STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

download STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

of 48

Transcript of STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    1/48

    SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT

    FOR

    PROPOSED SHORT TERM PARKING GARAGE EXPANSION AT

    CLEVELAND HOPKINS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

    CLEVELAND, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIOJ&L PROJECT NO. JL10773

    PREPARED FOR

    C&S ENGINEERS, INC

    PREPARED BY

    J&L LABORATORIES, INC.215 Rainbow Street

    Wadsworth Ohio 44281Tel (330) 335-0606 Fax (330) 335-0908

    August 1, 2010

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    2/48

    August 1, 2010

    Mr. Matthew J . Wenham, P.E.C&S Engineers, Inc.One International Place20445 Emerald Parkway, Suite 100Cleveland, OH 44135

    Tel: (216) 619-5449 fax (216) 619-5453Email: [email protected]

    Ref.: Geotechnical Exploration for Parking Garage Expansion

    Cleveland Hopkins International Airpor t (CHIA)

    Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Ohio

    J&L Proposal No.: JL101309

    J&L Project No.: JL10773

    Dear Mr. Wenham:

    Enclosed, please find the Subsurface Investigation Report for the above referencedproject. Our services included field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, andrelated design and construction recommendations. These services have been provided inaccordance with our proposal prepared on April 27, 2010.

    We appreciate the opportunity of working with you on this project and we invite you tocontact us at (330) 335-0606 when we can be of further assistance.

    Respectfully,

    J&L Laboratories, Inc.

    J ohn Xu, P.E.Project Manager

    J X:lcEnclosurespc File: 10773r1.doc

    J&LLABORATORIES, INC. 215 RAINBOW STREET ph. (330) 335-0606WADSWORTH, OH 44281 fax (330) 335-0908

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    3/48

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................11.1 Project Description.......................................................................................................11.2 Authorization................................................................................................................. 11.3 Scope of Services.........................................................................................................1

    2.0 RECONNAISSANCE .............................................................................................................22.1 General Geological Setting........................................................................................... 22.2 Known and Probable Karst in the Site Area.................................................................22.3 Earthquake...................................................................................................................32.4 Underground Mines......................................................................................................3

    3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION...........................................................................................33.1 Planning........................................................................................................................33.2 Exploratory Test Boring................................................................................................ 33.3 Sample Analysis...........................................................................................................4

    4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...............................................................................................44.1 Subsurface Soil and Rock Conditions..........................................................................44.2 Groundwater Conditions...............................................................................................5

    5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................65.1 Conclusions and Foundation Options...........................................................................6

    6.0 Limitations ...........................................................................................................................7APPENDIX....................................................................................................................................8

    Site Location MapApproximate Test Boring LocationsKnown and Probable Karst in Ohio - MapEarthquake Fault Lines in Ohio - MapEarthquake Epicenter in Erie County, Ohio MapSeismic Wave Testing Report

    Test Boring LogsSummary of Laboratory Test ResultUnified Soil Classification System

    Laboratory Test StandardsDescription of Soil and Rock

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    4/48

    Proposed Shor t Term Parking Garage Expansion at CHIACleveland, Cuyahoga County , Ohio

    Page 1

    J&L Laboratories, Inc.10773r1.doc /8/1/2010

    1.0 INTRODUCTION

    1.1 Project DescriptionThis report has been prepared for a developed site in the northern portion of the City of

    Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The report represents the intent of the project owner, City

    of Cleveland, and the project design engineer, C&S Engineers, Inc. (the client), to secure

    subsurface information at selected locations which will aid the project design engineer in

    preparation of the STG Expansion Facility Study.

    The City of Cleveland is planning to expand the existing short term parking garage (STG)

    at Cleveland, Hopkins International Airport (CHIA) in Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The

    site is located between the exiting short term and long term parking garages next to Park Road.

    The potential site for horizontal expansion is currently used as overflow parking. The site is

    generally flat with asphalt pavement in most of the areas. According to our past experience

    working in the general area, bedrock including shale, silty Shale or sandstone may be found at

    depth more than 100 feet in the area and depth of rock becomes shallower few miles on the

    northwest of the site.

    The purpose of the investigation is to sample and test soil and rock and to provide

    additional subgrade information for the project design. The scope of services is limited to a

    geotechnical investigation and preliminary design parameters.

    1.2 Authorization

    C&S Engineers requested a proposal, for the above-mentioned project, from J&L

    Laboratories, Inc. on March 23, 2010. We submitted proposals on April 14 and April 27, 2010

    for the geotechnical exploration. The proposals were approved and written authorization to

    proceed with the project was given in writing by C&S Engineers on May 18, 2010.

    1.3 Scope of Services

    The detailed scope of services for this project was outlined in J &L proposal No. P101309dated April 27, 2010. J &Ls scope of services for field investigation included advancing six (6)

    test borings to depths ranging from 40 to 100 feet, installing 100 feet PVC casing, conducting

    seismic shear wave velocity measurements in the casing. Laboratory tests and a brief

    exploration report were included. Preparation of detailed geotechnical recommendations is

    beyond our scope of services for this project.

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    5/48

    Proposed Shor t Term Parking Garage Expansion at CHIACleveland, Cuyahoga County , Ohio

    Page 2

    J&L Laboratories, Inc.10773r1.doc /8/1/2010

    The scope of services did not include any environmental assessments for the presence or

    absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or

    air, on or below or around this site. Any statements in this report regarding odors, colors or

    unusual or suspicious items or conditions are strictly for the information for the client.

    2.0 RECONNAISSANCE

    J &L personnel performed site and in-house reconnaissance prior to field exploration for

    the project. The reconnaissance consisted of reviewing of available project information,

    geological information, our past project experience in the vicinity of the site area, and our

    cursory site visits. The following paragraphs outline the information obtained from the

    reconnaissance.

    2.1 General Geological Setting

    The project site lies on the glaciated, relatively smooth but dissected Mississippi Valley

    Plain, bordered on the west by the Rocky River, at an approximate elevation of 750 feet. The

    Wisconsin glacier passed over the area but in general left only a thin coating of drift, averaging

    less than 25 feet. Bedrock in the area consisted of mainly Devonian age shale or siltstone.

    Depth of bedrock in the general area varies from 13 to 200 feet. Due to the projects location at

    the airport, fill materials can be found in the vicinity of the general site areas.

    According to the Cuyahoga County Soil Survey Report dated December 2007, soils in the

    site area consisted of mainly Urban Land-Mahoning Association. Generally, these soils

    consisted of poorly drained, silty and loamy glacial till, on uplands and lake plain. These soils

    may be classified as CL, CL-ML, ML, SM, and SC according to Unified Soil Classification

    System (USCS).

    2.2 Known and Probable Karst in the Site Area

    Information obtained from Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of

    Natural Resources, no known Karst topography (i.e. sinkhole areas) in the vicinity of theCuyahoga County area was found. A map of Ohio Known Karst Areas is attached in the

    appendix of the report.

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    6/48

    Proposed Shor t Term Parking Garage Expansion at CHIACleveland, Cuyahoga County , Ohio

    Page 3

    J&L Laboratories, Inc.10773r1.doc /8/1/2010

    2.3 Earthquake

    The site is in the vicinity of recorded earthquake epicenters according to Ohio Earthquake

    Epicenters Map. The Ohio earthquake fault line map also indicated that one fault line was

    noted in vicinity of the site area. According to Ohios Building Code (2007), Table 1615.1.1, thissite may be in Site Class D with estimated Shear Wave Velocity Vs of 600 to 1,200 (ft/s). This

    estimation is done only based on Standard Penetration Test Result and general soil type. Since

    a seismic wave measurement field test was performed done on J uly 9th 2010 in boring B-2 on

    this site, more accurate information is outlined in the attached report.

    2.4 Underground Mines

    Information obtained from Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of

    Mines, no known underground mines are located in the vicinity of the project site area.

    3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

    3.1 Planning

    C&S Engineers selected the test-boring locations and investigative program. A total of six

    (6) test borings were planned for the soil study. The client provided preliminary site plan and

    staked all test boring locations in the field. These test boring locations are shown on the

    attached figure - "Approximate Test Boring Locations" in the appendix of this report. All test

    boring locations were mapped by the client. Grade elevations of these test borings were not

    provided to us presently. Therefore, depths are used in our report and each boring log. The

    project site is occupied by existing parking lots or landscaping grass or trees. Due to the site

    conditions, an ATV drilling rig was used for the site exploration.

    J &L personnel contacted Ohio Utility Protection Services (OUPS), Oil & Gas Producers

    Underground Protection Services (OGPUPS), project owner, and utility companies whose

    names were made available to us prior to commencing test-boring operations. The field drilling

    operation was delayed nearly a month due to the underground utility clearance process.

    3.2 Exploratory Test Boring

    The field explorations were performed in accordance with applicable ASTM Specifications.

    A CME D-750 ATV-mount drilling rig was mobilized to advance the test borings on May 20,

    2010, J une 22, 2010 through J une 30, 2010. Representative disturbed samples of soil were

    collected at center-to-center interval of 5.0 (or 2.5 at few sampling depths) feet and a Standard

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    7/48

    Proposed Shor t Term Parking Garage Expansion at CHIACleveland, Cuyahoga County , Ohio

    Page 4

    J&L Laboratories, Inc.10773r1.doc /8/1/2010

    Penetration Test (ASTM D-1586) were performed at each sampling interval. Undisturbed thin-

    walled, Shelby tube sample (in accordance with ASTM D-1587) was attempted in boring B-1. A

    2 ID schedule 40 PVC casing was installed in the boring B-2 for Seismic Wave measurement

    purpose. The Seismic wave measurement was conducted in the field on July 9, 2010 byGrumman Exploration, Inc.

    Test borings were monitored for the presence of groundwater during and upon completion

    of the drilling operations before filling the borehole. Long term groundwater monitoring was not

    planned for the project. The test drilling logs, included in the Appendix of this report, show the

    SPT resistance (N) values for each soil sample obtained in the test borings, and present the

    classification and description of soils or rock encountered at various depths in the test borings.

    3.3 Sample AnalysisA geotechnical engineer visually examined all soil and rock samples obtained during the

    field investigation. The engineer selected representative soil samples to be tested in the

    laboratory for assistance in soil classification and determination of engineering properties of the

    soils. The tests consisted of Moisture Content Determination, Particle-Size Analysis, Liquid

    Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index Determinations, and One Dimensional Consolidation

    tests. All tests were performed in accordance with ASTM, AASHTO or other standards listed in

    a table located in the Appendix. The soils were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil

    Classification System (USCS). A description of the classification system and the results of the

    laboratory tests are included in the Appendix.

    4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

    4.1 Subsurface Soil and Rock Conditions

    Very similar subgrade conditions were encountered in all six (6) test borings. All test

    borings were advanced through soil outside pavement or sidewalk concrete areas. A thin layer

    (2 to 3 inches thick) of topsoil was found in boring B-1 and B-2. Fill material was found in the

    upper 3.5 feet in boring B-1, in the upper 5.0 feet in boring B-2, in the upper 7.5 feet in boring B-

    5, and in the upper 3.5 feet in boring B-6.

    Relatively consistent subsurface conditions were encountered in the test borings. The

    subgrade soils found from all borings predominantly consisted of Silty Clay, Lean Clay with

    Sand, Sandy Lean Clay with Sand, Sandy Lean Clay with Gravel classified as CL (according to

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    8/48

    Proposed Shor t Term Parking Garage Expansion at CHIACleveland, Cuyahoga County , Ohio

    Page 5

    J&L Laboratories, Inc.10773r1.doc /8/1/2010

    the Unified Soil Classification System-USCS). Silty Clay Sand (SC-SM) was found between

    depths of 35.0 to 40.0 feet in boring B-1. Silt with Sand (ML) was found between depths of 20.0

    to 25.0 feet in boring B-6. Bedrock was not encountered in any test borings.

    Consistency of the cohesive soils was found to range from stiff to hard, but was

    predominantly very stiff to hard. Relative density of one non-cohesive sample found in boring

    B-1 was found to be dense. According to the soil density (or consistency) profile, it appeared

    that SPT blow count N values were consistently high below approximate depth of 25 (in most

    borings) to 30 feet (in boring B-2). Whether or not the trend was resulted from man-made filling

    construction is unknown. We think the soils in the upper 25 to 30 feet might not be as

    consistent as in the lower portion of the subgrade.

    A summary of laboratory test results is included in the appendix of this report. The

    laboratory test results indicate that the natural moisture contents of the tested cohesive soils

    ranged from 7 o 25%, but most of them are less than 15% (or equal to or less than their plastic

    limits). When CL soils have a moisture content less than 15%, the moisture content is normally

    within (or slightly less than) the optimum moisture content range. These moisture contents are

    typical for the CL soils in moist condition. Normally, soils with moisture contents greater than

    their liquid limits are in a liquid condition and have no shear strength. Soils with their moisture

    contents less than their liquid limits and greater than or equal to their plastic limits are in a

    plastic state, and have a potential for volume change. When natural moisture content of

    cohesive soil is less than its plastic limits, the soil is in a semi-solid state and has low potential

    for volume change under certain loading pressure.

    One (1) consolidation test was performed using a sample obtained between depths of 8.0

    and 9.0 feet from test boring B-1. This test indicated that an over consolidation ratio of 2.0 was

    found from the tested soil sample. The test result is attached in the appendix of the report.

    4.2 Groundwater Conditions

    Water was only encountered in test boring B-2 during and upon completion of drilling

    operations at depths of 77.5 and 60.3 feet, respectively. It is possible that granular lenses exist

    between the clayey soils, and seepage water flowed inside the boring hole. It is common that

    dry hole condition can be found in stiff to hard clayey soils.

    The water level readings were conducted during a short period of time. The water level

    readings are listed in each boring log. More accurate water level readings may be obtained by

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    9/48

    Proposed Shor t Term Parking Garage Expansion at CHIACleveland, Cuyahoga County , Ohio

    Page 6

    J&L Laboratories, Inc.10773r1.doc /8/1/2010

    the installation of groundwater monitoring wells and conducting water level readings over a

    longer period of time or from other available records if it is required. The water level is subject

    to seasonal fluctuations and may be encountered where previously not recorded. During

    construction, the contractor(s) should pay more attention on surface water flow and plan propersurface drainage (especially in low-lying areas) according to weather and seasonal factors.

    5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    5.1 Conclusions and Foundation Options

    Based on the above findings, we provide the following preliminary recommendations for

    the proposed foundation design.

    The subgrade soils in the upper 25 to 30 feet may be involved different staged glaciations

    or human construction activity. The relatively similar density profile in all six borings seems

    reveal this pattern. However, we dont have enough evidence to confirm this assumption. A

    hard stratum was found below 25 to 30 feet (the top layer).

    Conventional spread footing may be used to support the proposed column or wall footings

    if consolidation settlements are within the tolerable range. However, the total of six test borings

    drilled for mainly the purpose of preliminary study, and these borings are not considered

    sufficient for the final foundation design (to reveal possible strata changes between borings).

    Additional test borings in the middle portion of the site should be considered (unless previous

    investigations reveal more information on the site) in the future.

    End bearing drilled shafts can be used to support the heavy column load and provide very

    reliable foundation support if conventional spread footings are questionable, however, the cost

    can be much higher. As an alternative, we believe the GeopierTM foundation system can be

    considered as a suitable subgrade improvement system. The system has been used in many

    similar projects, and improved the seismic site class and greatly increase the soil bearing

    capacity (reduce the foundation cost). GeopierTM foundation system is invented to improve the

    subgrade soil density in the upper 25 to 30 feet. This site appeared to have the need for

    improvement mainly in the upper 25 feet of the subgrade. According to information provided by

    GeopierTM Foundation system, they have installed GeopierTM foundation to support a heavy

    column load of 5,000 kips.

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    10/48

    Proposed Shor t Term Parking Garage Expansion at CHIACleveland, Cuyahoga County , Ohio

    Page 7

    J&L Laboratories, Inc.10773r1.doc /8/1/2010

    We also discussed with the client and other team members the need for additional

    Seismic wave measuring inside the existing garage STG. Our drilling crew is capable of using a

    skid rig if the head space is more than 12 feet. We can keep searching lower profile drilling

    equipment for head space less than this vertical dimension.

    6.0 Limitations

    This report is developed based on the field exploration program, laboratory soil and/or

    rock testing, and information secured for design studies. It should be noted that the site

    exploration identified actual subsurface conditions only at those locations where samples are

    obtained. The data derived through sampling and the subsequent laboratory testing program

    was reduced by geotechnical engineers and geologists who then render an opinion regarding

    the overall subsurface conditions, and their likely reaction on the site. Information regarding

    project foundation design (such as foundation type, size, recommended CBR values etc.) is

    preliminary information that is developed and based mainly on geotechnical data to aid the

    project design engineer. This report is not prepared for potential construction contractor(s)

    since on-site testing was only performed at limited locations for preliminary site study purpose.

    Project design engineers should conduct additional analysis to finalize their design. The overall

    subsurface conditions may differ slightly from those inferred on the basis of drilling and

    sampling.

    The subsurface conditions described are based on an examination of the soil or rock

    samples obtained at the sampling intervals. The soil deposits or rock formations, including fill

    material, may vary between the sampling intervals and between the test boring locations.

    Variation in subsurface conditions from those indicated in this report may become apparent

    during the earthwork and/or installation of the foundations. Such variations may require

    changes and/or modifications in our recommendations. Such changes may cause time delays

    and/or additional costs. Owners must be made aware of these limitations and must incorporate

    them in the design budget and scheduling of the project. This report has been prepared for the

    exclusive use of the project owner, Cleveland Port Authority, and the project design engineer,

    C&S Engineers, Inc. for the specific application to the proposed Short Term Parking Garage

    Expansion in Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    11/48

    APPENDIX

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    12/48

    Site Location Map N

    J &L ProjectNo.

    Project Location Client Scale

    JL10773 CHIA Parking Garage Expansion Cleveland, Cuyahoga Co., Ohio C&S Engineers (No Scale)

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    13/48

    FORDOWNHOLESEISMICTEST

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    14/48

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    15/48

    _

    _

    _

    _

    _

    _

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.!.

    !.

    !.

    !.!.!.

    !.!.!.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.!.!.!.

    !.

    !.!.

    !.

    !.

    !.!.

    !.!.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.!.!.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.!.

    !.

    !.

    !. !.

    !. !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.!.!. !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.!.

    !.

    !.!.!.!.

    !.

    !.

    !. !.!.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.!.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.

    !.!.

    90

    76

    80

    71

    271

    77

    680

    480

    277

    490

    77

    4801955

    1955

    19511943

    19401940

    19401940

    19291906

    1899

    18881886

    1885

    1883

    1868

    1858

    18501836

    2010

    2010

    2010

    2010

    2010

    2009

    2009

    2009

    2008

    2008

    2008

    2007

    2007

    2007

    2007

    2006

    2006

    2006

    2006 2006

    20052005

    2005

    2000

    1998

    1998

    1995

    1995

    1990

    1989

    2003

    2003

    2002

    2002

    2000

    2000

    1998

    1991

    1991

    1988

    1986

    MUCO

    LECO

    LCCO

    KSUO

    CLEO

    ACEO

    AKRON

    CLEVELAND

    LORAIN

    PARMAELYRIA

    YOUNGSTOWN

    EUCLID

    LAKEWOOD

    GREEN

    AVON

    HUDSON

    SOLON

    STOW

    AURORA

    NORTON

    WARREN

    KIRTLAND

    STREETSBORO

    STRONGSVILLE

    KENT

    BRECKSVILLE

    MEDINA

    NILES

    NORTH RIDGEVILLE

    NORTH ROYALTON

    TALLMADGE

    BRUNSWICK

    TWINSBURG

    VERMILION

    AVON LAKE

    ALLIANCE

    GIRARD

    SALEM

    WILLOUGHBY

    BARBERTON

    AMHERST

    RITTMAN

    WADSWORTH

    WILLOUGHBY HILLS

    PEPPER PIKE

    RAVENNA

    BEDFORD

    OBERLIN

    CANFIELD

    FAIRLAWN

    CORTLAND

    LYNDHURST

    NORTH CANTON

    NEWTON FALLS

    CANAL FULTON

    HURON

    810'0"W

    810'0"W

    820'0"W

    820'0"W

    420'0"N

    420'0"N

    410'0"N

    410'0"N

    EAR

    0 7 14 21 28 35 Scale in Miles

    DISCLThis product of the Ohio Department of Natural Resourcegeneral information only and should not be used for any otsite-specific investigations. These data were complied by tthe publication rights to this material. If these data are usdistribution or publication, this source must be referenced.

    Recommended bib2002 (Revised 2008), Earthquake epicenters in Ohio andMap EG-2, Internet Mapping Service, http://www.dnr.

    0 8 16 24 32Scale in Kilometers

    EXPLA

    Instrum

    Magnitu

    !.

    !.

    !.!.

    ~dp~

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    16/48

    254

    10

    2

    17

    237

    252

    291

    254

    237

    252480

    90

    71

    6

    20

    42

    CUYAHOGA

    LORAIN

    DOVER TWP. ROCKPORT TWP.

    OLMSTED TWP. MIDDLEBURG TWP. PARMA TWP.

    AVON TWP.

    BROOKLYN TWP.

    RIDGEVILLE TWP.

    CITY OF CLEVELAND TWP.

    CLEVELAND

    PARMA

    LAKEWOOD

    WESTLAKE

    NORTH OLMSTED

    BROOK PARK

    BEREA

    AVON

    ROCKY RIVER

    BAY VILLAGE

    FAIRVIEW PARK

    BROOKLYN

    PARMA HEIGHTSMIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS

    AVON LAKE

    OLMSTED FALLS

    AB

    DISCLAIMERThis product of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey is

    intended to provide general information only and should not be used for any other purposes.It is not intended for resale or to replace site-specific investigations.

    These data were complied by the Ohio Division of Geological Survey, which reserves thepublication rights to this material. If these data are used in the compilation of other

    data sets or maps for distribution or publication, this source must be referenced.

    0 0.75 1.5 2.25 30.375

    Miles

    0 0.75 1.5 2.25 30.375Kilometers

    Ma

    h

    Legend

    !< Air{

    Dri

    45Ve

    45

    Inc

    Min

    Un

    Aff

    PeUn

    Un

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    17/48

    Page 1of 1

    5/8/2010http://img.geocaching.com/cache/795bdee -51f6-4c03-9417-041d919784c6.jpg

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    18/48

    Grumman Exploration, Inc.2309 Dorset RoadColumbus, Ohio 43221

    (614) 488-7860 tel; (614) 488-8945 fax

    Non-destructive Subsurface ExplorationNear-surface Geophysics

    July 15, 2010

    John XuJ&L Laboratories, Inc.215 Rainbow St.Wadsworth, OH 44281

    RE: Report of Downhole Seismic Testing for the Proposed Cleveland HopkinsInternational Airport Short Term Parking Garage Expansion Project Located atTerminal Drive and Park Road in Cleveland, Ohio; GEI Project No. 01-30046

    Dear John:

    Grumman Exploration, Inc. has completed the downhole seismic testing at the abovereferenced project site located at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. This letter-reportsummarizes the field procedures used and results of the tests performed at this site. Theattached spreadsheets and plots summarize the estimated seismic velocities and derived

    parameters for the borehole tested.

    Project DescriptionJ&L Laboratories, Inc. is engaged in geotechnical investigations at the Proposed ClevelandHopkins International Airport Short Term Garage Expansion project site. Downholeseismic testing of a single borehole was requested to assist in the evaluation and design ofstructures proposed for this project. Among the requirements and assumptions of thedownhole testing procedure are: homogeneous isotropic subsurface materials, consistentannular space material, filling and diameter, and minimal ambient noise. The test borehole,B-2, is located in a grassy parkway area near the southeast corner of the existing short termparking garage complex.

    Field ProceduresGrumman Exploration, Inc. conducted downhole seismic tests on borehole B-2 (renamed B-2) on July 9, 2010 as specified by J&L Laboratories, Inc. The borehole was lined withapproximately 99.5-ft of 2" diameter PVC casing and was grouted in-place using a cementbentonite grout.

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    19/48

    Report of Downhole Seismic TestingProposed Cleveland Hopkins International Airport Short Term Garage ExpansionTerminal Drive and Park Road, Cleveland, OhioJ&L Laboratories, Inc.July 15, 2010 Page 2

    The following field equipment and procedures were used to conduct the tests:

    Geometrics, Inc. SmartSeis S-12, 12 channel, digital signal enhancementseismograph,

    Two (2) triaxial downhole geophones, 5-ft geophone separations with mechanicalsidewall clamping mechanisms, and

    Sledge hammer source, steel plate and weighted wood plank.

    Tests were performed at 5-ft intervals using a 5-ft geophone separation. The seismographsampling rate was 62.5 microseconds (0.063 milli-seconds) with a total sweep time of 128milliseconds; This resulted in a total of 2048 samples per channel for each test. The testpreparation procedures consisted of lowering the geophones to the desired test depth. Threetests were performed at each test interval using multiple impacts from a sledgehammerstriking a steel plate. The plate was struck from three positions on the plank: top (P-wave)and opposite sides (S wave, opposing polarities). The impacts from opposite sides of theplank were used to help identify the onset of the shear wave by observing the reversal inwave polarity. Between 1 and 3 impacts were stacked to help enhance the compressional(P) and shear (S) wave signatures and cancel spurious noise effects. A 4WD vehicle wasused to weight the plank.

    The data were observed and recorded in the field during acquisition and later returned to theoffices of Grumman Exploration, Inc. for further review and analysis. The analysisconsisted of estimating the earliest onset of the P-wave and S wave for each depth leveltested. The compressional and shear-wave arrivals were estimated using the results fromthe string of three geophones at each test depth.

    A computer program developed by Grumman Exploration, Inc. was used to extract,compare and display the P and S-wave traces for the geophones used for each test interval.Using the arrival time estimates, P and S wave velocities were calculated for each depthinterval. The velocity calculation was based on the difference in arrival times and straight-line travel distances to each geophone using the in-hole depth to each geophone and theground-level offset distance of the seismic impulse. Apparently erroneous or unrealisticallyhigh or low velocity estimates were eliminated from the data summary tables. Because

    three geophones were used for each test, multiple velocity estimates were available for someof the geophone positions.

    Downhole Seismic Testing ResultsThe attached spreadsheets summarize the downhole seismic testing results for the testborehole B-2 at the proposed Short Term Garage Expansion site located at ClevelandHopkins International Airport in Cleveland, Ohio. The spreadsheet includes a summary of

    Grumman Exploration, Inc.2309 Dorset Road, Columbus, Ohio 43221

    (614) 488-7860 tel, (614) 488-8945 fax

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    20/48

    Report of Downhole Seismic TestingProposed Cleveland Hopkins International Airport Short Term Garage ExpansionTerminal Drive and Park Road, Cleveland, OhioJ&L Laboratories, Inc.July 15, 2010 Page 3

    the shear wave velocity (Vs) and compressional wave velocity (Vp) estimates. Plots of theestimated compressional and shear wave velocity profiles are included on Figure 1. Figure

    2 illustrates a composite of some of the seismic waveforms used in the analysis of the testresults. The table below presents the estimated compressional and shear wave velocities forB-2.

    Test

    Estimated

    Velocity

    Interval (ft/sec)

    Depth

    (ft) Vp Vs5.0 4656 340

    10.0 8712 508

    15.0 119020.0 9637 982

    25.0 8137 1301

    30.0 8196 1391

    35.0 9878 1226

    40.0 4953 1201

    45.0 1235

    50.0 7100 1375

    55.0 7107 1459

    60.0 1307

    65.0 9964 1308

    70.0 9969 1555

    75.0 8311 2074

    80.0 262285.0 6237 1384

    90.0 7130 1278

    92.5 8319 1187

    95.0 8319 1173

    The estimated shear-wave velocities (Vs) from the ground surface to a depth ofapproximately 10-ft are low and may reflect a zone of poorly consolidated shallow fill.From approximately 25-ft to 70-ft, Vs is estimated in a fairly narrow range of 1200 fps up to1400 fps, with occasional Vs estimates slightly higher or lower. A stratum of higher Vs isobserved between approximately 70-ft and 85-ft, while Vs returns to a levels close to 1200

    fps from 85-ft to the end of the boring. The Vs waveforms were reasonably well developedthroughout the test hole making the shear wave velocity estimates more reliable. Thecompressional wave velocity (Vp) estimates were consistently in the 7000 fps to 9000 fpsrange over most of the test hole, with a few locations exhibiting higher or lower Vp values.Note that for saturated materials, Vp cannot be lower than ~ 4,900 fps, which is theapproximate acoustic wave velocity of fresh water. The P-waveforms were less welldeveloped throughout most of test borehole compared to the S-waveforms. This in turn

    Grumman Exploration, Inc.2309 Dorset Road, Columbus, Ohio 43221

    (614) 488-7860 tel, (614) 488-8945 fax

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    21/48

    Report of Downhole Seismic TestingProposed Cleveland Hopkins International Airport Short Term Garage ExpansionTerminal Drive and Park Road, Cleveland, OhioJ&L Laboratories, Inc.July 15, 2010 Page 4

    makes the Vp estimates less relaiable, although a range of 7000 to 9000 fps is consistent forsome of the denser, more consolidated materials noted in the boring log.

    Bias in the arrival time picks and consequently the velocity estimates could result from oneor more possible circumstances including: difficulty in estimating the S and P wave arrivaltimes, irregular or incomplete borehole annular space filling, refraction or multi-pathingeffects (non-straight line or multiple travel paths), limitations on the resolution of thedigitized signal, and the presence of interfering noise and other wavetrains. These resultsshould be reviewed by the geotechnical or structural engineer or consultant that will beperforming the foundation and structural design analysis for this site.

    General QualificationsThe downhole seismic data presented herein represent estimates of subsurface properties in

    the immediate vicinity of the boreholes tested using the measurement procedures describedabove. No warranty, certification, or statement of fact, either expressed or implied,regarding actual subsurface properties surrounding the borehole tested is contained herein.If questions or uncertainties exist regarding the actual parameter values, supplemental in-situ or laboratory tests or other invasive explorations should be conducted to documentactual subsurface material properties. No inference of subsurface properties can be madefor depth intervals not tested.

    Grumman Exploration, Inc. has appreciated this opportunity to be of service to J&LLaboratories, Inc. If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please feelfree to contact us.

    Sincerely,

    Grumman Exploration, Inc.

    David L. Grumman, Jr.President/Geophysicist

    Attachments:B-2 Downhole Seismic Summary.xlsB-2 Velocity vs. Depth Plot (Figure 1)B-2 Downhole Seismic Test Waveforms Plot (Figure 2)

    Grumman Exploration, Inc.2309 Dorset Road, Columbus, Ohio 43221

    (614) 488-7860 tel, (614) 488-8945 fax

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    22/48

    FOR DOWNHOLE SEISMIC TEST

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    23/48

    S Project: Cleveland Hopkins Intl Airport - Short Term Parking Garage Expansion

    Location: Park Rd. & Terminal Dr., Cleveland, OH

    Borehole: B-2 Wave Type : Shear

    Ground Offset 7 ft

    Test ID (5-ft test interval) Velocity

    Depth A B C Avg (fp Depth0.0 0.00.5 0.51.0 1.01.5 1.5. .

    2.5 23.20 2.53.0 3.03.5 3.54.0 4.04.5 4.55.0 340 340 5.05.5 5.56.0 6.06.5 6.5. .. . . .

    8.0 8.08.5 8.5

    9.0 9.09.5 9.5

    10.0 508 508 10.010.5 10.511.0 11.011.5 11.5

    . .

    . . . .

    13.0 13.013.5 13.514.0 14.014.5 14.515.0 1190 1190 15.015.5 15.516.0 16.016.5 16.5

    . .

    . . . .18.0 18.018.5 18.519.0 19.019.5 19.520.0 982 982 20.020.5 20.521.0 21.021.5 21.5

    . .

    . . . .

    23.0 23.023.5 23.524.0 24.024.5 24.525.0 1301 1301 25.0

    25.5 25.526.0 26.026.5 26.5

    . .

    . . . .

    28.0 28.028.5 28.529.0 29.029.5 29.530.0 1391 1391 30.030.5 30.531.0 31.031.5 31.5

    . .

    . . . .

    33.0 33.0

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    24/48

    33.5 33.534.0 34.034.5 34.535.0 1226 1226 35.035.5 35.536.0 36.036.5 36.5

    . .

    . . . .

    38.0 38.0

    38.5 38.539.0 39.039.5 39.540.0 1201 1201 40.040.5 40.541.0 41.041.5 41.5

    . .

    . . . .

    43.0 43.043.5 43.544.0 44.044.5 44.545.0 1235 1235 45.045.5 45.546.0 46.046.5 46.5

    . .

    . . . .

    48.0 48.048.5 48.549.0 49.049.5 49.550.0 1375 1375 50.050.5 50.551.0 51.051.5 51.5

    . .

    . . . .

    53.0 53.053.5 53.554.0 54.054.5 54.5

    55.0 1459 1459 55.055.5 55.556.0 56.056.5 56.5

    . .

    . . . .

    58.0 58.058.5 58.559.0 59.059.5 59.560.0 1307 1307 60.060.5 60.561.0 61.061.5 61.5

    . .

    . . . .

    63.0 63.0

    63.5 63.564.0 64.064.5 64.565.0 1308 1308 65.065.5 65.566.0 66.066.5 66.5

    . .

    . . . .

    68.0 68.068.5 68.569.0 69.069.5 69.570.0 1555 1555 70.070.5 70.5

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    25/48

    71.0 71.071.5 71.5

    . .

    . . . .

    73.0 73.073.5 73.574.0 74.074.5 74.575.0 2074 2074 75.075.5 75.5

    76.0 76.076.5 76.5. .. . . .

    78.0 78.078.5 78.579.0 79.079.5 79.580.0 2622 2622 80.080.5 80.581.0 81.081.5 81.5

    . .

    . . . .

    83.0 83.083.5 83.584.0 84.0

    84.5 84.585.0 1384 1384 85.085.5 85.586.0 86.086.5 86.5

    . .

    . . . .

    88.0 88.088.5 88.589.0 89.0

    . .

    90.0 1278 98.80 1278 90.090.5 90.591.0 91.091.5 91.5

    . .

    . . . .93.0 93.093.5 93.594.0 94.094.5 94.5

    . . .

    95.5 95.596.0 96.096.5 96.597.0 97.0

    . . .

    98.0 98.098.5 98.599.0 99.099.5 99.5

    Notes: Shaded cells are geophone locations w/ est'd arrival times (msec), Red values are velocity estimates (fps) for depth interval

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    26/48

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 1 05 1 10 1 15 1 20 1 25 1 30

    -0.4

    -0.2

    0

    0.2

    0.4

    0 5 10 15 2 0 2 5 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 1 05 1 10 1 15 1 20 1 25 1 30

    -0.2

    -0.1

    0

    0.1

    0.2

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 1 05 1 10 1 15 1 20 1 25 1 30

    -0.4

    -0.2

    0

    0.2

    0.4

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 1 05 1 10 1 15 1 20 1 25 1 30

    -0.4

    0

    0.4

    0 5 10 1 5 2 0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 1 05 1 10 1 15 1 20 1 25 1 30

    -0.4

    -0.2

    0

    0.2

    0.4

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 1 05 1 10 1 15 1 20 1 25 1 30

    -0.4

    -0.2

    0

    0.2

    0.4

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 1 05 1 10 1 15 1 20 1 25 1 30

    -0.4

    0

    0.4

    0 5 10 15 2 0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 1 05 1 10 1 15 1 20 1 25 1 30

    -0.4

    0

    0.4

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 1 05 1 10 1 15 1 20 1 25 1 30

    -0.8

    -0.4

    0

    0.4

    0.8

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 1 05 1 10 1 15 1 20 1 25 1 30

    -1

    0

    1

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 1 05 1 10 1 15 1 20 1 25 1 30

    -1

    0

    1

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 1 05 1 10 1 15 1 20 1 25 1 30

    -1

    0

    1

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 1 05 1 10 1 15 1 20 1 25 1 30

    -0.4

    0

    0.4

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 1 05 1 10 1 15 1 20 1 25 1 30

    -1

    0

    1

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 1 05 1 10 1 15 1 20 1 25 1 30

    -1

    0

    1

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 1 05 1 10 1 15 1 20 1 25 1 30

    -20

    -10

    0

    10

    20

    0 5 1 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 1 05 1 10 1 15 1 20 1 25 1 30

    -40

    -20

    0

    20

    40

    Project

    Client

    Location

    Date

    ProjectNo.

    By

    Scale

    Checked

    Grumm

    anExploration,

    Inc.

    2 3 0 9 D o r s e t R o a d

    , C o l u m b u s , O h i o 4 3 2 2 1

    Near-surfaceGeophysics,Non-destructiveSubsurfaceExploration

    B - 2 D o w n h o l e S e i s m i c T e s t i n g D a t a P l o t s f o r L o w e r G e

    o p h o n e : 5 - f t t o 9 5 - f t ; T e s t I n t e r v a l s a t 5 - f t i n

    c r e m e n t s

    C l e v e l a n d H o p k i n s S

    T P G a r a g e D o w n h o l e S e i s m i c

    C & S L a b o r a t o r i e s

    d l g

    7 / 1 4 / 1 0

    01-30046

    P a r k R d .

    & T e r m i

    n a l D r . C l e v e l a n d ,

    O H

    Geophone/TestIntervalDepth:

    97.5

    to

    52.5

    ( f t b e l o w

    g r o u n d s u r f a c e )

    Geophone/TestIntervalDepth:

    47.5

    to

    7.5

    ( f t b e l o w

    g r o u n d s u r f a c e )

    8 7 . 5

    3 7 . 5

    7 7 . 5

    2 7 . 5

    6 7 . 5

    1 7 . 5

    5 7 . 5

    7 . 5

    9 2 . 5

    4 2 . 5

    8 2 .

    5

    3 2 . 5

    7 2 . 5

    2 2 . 5

    6 2 . 5

    1 2 . 5

    5 2 . 5

    90-ft 40-ft

    80-ft 30-ft

    70-ft 20-ft

    60-ft10-ft

    95-ft 45-ft

    85-ft 35-ft

    75-ft 25-ft

    65-ft 15-ft

    55-ft

    E s t i m a t e d s h e a r ( S )

    w a v e a r r i v a l

    E s t i m a t e d c o m p r e s s i o n a l ( P )

    w a v e a r r i v a l

    A s s h o w n

    L e g e n d :

    C o m p r e s s i o n a l - w a v e ( P ) , v e r t i c a l g e p h o n e

    S h e a r - w a v

    e ( S ) G e o p h o n e L 1 ,

    P o l a r i t y 1

    S h e a r - w a v

    e ( S ) G e o p h o n e L 1 ,

    P o l a r i t y 2

    S h e a r - w a v

    e ( S ) G e o p h o n e L 2 ,

    P o l a r i t y 1

    S h e a r - w a v

    e ( S ) G e o p h o n e L 2 ,

    P o l a r i t y 2

    Notes:

    G e o m e t r i c s S - 1

    2 1 2 C

    h a n n e l s e i s m o g r a p h

    2 t r i a x i a l 2 8 H z g e o p h o

    n e s ,

    5 - f

    t s e p a r a t i o n

    5 - f

    t t e s t i n t e r v a l

    T e s t d a t e :

    J u l y 9 ,

    2 0 1 0

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    27/48

    LegendP-wave Velocity (fps)

    S-wave Velocity (fps)

    Poisson's Ratio

    0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

    Estimated Velocity (fps) B-2

    95

    90

    85

    80

    75

    70

    65

    60

    55

    50

    45

    40

    35

    30

    25

    20

    15

    10

    5

    0

    Depth(ft)

    0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

    P o i s s o n ' s R a t i o

    Project

    Client

    Location

    Date

    Project No.

    By

    ScaleChecked

    G r u mman E x p l or a t io n , I n c .2309 Do rset Ro ad, Co lumb us, Oh io 43221

    Near - sur face Geoph ysics, Non- destr uctive Subsur face Explor ation

    Figure Title

    Cle ve la nd Ho p kin s STP Ga ra g e Do wn ho le Se i smi c

    J & L L a b o ra t o r i es dlg 7/13/10

    01-30046 ntsB-2; Estimated Velocity vs. Depth1

    P a r k R d . & Te r m i n al D r. , C l e v e la n d , O H

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    28/48

    Downhole Seismic Testing Summary Table

    Test/Well ID: B-2 Gru

    Project: Cleveland Hopkins Intl Airport - Short Term Parking Garage Expansion 2309

    Location: Park Rd. & Terminal Dr., Cleveland, OH Test Date: 7/9/2010 Colum

    Client/Owner: J &L Laboratories, Inc. Calc. Date: 7/25/2010 (614)

    Field Staff: dlgWell Descr.: 2" PVC, grouted, ~99.5' depth BGS Data Proc by: dlg Eqp: Geom

    5-ft Geophone 3 tria

    Test Spacing Velocity Poisson's sledg

    Interval (ft/sec) Ratio

    Depth (ft) Vp Vs Depth (ft) Material Descr/Class5.0 4656 340 0.497 5.00

    10.0 8712 508 0.498 10.00

    15.0 1190 15.00

    20.0 9637 982 0.495 20.00

    25.0 8137 1301 0.487 25.00

    30.0 8196 1391 0.485 30.00

    35.0 9878 1226 0.492 35.00

    40.0 4953 1201 0.469 40.0045.0 1235 45.00

    50.0 7100 1375 0.481 50.00

    55.0 7107 1459 0.478 55.00

    60.0 1307 60.00

    65.0 9964 1308 0.491 65.00

    70.0 9969 1555 0.488 70.00

    75.0 8311 2074 0.467 75.00

    80.0 2622 80.00

    85.0 6237 1384 0.474 85.00

    90.0 7130 1278 0.483 90.00

    95.0 8319 1173 0.490 95.00

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    29/48

    Project

    Client

    Location

    Date

    Project No.

    By

    ScaleChecked

    Grumman Exploration, Inc.2309 Dorset Road, Columbus, Ohio 43221Near-surface Geophysics, Non-destructive Subsurface Exploration

    Figure Titlents

    DOWNHOLE SEISMIC TESTING EXAMPLE

    dlg 5/01/02

    Notes:Geometrics, Inc. S12, 12-chan seismograph5-ft triaxial geophone spacing, 4 geophonesSledge-hammer impulse source

    Schematic Downhole Testing Procedures and Results

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

    -4

    0

    4

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

    -8

    -4

    0

    4

    8

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

    -8

    -4

    0

    4

    8

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

    -8

    -4

    0

    4

    8

    S-wave arrivalP-wave arrival

    Seismograph

    Vibration Sensors(geophones)

    Compressional

    wave (P) Shot

    Shear wave

    (S) Shot

    PVC cased

    borehole

    A) Field Operation

    B) Sample Waveforms C) Velocity vs. Depth Plots

    Geop

    hone

    #1

    (sha

    llow

    )

    Geop

    hone

    #4

    (deep

    )

    DEPTH

    0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

    EstimatedVelocity (fps) B-##

    50

    45

    40

    35

    30

    25

    20

    15

    10

    5

    0

    Depth(ft)

    0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5Poisson's Ratio

    LegendP-wave Velocity (fps)

    S-wave Velocity (fps)Poisson'sRatio

    Grumman Exploration, Inc. 2002

    TIME (msec)

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    30/48

    FIELD BOREHOLE LOGBOREHOLE NUMBER

    PROJ ECT NUMBER:

    PROJ ECT NAME:

    LOCATION:

    DRILLING CO:

    DRILLING METHOD:

    DRILLERS:

    GEOLOGIST:

    DATE BEGUN: DATE COMPLETED:

    STATION:

    TOTAL DEPTH: SURFACE ELEVATION:

    DEPTH DESCRIPTION

    OFFSET:

    TYPE

    CLIENT:

    WATER LEVELS:

    DURING DRILLING:

    UPON COMPLETION:

    AFTER COMPLETION:

    W% ELEV.DEPTHNO.

    SAMPLE INFORMATION

    N60N

    J &L-ENG5 LOG (rev. 01/14/02) PAGE 1 OF 2

    0.0

    5.0

    10.0

    15.0

    20.0

    25.0

    30.0

    35.0

    40.0

    45.0

    0

    -5

    -10

    -15

    -20

    -25

    -30

    -35

    -40

    -45

    3-1/4" HSA

    JL10773

    CHIA Parking Lot Expansion

    Cleveland, Cuyahoga Count y, OH

    MOD

    Tuttle, Gregory

    LC

    6/30/2010 6/30/2010

    N/A

    N/A

    71.5'

    N/A

    C&S Engineers, Inc.

    N/A

    Dry

    Dry

    (ft) (ft) (ft)

    B-1

    BLOWS/0.5 (ft)

    0.3

    3.5

    24.0

    35.0

    40.0

    TOPSOIL: 3"

    FILL: Brown, medium dense SILTY CLAYEY SAND,trace gravel, asphalt, slag, moist.

    CL: Brown/gray mottled, stiff LEAN CLAY WITH SANDto SANDY LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, moist.

    NOTE: Shelby tubes were pushed at 8.0 and 18.0 ft.Hydrulic pump peak reading was 1000 and 1500 psiduring tube pussing at 8 and 18.0 ft, respectively.

    NOTE: Shelby tube was pushed at 18.0 feet. Norecovery due to possibly rock fragments in soil. SPTimmediately was followed.

    CL: Gray, hard to very stiff LEAN CLAY WITH SAND,trace gravel, moist.

    SC-SM: Gray, dense SILTY CLAY SAND, trace gravel,moist.

    CL: Gray, very stiff to hard LEAN CLAY WITH SAND,moist.

    NOTE: It took much longer time to drill through the hardsoil layers. The driller was running out of time to competethe bore hole to originally planned depth of 100 ft before

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5A

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    SS

    SS

    ST

    SS

    ST

    SS

    SS

    SS

    SS

    SS

    SS

    16

    9

    --

    14

    --

    10+

    32

    34

    28

    47

    31

    --

    --

    --

    13

    17

    13

    10

    9

    10

    10

    9

    11

    6-8-8

    3-4-5

    REC: 19"

    4-6-8

    REC: 0"

    9-10

    8-15-17

    13-14-20

    9-12-16

    16-22-25

    9-13-18

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    31/48

    FIELD BOREHOLE LOGBOREHOLE NUMBER

    PROJ ECT NUMBER:

    PROJ ECT NAME:

    LOCATION:

    DRILLING CO:

    DRILLING METHOD:

    DRILLERS:

    GEOLOGIST:

    DATE BEGUN: DATE COMPLETED:

    STATION:

    TOTAL DEPTH: SURFACE ELEVATION:

    DEPTH DESCRIPTION

    OFFSET:

    TYPE

    CLIENT:

    WATER LEVELS:

    DURING DRILLING:

    UPON COMPLETION:

    AFTER COMPLETION:

    W% ELEV.DEPTHNO.

    SAMPLE INFORMATION

    N60N

    J &L-ENG5 LOG (rev. 01/14/02) PAGE 2 OF 2

    45.0

    50.0

    55.0

    60.0

    65.0

    70.0

    -45

    -50

    -55

    -60

    -65

    -70

    3-1/4" HSA

    JL10773

    CHIA Parking Lot Expansion

    Cleveland, Cuyahoga Count y, OH

    MOD

    Tuttle, Gregory

    LC

    6/30/2010 6/30/2010

    N/A

    N/A

    71.5'

    N/A

    C&S Engineers, Inc.

    N/A

    Dry

    Dry

    (ft) (ft) (ft)

    B-1

    BLOWS/0.5 (ft)

    dark. After didcussion with the driller, J &L decided toterminate the bore hole as dep as possible before dark.In order to avoid the possibility of auger freezing in theground, J &L did not recommend leaving the auger in thebore hole overnight.

    TERMINATION DEPTH: 71.5'

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    SS

    SS

    SS

    SS

    SS

    25

    20

    27

    50+

    48

    13

    13

    13

    9

    12

    6-11-14

    7-9-11

    9-11-16

    17-25-50

    15-20-28

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    32/48

    FIELD BOREHOLE LOGBOREHOLE NUMBER

    PROJ ECT NUMBER:

    PROJ ECT NAME:

    LOCATION:

    DRILLING CO:

    DRILLING METHOD:

    DRILLERS:

    GEOLOGIST:

    DATE BEGUN: DATE COMPLETED:

    STATION:

    TOTAL DEPTH: SURFACE ELEVATION:

    DEPTH DESCRIPTION

    OFFSET:

    TYPE

    CLIENT:

    WATER LEVELS:

    DURING DRILLING:

    UPON COMPLETION:

    AFTER COMPLETION:

    W% ELEV.DEPTHNO.

    SAMPLE INFORMATION

    N60N

    J &L-ENG5 LOG (rev. 01/14/02) PAGE 1 OF 3

    0.0

    5.0

    10.0

    15.0

    20.0

    25.0

    30.0

    35.0

    40.0

    45.0

    0

    -5

    -10

    -15

    -20

    -25

    -30

    -35

    -40

    -45

    3-1/4" HSA

    JL10773

    CHIA Parking Lot Expansion

    Cleveland, Cuyahoga Count y, OH

    MOD

    Tuttle, Gregory

    N/A

    6/29/2010 6/29/2010

    N/A

    N/A

    100'

    N/A

    C&S Engineers, Inc.

    N/A

    60.3'

    77.5'

    (ft) (ft) (ft)

    B-2

    BLOWS/0.5 (ft)

    0.2

    5.0

    28.5

    TOPSOIL: 2"

    FILL: Brown, medium dense to loose SILTY CLAYEYSAND, trace gravel, asphalt, slag, moist.

    CL: Dark brown to brown/gray mottled, stiff SANDYLEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, moist to very moist.

    NOTE: This boring was drilled for Seismic testingpurpose. 2" ID Schedule 40 PVC casing was installed inthe borehole after completion of drilling. Grouting andcasing installation were done according to ASTM D-7400 Specification - Downhole Seismic Testing. Waterwas filled in the casing immediately after casinginstallation to counterbalance buoyancy. Water wasbailed out after the casing was set in the following day.

    CL: Gray, very stiff to hard LEAN CLAY WITH SAND toLEAN CLAY, trace gravel, moist.

    NOTE: Water found in the borehole was most likely fromwater perched in the upper 28.5 feet soil layers wheregranula lenses were found.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    SS

    SS

    ST

    SS

    SS

    SS

    SS

    SS

    SS

    SS

    12

    5

    10

    15

    12

    13

    29

    30

    29

    23

    7

    24

    16

    13

    17

    21

    9

    11

    1

    16

    4-6-6

    3-2-3

    3-4-6

    4-6-9

    3-5-7

    3-6-7

    9-12-17

    9-14-16

    10-13-16

    6-9-14

  • 7/28/2019 STG Geotech Report 8-1-10

    33/48

    FIELD BOREHOLE LOGBOREHOLE NUMBER

    PROJ ECT NUMBER:

    PROJ ECT NAME:

    LOCATION:

    DRILLING CO:

    DRILLING METHOD:

    DRILLERS:

    GEOLOGIST:

    DATE BEGUN: DATE COMPLETED:

    STATION:

    TOTAL DEPTH: SURFACE ELEVATION:

    DEPTH DESCRIPTION

    OFFSET:

    TYPE

    CLIENT:

    WATER LEVELS:

    DURING DRILLING:

    UPON COMPLETION:

    AFTER COMPLETION:

    W% ELEV.DEPTHNO.

    SAMPLE INFORMATION

    N60N

    J &L-ENG5 LOG (rev. 01/14/02) PAGE 2 OF 3

    45.0

    50.0

    55.0

    60.0

    65.0

    70.0

    75.0

    80.0

    85.0

    -45

    -50

    -55

    -60

    -65

    -70

    -75

    -80

    -85

    3-1/4" HSA

    JL10773

    CHIA Parking Lot Expansion

    Cleveland, Cuyahoga Count y, OH

    MOD

    Tuttle, Gregory

    N/A

    6/29/2010 6/29/2010

    N/A

    N/A

    100'

    N/A

    C&S Engineers, Inc.

    N/A

    60.3'

    77.5'

    (ft) (ft) (ft)

    B-2

    BLOWS/0.5 (ft)

    83.5CL: Gray, very stiff to stiff LEAN CLAY, moist.

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    SS

    SS

    SS

    SS

    SS

    SS

    SS

    SS

    SS

    23

    36

    35

    26

    28

    21

    27

    16

    16

    11

    11

    11