Geotechnical Engineering Report - J.E. Hefner

REPORT C OVER PAGE

Geotechnical Engineering Report __________________________________________________________________________

McDonald’s Restaurant #0260238

Omaha, Nebraska

September 30, 2019

Terracon Project No. 05195113

Prepared for:

McDonald’s USA, LLC

Denver, Colorado

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Omaha, Nebraska

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 15080 A Circle Omaha, Nebraska 68144

P (402) 330 2202 F (402) 330 7606 terracon.com

REPORT C OVER LETTER TO SIGN

September 30, 2019

McDonald’s USA, LLC

4643 South Ulster Street, Suite 1300

Denver, Colorado 80237-2868

Attn: Ms. Kerri Smith

P: (303) 218 0044

E: [email protected]

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report


North 204th Street and North Main Street

Omaha, Nebraska


Dear Ms. Smith:

We have completed the Geotechnical Engineering services for the above referenced project. This

study was performed in general accordance with Terracon Proposal No. P05195113 dated July

24, 2019. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical

recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of footing foundations,

floor slabs and pavements for the proposed McDonald’s Restaurant.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have

any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further service.

Sincerely,

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Jason M. Sved, E.I. Michael D. Ringler, P.E.

Staff Engineer Senior Engineer

Distribution: Addressee (pdf)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

REPORT TOPICS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 2 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION ...................................................................... 3 GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................... 4 EARTHWORK ................................................................................................................ 5

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ......................................................................................... 10 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................... 12 FLOOR SLABS ............................................................................................................ 12 PAVEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 13

FROST CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................... 16 GENERAL COMMENTS ............................................................................................... 16

Note: This report was originally delivered in a web-based format. Orange Bold text in the report indicates a referenced

section heading. The PDF version also includes hyperlinks which direct the reader to that section and clicking on the

GeoReport logo will bring you back to this page. For more interactive features, please view your project online at

client.terracon.com.

ATTACHMENTS

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

EXPLORATION RESULTS

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Note: Refer to each individual Attachment for a listing of contents.

http://client.terracon.com/


INTRODUCTION

Geotechnical Engineering Report


North 204th Street and North Main Street

Omaha, Nebraska Terracon Project No. 05195113

September 30, 2019

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering

services performed for the proposed McDonald’s Restaurant to be located at the southwest corner

of North 204th Street and North Main Street in Omaha, Nebraska.

The field exploration included seven soil borings to depths ranging from approximately 10 to 25

feet below existing grades. Maps showing the site and boring locations are shown on Site

Location and Exploration Plan, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on

soil samples obtained from the site during the field exploration are included on the boring logs in

Exploration Results.

Our work was completed in general accordance with Terracon proposal number P05195113 dated

July 24, 2019, authorized by McDonald’s Purchase Order number 2158080 dated August 20, 2019.

The purposes of this exploration and report are to provide information and geotechnical

engineering recommendations relative to:

■ Soil conditions

■ Groundwater conditions

■ Site preparation and earthwork

■ Footing foundation design and construction

■ Floor slab design and construction

■ Seismic site classification per IBC

■ Pavement design and construction

■ Frost considerations


McDonald’s Restaurant #0260238 ■ Omaha, Nebraska

September 30, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. 05195113


SITE CONDITIONS

The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association with the

field exploration and our review of publicly available topographic maps.

Item Description

Parcel Information

The 1.75-acre project site is located on the southwest corner of the North 204th

Street and North Main Street intersection in Omaha, Nebraska.

Approximate Latitude/Longitude: 41.2735⁰ N / 96.2353⁰ W (see Site Location)

Existing

Improvements /

Ground Cover

The proposed site is bound on the north by North Main Street, on the east by North

204th Street, on the south by O’Reilly Auto Parts, and on the west by North 205th

Street. The site is currently vacant and vegetated with various grasses and weeds.

Existing

Topography

The site generally falls from southwest to northeast towards the drainage ditch

along the west 204th Street right-of-way, with approximately 4 feet of elevation

change measured between the boring locations. Ground surface elevations at our

boring locations are estimated to range from about 1261 to 1265 feet MSL

(Douglas County GIS topographic data; one-foot elevation contours).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Our understanding of the project is as follows:

Item Description

Information

Provided

McDonald’s provided Terracon an initial email on July 19th, 2019, containing an

embedded aerial image that highlights the proposed project site. A site plan was

provided in a subsequent email.

Project

Description

We understand the proposed project will consist of constructing a single-story

restaurant building, double drive-thru, trash enclosure area, elevated sign, and

associated parking areas and access drives. No below-grade structures are

expected.

Building

Construction

We assume the building will be wood-framed with concrete masonry walls and a

grade-supported floor.

Finished Floor

Elevation

Our evaluations assume the building finished floor will be 1264 feet (about 1 to 2

feet above current grade).

Assumed

Maximum Loads

Columns: 20 to 100 kips

Walls: 2 to 3 kips per linear foot (klf)

Slabs: 150 pounds per square foot (psf)

Grading/Slopes We assume cuts and fills will be limited to about 3 feet to develop final grades.

Permanent slopes assumed to be 3H:1V or flatter.





Item Description

Pavements

New pavements will likely consist of rigid (concrete) and flexible (asphalt)

pavement. Traffic loading information not provided. Our evaluations assume traffic

loading is consistent with other McDonald’s Restaurants that Terracon has worked

on, as follows:

■ Light Duty: 27,000 Equivalent Single-Axle Loads (ESALs)

■ Heavy Duty: 110,000 ESALs

Our evaluations assume a 20-year pavement design period.

Underground

Utilities We anticipate installation of underground utilities within 5 to 10 feet of final grades.

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

Subsurface Profile

We have developed a general characterization of the soil and groundwater conditions based upon

our review of the boring information, the geologic setting, and our understanding of the project.

This characterization, termed GeoModel, forms the basis for our geotechnical evaluations and

recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, foundation options, and pavement options.

Conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs. The

GeoModel and individual logs are provided in Exploration Results.

The GeoModel is based upon our boring information. Variations can occur between boring

locations and across the site. Previous grading may have created additional variations.

The conditions noted in the GeoModel for native soils were generally consistent with those

anticipated in the Stage 1 GeoReport (Terracon Project No. GR195241 dated July 30, 2019).

Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater was not observed in the borings during or shortly after completion of drilling operations.

At the time the borings were drilled, the groundwater table at the boring locations was apparently

below the maximum drilling depth. However, fluctuations in the groundwater table can occur and

perched water can develop over compacted clay fill following periods of heavy or prolonged

precipitation. This possibility should be considered when developing design and construction plans

and specifications for the project.





GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

Existing Fill: Our borings on the eastern portion of the site (B-1, B-2 and B-3) encountered

existing clay fill to depths up to about 7½ feet below existing grades. While the fill soils appear

moderately well compacted at our boring locations, the samples obtained were noted to have low

moisture contents (relative to estimated optimum moisture content). Complete removal of the

existing fill materials would necessary to eliminate the risk of swell or settlement due to poorly

compacted or unsuitable fill. It is our opinion that the risks posed by the existing fill are relatively

small with implementation of our rework / recompact recommendations in the building area and

testing and observation of the soil conditions by a Terracon representative during construction.

To take advantage of the cost benefit of not removing the entire amount of undocumented fill, the

owner must be willing to accept the risk associated with building over the undocumented fills.

Should this be the case, it appears the building and elevated sign footings, and the exterior

pavements can constructed above the existing clay fill, following the recommended

overexcavation and reworking of the on-site soils described below.

Low-density Soils: The soil borings encountered natural loess (wind-deposited) soils. In general,

loess soils are known to be collapse-susceptible upon wetting, particularly when the soils exist at

relatively low in situ dry densities (e.g., less than about 85 pcf). Low-density soils were encountered

near anticipated footing bearing level in Borings B-1 and B-2, and near anticipated pavement

subgrade level in Borings B-4, B-5, B-6 and B-7.

General: Due to the presence of the relatively dry existing fill and dry low-density native loess, we

recommend reworking the soils within the entire building area to a depth of at least 24 inches below

exterior footing bearing level, and to a depth of at least 12 inches below pavements.

The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.





EARTHWORK

Site Preparation

Prior to placing fill, existing vegetation and root mat should be removed from cut, fill, building and

pavement areas. A Terracon geotechnical representative should evaluate stripping depths at the

time of construction. We recommend site stripping, subgrade preparation, and compaction

procedures extend at least 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the building, and at least 2 feet beyond

the edges of the proposed pavements.

As discussed in Geotechnical Overview, we recommend reworking the soils within the entire

building footprint to a depth of at least 24 inches below exterior footing bearing level and to a

distance of at least 5 feet beyond the building perimeter. Similarly, we recommend reworking the

soils to a depth of at least 24 inches below the restaurant sign footing and to at least 5 feet beyond

the footing edges. This can be accomplished by overexcavating to a depth of at least 24 inches

below footing bearing level and then backfilling the overexcavated zone with low-plasticity

cohesive structural fill.

We recommend reworking the soils to depths of at least 12 inches below the bottom of proposed

pavements. This can be accomplished by overexcavating to a depth of at least 12 inches below

the pavements and replacing the overexcavated zone with low-plasticity cohesive structural fill.

Alternatively, the on-site soils can be overexcavated to a depth of at least 6 inches below the

pavements and then the exposed soils can be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches, moisture

conditioned and recompacted, before the overexcavated zone is backfilled with low-plasticity

cohesive structural fill.

Prior to placing fill in areas to receive fill, the subgrade should be proofrolled in the presence of a

Terracon geotechnical representative. Proofrolling aids in providing a firm base for compaction of

fill and delineating soft, or disturbed areas that may exist below subgrade level. Unsuitable areas

observed at this time should be improved by scarification and recompaction or by undercutting

and replacement with structural fill. Proofrolling may be accomplished with a fully loaded, tandem-

axle, dump truck with a minimum gross weight of 25 tons or other equipment providing an

equivalent subgrade loading.

Terracon should be retained to monitor stripping, subgrade stability, removal of unsuitable

materials, and proofrolling. Terracon can assist in identifying existing unstable fill soils or low-

strength native soils that should be undercut and removed, as well as identifying additional

corrective measures for conditions that may become apparent during construction.





Fill Material Types

Structural fill should meet the following material property requirements:

Fill Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Location for Placement

Low-plasticity, cohesive

soil

CL

(LL ≤ 45 and 10 ≤ PI ≤ 20) 2 All locations and elevations.

Granular 3 SP, SW, GW Aggregate base below interior slabs-on-grade.

On-site soil 4 Existing clay fill, native CL

On-site soils generally appear suitable for re-

use as low-plasticity cohesive fill.

1. Structural fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter or debris. Frozen material

should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. Each proposed fill material should

be sampled and evaluated by a Terracon geotechnical representative prior to its delivery and/or use.

2. LL = Liquid Limit, PI = Plasticity Index.

3. A well graded granular material, with 100% passing the 1-inch sieve, less than 6% passing the No. 200

sieve, and less than about 40% passing the No. 40 sieve. Using a material similar to NDOT Crushed Rock

for Surfacing, with 6% or less fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve) for this layer will improve subgrade

stability during compaction and slab construction.

4. Sorting of topsoil and on-site soils containing debris, organics, etc., will be necessary. Delineation of

unsuitable on-site soils should be performed in the field by a Terracon representative. Moisture conditioning

of the on-site soils will be necessary to facilitate compaction.

Terracon should be retained to evaluate proposed fill materials, including sampling and performing

laboratory tests on proposed fill to evaluate compliance with the project specifications. We can also

review data for proposed materials which are generated by the contractor or suppliers.





Fill Compaction Requirements

Structural fill should meet the following compaction requirements.

Item Structural Fill

Maximum Lift

Thickness

8 inches or less in loose thickness when heavy, self-propelled compaction

equipment is used

4 to 6 inches in loose thickness when hand-operated equipment (i.e. jumping

jack or plate compactor) is used

Minimum Compaction

Requirements 1, 2, 3

98% of max. below foundations and within 6 inches of finished pavement

subgrade

95% of max. all other locations

Water Content Range Low-plasticity cohesive: -1% to +3% of optimum

1

Granular: Workable moisture levels 4

1. Maximum density and optimum water content as determined by the standard Proctor test (ASTM D 698).

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

compaction comparison to relative density may be more appropriate. In this case, granular materials should

be compacted to at least 65% relative density (ASTM D 4253 and D 4254).

3. Consideration can be given to compacting all fill below pavements to 95% during mass grading.

Immediately prior to paving, we recommend that the subgrade below exterior pavements be rough-graded

as needed, and then scarified and recompacted. We recommend this process include scarifying the

subgrade to a depth of about 8 inches, moisture conditioning the scarified soil to within -1 to +3 percent of

the material’s optimum, and compacting the scarified soil to at least 98%. Scarified soils which cannot be

recompacted to this degree should be undercut and replaced with stable material.

4. Specifically, moisture levels should be maintained low enough to allow for satisfactory compaction to be

achieved without the cohesionless fill material pumping when proofrolled or containing excess water

(ponding).

Terracon should be retained to monitor fill placement and to perform field density tests as each lift of

fill is placed in order to evaluate compliance with the design requirements. Terracon should be

retained to observe and test floor slab and pavement subgrades immediately prior to paving.

Utility Trench Backfill

All trench excavations should be made with sufficient working space to permit construction, including

backfill placement and compaction. Utility trenches are a common source of water infiltration and

migration. If utility trenches are backfilled with relatively clean granular material, they should be

capped with either paving or at least 18 inches of cohesive fill to reduce the infiltration and

conveyance of surface water through the trench backfill.





We also recommend constructing an effective clay “trench plug” that extends at least 5 feet out from

the face of the building exterior. The plug material should consist of either cementitious flowable fill

or low permeability clay. The trench plug should be placed to completely surround the utility line.

Construction Considerations

Any areas of standing surface water should be drained as far in advance of construction as possible.

Any saturated soils should be removed prior to placing fill or proceeding with construction.

The clays encountered in the borings will be sensitive to disturbance from construction activity and

water seepage. If precipitation occurs immediately prior to or during construction, the near-surface

clay soils could increase in moisture content and become more susceptible to disturbance.

Construction activity should be monitored, and should be curtailed if the construction activity is

causing subgrade disturbance. A Terracon representative can help with monitoring and developing

recommendations to avoid subgrade disturbance.

Surface water should not be allowed to pond on the site and soak into the soil during construction.

Construction staging should provide drainage of surface water and precipitation away from the

building and pavement areas. Any water that collects over or adjacent to construction areas should

be promptly removed, along with any softened or disturbed soils. Surface water control in the form

of sloping surfaces, drainage ditches and trenches, and sump pits and pumps will be important to

avoid ponding and associated delays due to precipitation and seepage.

Upon completion of filling and grading, care should be taken to maintain the subgrade moisture

content prior to construction of floor slabs and pavements. Construction traffic over the completed

subgrade should be avoided. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water

on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. If the subgrade should become frozen, desiccated,

saturated, or disturbed, the affected material should be removed or these materials should be

scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted prior to floor slab and pavement construction.

As a minimum, all temporary excavations should be sloped or braced as required by Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations to provide stability and safe working

conditions. Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who controls the

means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. All excavations should comply with

applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA Excavation and

Trench Safety Standards.

Exterior Grading

Poor site drainage and ponding of surface water can increase the potential for frost heave or

settlement. Excessive moisture can reduce bearing capacity and contribute to slab and pavement

settlement and cracking.





Finished grading slopes should promote drainage away from the building and pavements. We

recommend final grades for seeded and landscaped areas be sloped at least 5 percent within 10

feet around the building. Roof drains should be extended to discharge on pavements or in lawn areas

more than 5 feet from the building. Pavements or sidewalks installed adjacent to the building should

slope away from the building at a grade of 2% or more.

Overwatering of grass or landscaping vegetation is a significant source of water, and should be

avoided near the building and pavements. Sprinkler heads should be adjusted to miss the exterior

building walls and pavements. Automated watering systems should be programmed to not run after

natural rain events, and to not overwater. Any utility leaks should be promptly repaired.





SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

Design Parameters – Compressive Loads

In our opinion, the proposed building and restaurant sign can be supported by shallow footing

foundation systems bearing on at least 24 inches of structural fill, prepared as noted in Earthwork.

Design recommendations for shallow foundations are presented in the following table.

Description Building Columns /

Isolated Footings Building Wall

Net allowable soil bearing pressure 1 2,500 psf 2,500 psf

Minimum dimensions 30 inches 18 inches

Minimum embedment 2 42 inches 42 inches

Estimated total settlement 3 < 1 inch < 1 inch

Estimated differential settlement 3 2/3-inch between columns 2/3-inch over 30 feet

Equivalent fluid pressure 4 290 pcf

Ultimate coefficient of sliding friction 5 0.4

1. The recommended net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding

overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. Assumes any unstable fill, or disturbed or soft soils, will

be undercut and replaced.

2. For perimeter footings and footings in unheated areas. For frost protection and to reduce the effects of

seasonal moisture variations in the subgrade soils. If construction extends into freezing weather, we

recommend that either all footings extend to frost depth (as measured from adjacent grade at the time of

construction) or that the foundations be protected from the elements by straw, frost blankets, or similar

means.

3. The foundation settlement will depend upon the variations within the soil profile, the structural loading

conditions, the embedment depth of the footings, the thickness of compacted fill, and the quality of the

earthwork operations. The above settlement estimates assume the maximum footing size is 7 feet for

column footings, 2 feet for continuous footings, and relatively uniform loading.

4. The sides of the excavation for the spread footing foundation must be nearly vertical and the concrete

should be placed neat against these vertical faces for the passive earth pressure values to be valid. If the

loaded side is sloped or benched and then backfilled, the allowable passive pressure will be significantly

reduced. Passive resistance in the upper 42 inches of the soil profile should be neglected.

5. Neglect for foundations subject to net uplift conditions.





Design Parameters – Uplift Loads

Uplift resistance of spread footings can be

developed from the effective weight of the

footing and the overlying soils. As illustrated on

the subsequent figure, the effective weight of

the soil prism defined by diagonal planes

extending up from the top of the perimeter of the

foundation to the ground surface at an angle, ,

of 20 degrees from the vertical can be included

in uplift resistance. The maximum allowable

uplift capacity should be taken as a sum of the

effective weight of soil plus the dead weight of

the foundation, divided by an appropriate factor

of safety. A maximum total unit weight of 100

pcf should be used for the backfill. This unit

weight should be reduced to 40 pcf for portions

of the backfill or natural soils below the groundwater elevation.

Foundation Construction Considerations

The footings should bear on at least 24 inches of low-plasticity cohesive fill. Overexcavation for

compacted backfill placement below footings should extend laterally at least 8 inches beyond the

edges of the footings for each foot of depth below footing base elevation. The overexcavation

should then be backfilled up to the footing base elevation with approved fill placed and compacted

as recommended in Earthwork. The figure below depicts this.

Terracon should be retained to observe and test the bearing materials exposed in all foundation

excavations. If disturbed or otherwise unsuitable bearing materials are encountered in a footing

excavation, the excavation should be extended deeper, as necessary, to suitable materials.

Properly compacted structural fill should then be placed back up to design bearing level.

NOTE: Excavation in sketch shown vertical for convenience. Excavations should be sloped as necessary for safety.





The clay soils on this site are susceptible to disturbance from construction activities, particularly

if the soils have high natural moisture contents or become wetted by surface water or seepage.

Care should be taken during excavation and construction of footings to avoid disturbing the

bearing soils. The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose material

prior to placement of concrete. Concrete should be placed within a few hours after excavating to

reduce disturbance of the bearing materials. If the materials at bearing level become excessively

dry, disturbed or saturated, the affected material should be removed prior to placing concrete.

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Based upon the results of the borings, we estimate the project site as “Site Class D” according to

the 2012 International Building Code (IBC), which references Chapter 20 of ASCE-7. This site

class assumes that soils similar to the native soils encountered at the bottom of the borings

continue to a depth of 100 feet. A more detailed and accurate Site Class evaluation can be

achieved by retaining Terracon to perform a deeper soil boring, to perform a cone sounding with

shear wave measurements, or to use the SeisOpt®ReMi™ method to develop the full depth shear

wave profile.

FLOOR SLABS

Floor Slab Design Recommendations

Item Description

Floor slab support 1 Aggregate base (see below) underlain by low-plasticity

cohesive fill prepared according to Earthwork.

Modulus of subgrade reaction 2 100 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) for point

loading conditions.

Aggregate base course/capillary break 3 4 inches of free draining granular material

1. Floor slabs should be structurally independent of any building footings or walls to reduce the possibility of

floor slab cracking caused by differential movements between the slab and foundation.

2. Modulus of subgrade reaction is an estimated value based upon our experience with the subgrade

condition, the requirements noted in Earthwork, and the floor slab support as noted in this table. It is

provided for point loads. For large area loads the modulus of subgrade reaction will be lower.

3. The floor slab design should include a capillary break, comprised of compacted, granular material, as

described in Earthwork.

Slabs-on-grade should be isolated from structures and utilities to allow independent movement.

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

Institute (ACI) to help control the location of any cracking. Keyed and doweled joints should be

considered. The owner should be made aware that differential movement between the slabs and

foundations could occur.





The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade that will be

covered with wood, tile, carpet or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the

slab will support equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor

retarder, the slab designer should refer to ACI 302 and/or ACI 360 for procedures and cautions

regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder.

Floor Slab Construction Considerations

On most project sites, the floor slab subgrades are developed early in the construction phase.

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

construction traffic, desiccation, rainfall, etc. As a result, the floor slab subgrade may not be suitable

for placement of base rock and concrete and corrective action will be required.

We recommend the floor slab subgrade be rough graded and then proofrolled with a loaded tandem

axle dump truck prior to fine grading and placement of base rock. Particular attention should be paid

to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier and to areas where backfilled trenches

are located. Areas where unsuitable conditions are located should be repaired by removing and

replacing the affected material with compacted fill. All floor slab subgrades should be moisture

conditioned and properly compacted to the recommendations in this report immediately prior to

placement of the aggregate base course and concrete.

PAVEMENTS

General Pavement Comments

Pavement designs are provided for the traffic and pavement life conditions as noted in Project

Description and in the following sections of this report. The pavements should be underlain by

at least 12 inches of compacted low-plasticity cohesive fill, prepared in accordance with the

recommendations presented in Earthwork.

Typical construction in this area is not to place a granular base below pavements for this type of

project. Rather, the pavements are supported directly on the cohesive subgrade soils. Installing

finger drains should be considered along low points of pavements and around intakes. If the project

design results in a granular base being installed below pavements, Terracon should be retained to

provide additional recommendations. For example, subdrains are recommended in conjunction with

a granular base to prevent water from ponding in the granular base.

Pavement Design Parameters

Design of Asphaltic Concrete (AC) pavements are based on the procedures outlined in the

National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) Information Series 109 (IS-109). Design of

Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavements are based upon American Concrete Institute (ACI)

330R-01; Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots. Pavement thickness





design has been based on assumed ESALs of 27,000 and 110,000 for the proposed Light Duty

and Medium Duty pavement areas, respectively, over a 20-year design life.

We have based our pavement thickness design by interpolation between the NAPA design traffic

classes presented below:

■ Traffic Class II – Traffic consisting of autos, home delivery trucks, trash pickup,

occasional moving vans, and ESALs up to 27,000.

■ Traffic Class III – Up to 10 single-unit or 3-axle semi-trailer trucks per day or equivalents:

average gross vehicle weight should be less than the legal limit. Considered for ESALs up

to 110,000.

A subgrade CBR of 3 was assumed for the AC pavement designs, and a modulus of subgrade

reaction of 100 pci was assumed for the PCC pavement designs. These values were empirically

derived based upon our experience with similar clay soils and our pavement subgrade preparation

recommendations as outlined in Earthwork. A modulus of rupture of 550 psi was used for

pavement concrete.

Pavement Design Thicknesses

The following table provides options for full-depth AC and PCC sections (no aggregate base):

Recommended Full-Depth Pavement Section Thickness (inches)

Light Duty 1 Medium Duty

1

AC PCC AC PCC

6 5 7 6

1. See Project Description for more information regarding Light Duty and Medium Duty traffic.

A minimum of 7 inches of PCC pavement is recommended at the location of dumpsters where trash

trucks park and load.

Terracon has observed dishing in some parking lots surfaced with AC. Dishing is usually observed

in frequently-used parking stalls (such as near the front of the building), and occurs under the wheel

footprint in these stalls. The use of higher grade asphaltic cement such as PG70-34, or surfacing

these areas with PCC, is recommended. The dishing is exacerbated by factors such as irrigated

islands or planter areas, sheet surface drainage to the front of the building, and placing the AC

directly on a compacted clay subgrade. The use of lower grade asphalt cement, such as PG64-34

is relatively common in this area and may be considered, but would provide lower reliability against

rutting and creeping during warm weather.





Minimum surface course thicknesses of 2 inches in automobile areas and 3 inches in driveways

are recommended for asphaltic cement concrete pavement sections. An AC base course

thickness of 4 inches is recommended.

We recommend that AC and PCC pavement specifications reference Sections 400 and 500,

respectively, of the City of Omaha Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 2014

Edition. We recommend a surface mix type SPR for AC pavements and mix type L65 for PCC

pavements.

Proper joint spacing will also be required to prevent excessive slab curling and shrinkage

cracking. Joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and dowelled where

necessary for load transfer. The contractor should submit a joint layout plan for approval by the

engineer prior to placement of concrete. The plan should identify the location of all joints in the

pavement which should be designed to avoid acute angles in accordance with the guidance in

ACI 330R-33 sections 3.7, 3.11 and Figure C.1 Typical Joint Layout for Parking Area.

Where practical, we recommend early-entry cutting of crack-control joints in PCC pavements.

Cutting of the concrete in its “green” state typically reduces the potential for micro-cracking of the

pavements prior to the crack control joints being formed, compared to cutting the joints after the

concrete has fully set. Micro-cracking of pavements may lead to crack formation in locations other

than the sawed joints, and/or reduction of fatigue life of the pavement.

We recommend joints be sealed to help prevent moisture infiltration, including a sprayed concrete

sealer and a hot-pour joint sealer.

Periodic maintenance will extend the service life of the pavements and should include patching and

repair of deteriorated areas, crack sealing, and surface sealing.

Pavement Construction Considerations

Construction scheduling often involves grading and paving by separate contractors and can

involve a time lapse between the end of grading operations and the commencement of paving.

Disturbance, desiccation or wetting of the subgrade soils between grading and paving can result

in deterioration of the previously completed subgrade. A non-uniform subgrade can result in poor

pavement performance and local failures relatively soon after pavements are constructed. We

recommend the moisture content and density of the subgrade be evaluated within two days prior

to commencement of actual paving operations. A proof roll using heavy equipment similar to that

required for pavement construction is recommended to verify subgrade stability for pavement

construction. Scarification and recompaction may be required.

Areas not in compliance with the required ranges of moisture or density should be moisture

conditioned and recompacted. If significant precipitation occurs after the evaluation or if the

surface becomes disturbed, the subgrade condition should be reviewed by Terracon personnel

immediately prior to paving.





Pavement Drainage Considerations

Preventing subgrade saturation is an important factor in maintaining the subgrade strength. Water

allowed to pond on or next to pavements could saturate the subgrade and cause premature

pavement deterioration. Positive surface drainage should be provided away from the edges of paved

areas, and all pavements should be sloped to provide rapid surface drainage. Pavements should

drain toward the edges rather than the center, and perimeter subsurface drains should be installed

next to irrigated planters or other areas where surface water could pond.

FROST CONSIDERATIONS

The clayey soils on this site are considered frost susceptible. Grade-supported exterior slabs are

expected to heave. The amount of heave may be reduced by providing surface drainage away from

the building and slabs and toward the site storm drainage system. Structural stoops are

recommended adjacent to exterior doors and other movement-sensitive exterior slabs.

Consideration should be made to installing drain-tile around the perimeter of exterior slabs that

connect directly to the storm drainage system to help further reduce the potential for frost heave.

GENERAL COMMENTS

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

be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the

design and specifications. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project

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

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

modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. Terracon also should be retained to provide

observation and testing services during grading, paving, foundation construction, and other earth-

related construction phases of the project. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering

requirements are the responsibility of others.

The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon our understanding of

the project, the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other

information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between

borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature

and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If

variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental

recommendations can be provided.

Support of footing foundations, floor slabs and pavements above existing fill soils is discussed in this

report. However, even with the recommended construction testing services, there is an inherent risk

for the owner that compressible fill or unsuitable material within or buried by the fill will not be





discovered. This risk of unforeseen conditions cannot be eliminated without completely removing the

existing fill, but can be reduced by performing additional testing and evaluation.

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

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

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

potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

Our services and any correspondence or collaboration are intended for the sole benefit and

exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and are accomplished

in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with no third-party

beneficiaries intended. Any third-party access to services or correspondence is solely for

information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our client. Reliance upon

the services and any work product is limited to our client, and is not intended for third parties. Any

use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their own risk. No

warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made.

Any information we convey prior to the report completion is for informational purposes only and

should not be used for decision-making purposes or final design.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

ATTACHMENTS




Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 1 of 1

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

Field Exploration

Boring Layout and Elevations: The drill crew spotted the boring locations in relation to existing

features and used handheld GPS equipment with an estimated horizontal accuracy of +/-20 feet

to document the boring locations. Approximate ground surface elevations at the boring locations

were estimated from publicly available topographic information (Douglas County GIS; 1-foot

elevation contours). True surface elevations at these locations could differ due to interpolation,

and other differences could occur from superposing approximate boring locations on the

topographic map. The locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree

implied by these methods.

Subsurface Exploration Procedures: The borings were advanced with an ATV-mounted drilling

rig utilizing continuous flight hollow and solid stem augers. Thin-walled, 3-inch OD, seamless steel

tubes with sharp cutting edges were pushed hydraulically into the ground to obtain relatively intact

samples of cohesive or moderately cohesive soils. The samples were sealed and transported to the

laboratory for testing and classification.

Our exploration team prepared field boring logs as part of standard drilling operations. The field

logs included sampling depths, penetration distances, and other relevant sampling information.

Field logs also included water level observations, visual classifications of materials encountered

during drilling, and our interpretation of subsurface conditions between samples. Typed boring

logs included with the report represent the geotechnical engineer's interpretation of the field logs,

and include modifications based on laboratory observations and tests.

Laboratory Testing

Water content tests (ASTM D2216) and density determinations (ASTM D7263) were performed on

the samples. The unconfined compressive strength of the samples was estimated with a hand

penetrometer test. In addition, an Atterberg Limits test (ASTM D4318) was performed on a selected

sample. The results of these laboratory tests are provided on the typed boring logs.

The samples were classified in the laboratory based on visual observation and texture (ASTM

D2488). Additional laboratory testing could be performed to more accurately classify the samples.

The soil descriptions presented on the boring logs for native soils are in general accordance with

our enclosed General Notes and Unified Soil Classification System (USCS, ASTM D2487). The

estimated group symbol for the USCS is also shown on the boring logs, and a brief description of

the Unified System is included in this report.

Procedural standards noted above are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases,

variations to methods are applied as a result of local practice or professional judgment.


SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

Contents:

Site Location Plan

Exploration Plan

SITE LOCATION



Note to Preparer: This is a large table with outside borders. Just click inside the table

above this text box, then paste your GIS Toolbox image.

When paragraph markers are turned on you may notice a line of hidden text above and

outside the table – please leave that alone. Limit editing to inside the table.

The line at the bottom about the general location is a separate table line. You can edit

it as desired, but try to keep to a single line of text to avoid reformatting the page.

SITE LOC ATION

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY GOOGLE MAPS

SITE

EXPLORATION PLAN



Note to Preparer: This is a large table with outside borders. Just click inside the table

above this text box, then paste your GIS Toolbox image.

When paragraph markers are turned on you may notice a line of hidden text above and

outside the table – please leave that alone. Limit editing to inside the table.

The line at the bottom about the general location is a separate table line. You can edit

it as desired, but try to keep to a single line of text to avoid reformatting the page.

EXPLOR ATION PLAN

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES TOPOGRAPHIC MAP AND IMAGERY COURTESY OF DOUGLAS COUNTY GIS; SITE PLAN OVERLAY PROVIDED BY MCDONALD’S


EXPLORATION RESULTS

Contents:

Boring Logs

GeoModel

9000+(HP)

8000(HP)

9000+(HP)

9000+(HP)

8000(HP)

8000(HP)

8000(HP)

14

13

10

10

12

11

12

96

83

85

83

80

87

93

Grass, root zone at surfaceFILL - LEAN CLAY , trace sand, brown to dark brown, trace rootlets

LEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand, pale brown, very stiff, trace rootlets to about 5 ft.

Boring Terminated at 25 Feet

3.0

25.0

1259.5+/-

1237.5+/-

Ground surface elevation estimated from Douglas County GIStopographic data (1-foot elevation contours).

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

051

951

13 M

CD

ON

ALD

S R

ES

TA

U.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

9/3

0/1

9

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

25

LAB

OR

AT

OR

YH

P (

psf)

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

LOCATION See Exploration Plan

Latitude: 41.2735° Longitude: -96.2352°

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MO

DE

L LA

YE

R

DEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)

Approximate Surface Elev.: 1262.5 (Ft.) +/-

Page 1 of 1

Advancement Method:Hollow Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

Notes:

Project No.: 05195113

Drill Rig: 735

BORING LOG NO. B-1McDonald's USA, LLCCLIENT:Denver, CO

Driller: C.Ramirez

Boring Completed: 09-13-2019

PROJECT: McDonald's Restaurant #0260238

See Exploration and Testing Procedures for adescription of field and laboratory proceduresused and additional data (If any).

See Supporting Information for explanation ofsymbols and abbreviations.

North 204th Street & North Main Street Omaha, NESITE:

Boring Started: 09-13-2019

15080 A CirOmaha, NE

Not encountered while drilling

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

1

2

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

9000+(HP)

9000+(HP)

5000(HP)

8000(HP)

6500(HP)

7000(HP)

7000(HP)

11

12

10

9

11

13

14

106

100

87

99

84

95

99

36-21-15

Grass, root zone at surfaceFILL - LEAN CLAY , trace sand, olive brown, trace rootlets to about 3 ft.

becoming light brown below about 3 ft.

LEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand, pale brown, very stiff


5.0

25.0

1258+/-

1238+/-



TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

051

951

13 M

CD

ON

ALD

S R

ES

TA

U.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

9/3

0/1

9

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

25

LAB

OR

AT

OR

YH

P (

psf)

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MO

DE

L LA

YE

R



Page 1 of 1

Advancement Method:Hollow Stem Auger


Notes:


Drill Rig: 735


Driller: C.Ramirez










1

2

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

9000+(HP)

9000+(HP)

9000+(HP)

6000(HP)

3500(HP)

12

13

16

17

17

104

96

107

82

82

Grass, root zone at surfaceFILL - LEAN CLAY , trace sand, olive brown, trace rootlets, blocky to about 3 ft.

pale brown, silty near 4 ft.

LEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand, pale brown, stiff to very stiff


7.5

15.0

1253.5+/-

1246+/-



TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

051

951

13 M

CD

ON

ALD

S R

ES

TA

U.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

9/3

0/1

9

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

LAB

OR

AT

OR

YH

P (

psf)

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MO

DE

L LA

YE

R



Page 1 of 1

Advancement Method:Power Auger


Notes:


Drill Rig: 735


Driller: C.Ramirez










1

2

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

3500(HP)

5000(HP)

5500(HP)

8000(HP)

15

16

13

13

86

88

89

82

Grass, root zone at surfaceLEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand, light brown, stiff, trace rootlets

LEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand, pale brown, stiff to very stiff


3.0

10.0

1260+/-

1253+/-



TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

051

951

13 M

CD

ON

ALD

S R

ES

TA

U.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

9/3

0/1

9

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

LAB

OR

AT

OR

YH

P (

psf)

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MO

DE

L LA

YE

R



Page 1 of 1



Notes:


Drill Rig: 735


Driller: C.Ramirez










2

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

4000(HP)

9000+(HP)

7500(HP)

8000(HP)

19

16

17

15

86

95

97

97

Grass, root zone at surfaceLEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand, brown, stiff, trace rootlets

LEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand, pale brown, very stiff


3.0

10.0

1262+/-

1255+/-



TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

051

951

13 M

CD

ON

ALD

S R

ES

TA

U.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

9/3

0/1

9

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

LAB

OR

AT

OR

YH

P (

psf)

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MO

DE

L LA

YE

R



Page 1 of 1



Notes:


Drill Rig: 735


Driller: C.Ramirez










2

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

7000(HP)

9000+(HP)

9000+(HP)

8000(HP)

10

9

9

9

80

96

95

105

Grass, root zone at surfaceLEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand, pale brown, very stiff, trace rootlets to about 3 ft.

Boring Terminated at 10 Feet10.0 1253.5+/-



TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

051

951

13 M

CD

ON

ALD

S R

ES

TA

U.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

9/3

0/1

9

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

LAB

OR

AT

OR

YH

P (

psf)

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MO

DE

L LA

YE

R



Page 1 of 1



Notes:


Drill Rig: 735


Driller: C.Ramirez










2

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

9000+(HP)

9000+(HP)

8000(HP)

5000(HP)

13

12

12

12

80

87

84

75

Grass, root zone at surfaceLEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand, pale brown, very stiff, trace rootlets to about 3 ft.

Boring Terminated at 10 Feet10.0 1255+/-



TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

051

951

13 M

CD

ON

ALD

S R

ES

TA

U.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

9/3

0/1

9

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

LAB

OR

AT

OR

YH

P (

psf)

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MO

DE

L LA

YE

R



Page 1 of 1



Notes:


Drill Rig: 735


Driller: C.Ramirez










2

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

1,236

1,240

1,244

1,248

1,252

1,256

1,260

1,264

1,268

EL

EV

AT

ION

(M

SL

) (f

eet)

McDonald's Restaurant #0260238 Omaha, NETerracon Project No. 05195113

Layering shown on this figure has been developed by the geotechnicalengineer for purposes of modeling the subsurface conditions asrequired for the subsequent geotechnical engineering for this project.Numbers adjacent to soil column indicate depth below ground surface.

NOTES:

B-1B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

GEOMODEL

This is not a cross section. This is intended to display the Geotechnical Model only. See individual logs for more information.

LEGEND

Lean Clay

Silty Clay

Model Layer General DescriptionLayer Name

Lean Clay1

Lean Clay; stiff to very stiff2

Existing Clay Fill

Native Loess

3

25

1

2

5

25

1

2

7.5

15

1

2

10

2

10

2

10

2

10

2


SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Contents:

General Notes

Unified Soil Classification System

McDonald's Restaurant #0260238 Omaha, NE


500 to 1,000

> 8,000

4,000 to 8,000

2,000 to 4,000

1,000 to 2,000

less than 500

Unconfined Compressive StrengthQu, (psf)

ShelbyTube

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

GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINESRELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION

LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES

SAMPLING WATER LEVEL FIELD TESTSN

(HP)

(T)

(DCP)

UC

(PID)

(OVA)

Standard Penetration TestResistance (Blows/Ft.)

Hand Penetrometer

Torvane

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

Unconfined CompressiveStrength

Photo-Ionization Detector

Organic Vapor Analyzer

Medium

0Over 12 in. (300 mm)

>12

5-12

<5

Percent ofDry Weight

TermMajor Component of Sample

Modifier

With

Trace

Descriptive Term(s) ofother constituents

>30Modifier

<15

Percent ofDry Weight

Descriptive Term(s) ofother constituents

With 15-29

High

Trace

PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

Water levels indicated on the soil boring logs arethe levels measured in the borehole at the timesindicated. Groundwater level variations will occurover time. In low permeability soils, accuratedetermination of groundwater levels is notpossible with short term water levelobservations.

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONSGENERAL NOTES

> 30

11 - 30

1 - 10Low

Non-plastic

Plasticity Index

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

Boulders

12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm)Cobbles

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

Sand

Passing #200 sieve (0.075mm)Silt or Clay

Particle Size

Water Level Aftera Specified Period of Time

Water Level After aSpecified Period of Time

Water InitiallyEncountered

Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. Theaccuracy of such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographicalsurvey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined fromtopographic maps of the area.

Standard Penetration orN-Value

Blows/Ft.

Descriptive Term(Density)

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

Hard

15 - 30Very Stiff> 50Very Dense

8 - 15Stiff30 - 50Dense

4 - 8Medium Stiff10 - 29Medium Dense

2 - 4Soft4 - 9Loose

0 - 1Very Soft0 - 3Very Loose

(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field visual-manual

procedures or standard penetration resistance

STRENGTH TERMS

> 30

Descriptive Term(Consistency)

Standard Penetration orN-Value

Blows/Ft.

RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

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

Soil Classification

Group

Symbol Group Name B

Coarse Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained

on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of

coarse fraction retained

on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

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

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

Sands:

50% or more of coarse

fraction passes No. 4

sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

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

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

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the

No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic: PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line J CL Lean clay K,L,M

PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL Organic clay K,L,M,N

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

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic: PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K,L,M

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

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH Organic clay K,L,M,P

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

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

A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles

or boulders, or both” to group name. C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded

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

graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded

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

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

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

6010

2

30

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name. G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name. I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name. J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,”

whichever is predominant. L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy” to

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

“gravelly” to group name. N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line. O PI 4 or plots below “A” line. P PI plots on or above “A” line. Q PI plots below “A” line.

Geotechnical Engineering Report - J.E. Hefner

Documents

Transcript of Geotechnical Engineering Report - J.E. Hefner