous footing and bearing pressures were therefore calculated for a continuous footing . The continuous footing should be dimensioned in accordance with a net allowable unit bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (pst) under sustained loading conditions (i.e., dead load plus continuous live load) and 4 ,500 psf under total or maximum load conditions (i .e ., dead load and the combination of live , wind, and seismic forces that produce the maximum loading to the foundation). These recommended bearing values were based upon the computed theoretical ultimate bearing capacity that was reduced by factors of safety of at least 3 and 2, respectively, for the given design conditions . Footings should have a minimum base width of 24 inches to reduce the potential for puncture or rotational type shear failures of the foundation soils . 5.4 FOOTING SETTLEMENT Settlement of the footing under the anticipated magnitudes of continuous loading should not exceed 1 inch . 5.5 FOOTING CONSTRUCTION The following criteria should be followed during design and construction of the continuous footings : • The footing excavation should be checked for size and inspected to ensure that all loose material has been removed prior to placement of the concrete . • The site slopes of the footing excavations may slough into the open excavations , particularly with granular soils . Any such fall-in should be removed from the excavation. The need for wooden forms to maintain the stability of the footing excavation should be anticipated . In addition, if the excavations occur during or immediately after periods of heavy rainfall, there may be problems with temporarily high or perched groundwater. The possible need for stormwater interceptor ditches , sumps , and sump pumps should be anticipated . If the groundwater flows become excessive, there may even be the need for a temporary de-water system, such as may include well points , at the site . • Prompt placement of concrete into the footing excavation, following completion of digging, cleaning, and inspection of the excavation, is strongly recommended. Precautions should be taken during placement of the reinforcement and concrete to prevent any loose excavated soil from entering into the excavation. Any clods of earth that slump into the footing excavation during concrete placement should be promptly removed . Under no circumstances should a footing be excavated that cannot be filled with concrete before the end of the work day . 10 CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING I INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Hampton Inn-Carters Creek Bank Repair Study, Texas • The reinforcing steel placed in the footing should extend to no closer than 3 inches from the base or sides of the excavation as required by the American Concrete Institute (ACI). • Verification of the construction process and the dimensional characteristics of the footings should be performed as part of the project quality assurance (QA) program . 11 CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING I INC. Report of Geotechnical Study Hampton Inn-Carters Creek Bank Repair Study, Texas 6.0 BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations contained in this report are based, in part, on the project information provided to CME. If statements or assumptions made in this report concerning the location and design of project elements contain incorrect information, or if additional information concerning the project becomes available, the owner should convey the correct or additional information to CME. The field exploration, which provided information concerning subsurface conditions , was considered to be in sufficient detail and scope to form a reasonable basis for the conceptual planning of the foundation systems of the proposed development. Recommendations contained in this report were developed based upon a generalization of the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations across the site and the assumption that the generalized conditions are continuous throughout the areas under consideration . However, regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface exploration, there is always a possibility that subsurface conditions encountered over a given area will be different from those present at specific, isolated boring locations. Consequently, it is recommended that additional borings be performed at specific structure locations before finalizing the design of the foundation systems for the proposed structures . In addition, experienced geotechnical personnel should be employed to observe construction operations and to document that conditions encountered during construction conform to the assumed generalizations which formed the basis for the recommendations presented in this report. In addition, the construction observers should document construction activities and field testing practices employed during the earthwork and foundation construction phases of the project . Questionable procedures and/or practices should be reported to the design team, along with timely recommendations to solve the problem(s). The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings , recommendations , specifications , or professional advice contained herein have been made after preparation in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practice in the field of geotechnical engineering in this geographic area . No other warranty is implied or expressed. 12 APPENDIX A Figures , Boring Logs , and Key to Symbols and Soil Classification Used on Boring Logs TOP OF EXIST. BANK 18'± repared For: HOTAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LP . ~~~=B-O~R-IN~G~~ 1'± 6' to 8 ' Boring Depth ~ w w a::: () WATER LEVEL SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF TYPICAL BORING LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO CREEK BANK COLLEGE STATION, TX PROJECT : HAMPTON INN LOCATION : COLLEGE STATION , TX APPR : MFC REV . DATE : DRAWN BY : SRS SCALE: AS SHOWN DATE : 09/10/04 FIGURE NO .: 2 TYPE : LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 (NOT DRDJ,ED) NEW HAMPTON INN-CARTERS CREEK SLOPE EROSION PROTECTION WALL STATE HIGHWAY 6 NEAR UNIVERSITY DRIVE COLLEGE STATION , TEXAS DRILLER : LOCATION : See Pion of Borings 181 --POCKET PENETROMETER 0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST ~ A --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST ~ ·t--~~~~~~~~~~~~~-11 ~ : £:: COHESION, TON/SQ . FT . -------,___ '--5 -,___ ,___ ,___ --- -10-----------15------ --20-----------25- --------30----- • -" 0 -.a i:>. ! J DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL SURFACE ELEVATION : NOT KNOWN NOTE : Boring not drilled due to site access limitations (heavy vegitation and steep slopes) I COMPLETION DEPTH : 0 ' DATE : "' ::i 0 0 .25 0 .50 0. 75 1.00 1.25 1 .50 1. 75 :; All "'~ -.S -.. Plastic Water liquid ; .... !5 limit Content, " limit ~ ~ 10+-20 -30--:i--so--sa-+10 DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING : DATE : ----CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.---- I LOG OF BORING NO. B-2 NEW HAMPTON INN-CARTERS CREEK SLOPE EROSION PROTECTION WALL STATE HIGHWAY 6 NEAR UNIVERSITY DRIVE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE : Y Dia. Hand Auger DRILLER : Mosmeyer LOCATION : See Plan of Borings 181 --POCKET PENETROMETER 0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST ... b. --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST .cl .!f . DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ;:: : t: COHESION, TON/SQ . FT . ~ ... ~~) 0.25 0 .50 0 .75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 . ... " ~ • p., Plastic Water 0 " Uquid .cl 1 -a ~ ~ !!i Limit Content, :ii: Limit ... ~ llo ~ +--------·--------+ " SURFACE ELEVATION : NOT KNOWN Q rn rn :::> 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 -~ Loose, gray and tan, silty SAND , moist -... --e Ne n-Pl slic 2 . e,; Fil -.. -11es -... ...... _ -... I=--... --becoming very moist to wet, medium to ... -.. ...... _ coarse grained with fine gravel fragments -...... _ below 3' -I=-... ...... _ -~ - 5 ->-Loose , gray, very clayey SAND , wet ., -------; • ....::-6: _--hit log at 6', could not drill dreeper 47 .9 ~ FiJn es . - ,__ ---,__ >-10- ,__ ,__ >-15- ,__ ,__ ,__ ,__ ,__ ,__ >-20- >-25- >-30- ~ COMPL£TION DEPTH : 6' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING : Woter at 3' depth during I DATE : 07 /30/04 DATE : drilling on 07/30/04 I CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING 1 INC . I LOG OF BORING NO. B-3 NEW HAMPTON INN-CARTERS CREEK SLOPE EROSION PROTECTION WALL STATE HIGHWAY 6 NEAR UNIVERSITY DRIVE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS lYPE: Y Dia . Hand Auger DRILLER : Mosmeyer DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL SURFACE ELEVATION: NOT KNOWN _ · · · -Loose, gray and tan, silty SAND , very moist == ···== -~ -~ ::: Loose, brown, clayey SAND, very moist to wet -~ ::--ground water at 4'; becoming slightly more _I\.'\;::::: clayey below 4' - 5 -~ ::--borehole beginning to cave-in bel~w 4' = ~ ~ -becoming brown and gray below 6 -~::- LOCATION : See Plan of Borings 181 --POCKET PENETROMETER 0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST ;i:j A --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST !f ·l---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----1 ;:: : t: COHESION, TON/SQ. M'. ... :::) ) 0 .25 0 .50 0 .75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 • ~ t'u c:i ......_ Plastic Water Liquid '" .. ai limit Content, % limit g ~~ +--------·--------+ iii .... 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 +f.e.-f- 23 .0" Fin~s 40.1 ~ Fin~s -\:_"'-; ,_- 11-~1p....>~>-l---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--1t~~~---tl------<I------<~--+~--+~--+~-+~-+-~-< ----10-- ----15-----------20- -25- -30- COMPLETION DEPTH: 8' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: Water at 4' depth during DATE : 07 /30/04 DATE : drilling on 07 /30/04 I I CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.---- LOG OF BORING NO. B-4 NEW HAMPTON INN-CARTERS CREEK SLOPE EROSION PROTECTION WALL STATE HIGHWAY 6 NEAR UNIVERSITY DRIVE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE : Y Dia . Hand Auger DRILLER : Mosmeyer DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL SURFACE ELEVATION: NOT KNOWN ,,. __ .,, · · · --Loose, gray, silly SAND, very moist lo wet -_ -,,,-___ .. : : : == -_ -... _--_--=-~···---5-- 111---i1: : : -_ 111---11 ... r -becoming more silly below 6' --10- --15- .... 25- t- t- t- t- t-....._ ....._ t- t- .... 30- t-....._ ....._ ....._ .... .Cl ::: i "' ~ " p., ~ ~ 0 iii ;::> t ::)0 ~ ~ LOCATION: See Pion of Borings 181 --POCKET PENETROMETER 0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST 6 --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST COHESION, TON/SQ. FT . 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2 Plastic Water Liquid limit Content, " limit +--------·--------+ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 -tr-+ • 41.2 ~ Fin ~s COMPLETION DEPTH : 8' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING : Water at 0 .5' depth during DATE : 07 /30/04 DATE : drilling on 07 /30/04 I CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. I LOG OF BORING NO. B-5 NEW HAMPTON INN-CARTERS CREEK SLOPE EROSION PROTECTION WALL STATE HIGHWAY 6 NEAR UNIVERSITY DRIVE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE : 3' Dia. Hand Auger DRILLER : Mosmeyer LOCATION : See Pion of Borings - ------5------- -10-----------15- -------20------.___ --25---- -----30-,___ -- DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL SURFACE ELEVATION : NOT KNOWN · · · ::-Loose , gray and tan , silty SAND, moist ···~-. · · :=: -becoming gray below 2' : : : ~--groundwater at 3' .. ·----... ,....__ =--hit concrete rubble at 6'; could not advance . . . .-: borehole . ~ COMPLETION DEPTH : 6 ' DATE : 07 /30/04 .... .l:l ;:: i t ,... ~ ~b " p,, E 1i !9 iil ::> 181 --POCKET PENETROMETER 0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST A --TRIAJXIAL SHEAR TEST COHESION, TON/SQ . FT . 0 .25 0.50 0 . 75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1. 75 ' Plastic Water Uquid limit Content, % Umit +--------·--------+ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING : Water at 3' depth during DATE : drilling on 07 /30/04 ----CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC .---- LOG OF BORING NO. B-6 NEW HAMPTON INN-CARTERS CREEK SLOPE EROSION PROTECTION WAL L STATE HIGHWAY 6 NEAR UNIVERSITY DRIVE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE : Y Dia. Hand Auger DRILLER : Mosmeyer LOCATION : See Pion of Borings 181 --POCKET PENETROMETER 0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST :i:i t:. --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST .!!t . DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ;:: i: t: COHESION, TON/SQ . FT . ~ .. t-BP 0.25 0 .50 0 .75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 : .... " ~ II p., Plastic lfater Liquid 0 " i:l' .cl .0 -a ~ ~~ Limit Content, " Limit .... ! J EL 243.41± ll. +--------·--------+ " SURFACE ELEVATION : Should be field verified iii ::;. i:l 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 -~ ... Loose, gray, silty SAND, very moist . . . ,____ ... ,____ ... ,____ ... . . . ,____ ... ,____ ... ,____ ... . . . ,____ ... .___ ... L... 5 -!; ·~ 'f--.... _ Soft, gray, sandy, fat CLAY, with fine gravel, we ~ lid '- ~I .... -Soft, gray, fat CLAY, with gravel fragments, wet 181 ~- f-- Very stiff, gray, shaley, fat CLAY, slightly moist I 181 .___ NOTE : .___ .___ 1. Cased borehole to 7 ' depth . .___ .___ .___ .___ .___ .___ ~is---,____ ,____ ,____ ,____ ...._____ .___ .___ '-20- ---------25---------,____ '-30- ~ ~ ~ ~ - COMPLETION DEPTH : 10' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING : Water ot 1 ' depth during DATE : 08/26/04 DATE : drilling on 08/26/04 I CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING 1 INC. I APPENDIXB Summary of Laboratory Test Results CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING I INC. SUMMARY OF LABO RA TORY TEST RESULTS Proposed New Hampton Inn-Carters Creek Slope Erosion Protection Wall; College Station, Texas M oisture Dry Liq uid Plastic Plasticity Compression Lateral Type Percent Fines Boring Sample Depth C ontent Density Limit Limit Index Strength Strain P ressure of (-#200 Sieve) No. No. (ft) (o/o) (pcf) (o/o) (o/o) (o/o) (tsf) (o/o) (psi) Failure (o/o) Comments B-2 S-1 0-2 11.2 NP1 NP 1 NP 1 2 .2 PP2 not applicable S-3 4-6 53.5 47 18 29 47 .9 pp2 not applicable B-3 S-2 2-4 24.4 31 18 13 23 .0 PP2 not applicable S-3 4-6 31.6 37 16 21 40.1 pp2 not applicable B-4 S-4 6-8 32 .5 22 20 2 41.2 PP2 not applicable B-5 S-2 2-4 24 .3 24 20 4 31.0 PP2 not applicable B-6 S-1 5-6 PP2 = 0 .0 tsf S-2 6-7 PP2 = 0 .5 tsf S-3 9-10 PP2 = 2 .75 tsf Notes: l. NP =Non-plasti c (no plasticity inde x). 2 . PP = Pocket or hand penetrometer reading ofunconfined compression strength in tons per square foot (tsf) (Typical). B-1