GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed WONDERLAND …constructionindfw.com/plans/stonebrook/geotech_report_stonebrook.pdf · This report presents the results of a Geotechnical Investigation

2712 Satsuma Drive, Suite 400 ⧫Dallas, Texas 75229⧫ 972.488.3500 (P) ⧫e-mail: [email protected]

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

Proposed WONDERLAND MONTESSORI ACADEMY

Stonebrook Parkway

Frisco, Texas

PROJECT NO. 18-DG9175

Prepared for:

Mr. SANJAY JOSHI

Flower Mound, Texas

Prepared by:

GEOSCIENCE

ENGINEERING & TESTING, INC.

Dallas, Texas

June, 2018

Proposed WONDERLAND MONTESSORI ACADEMY Stonebrook Parkway Frisco, Texas

GEOSCIENCE, Inc.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Project Description .................................................................................................................. 1

Site Description ......................................................................................................................... 1

Purposes and Scope of Work ................................................................................................ 1

Report Format ......................................................................................................................... 1

FIELD INVESTIGATION............................................................................................................................. 2

LABORATORY TESTING........................................................................................................................... 2

Review ...................................................................................................................................... 3

GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Stratigraphy................................................................................................................................ 3

Subsurface Water Conditions ............................................................................................... 4

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Construction Consultation and Monitoring ........................................................................ 4

Soil Movement .......................................................................................................................... 4

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 5

A. Under-Reamed Bell Piers ................................................................................................... 5

B. Straight Shaft Piers ............................................................................................................... 5

Soil Induced Uplift Loads .................................................................................................. 6

Pier Installation .................................................................................................................... 6

Grade Beams ...................................................................................................................... 7

Floor Systems ...................................................................................................................... 7

C. Slab-on-Grade Type of Foundation ................................................................................ 9

Building Pad Preparation ..................................................................................................... 10

Select Fill ................................................................................................................................... 11

Flex Base ................................................................................................................................... 11

PAVEMENT AND SUBGRADE ............................................................................................................... 11

SITE GRADING and DRAINAGE .......................................................................................................... 13

CLOSURE ...................................................................................................................................... 14

ILLUSTRATIONS

LOCATION PLAN .................................................................................................................................... A

BORING LOGS ....................................................................................................................................... 1-7


GEOSCIENCE, Inc. - 1 -

INTRODUCTION

Project Description

This report presents the results of a Geotechnical Investigation performed by our firm at the

referenced project located in Frisco, Texas. Based on the project information provided, it is our

understanding that construction will consist of a Montessori academy and associated parking

and driveway area. Information regarding structural loads was not available at the time of this

investigation; however, we anticipate the loads will be light. It is expected that the finished floor

elevation of the proposed building will be above the surrounding surfaces. Grading plans and

other information regarding the referenced project were not available at the time of this

investigation.

Site Description

The site of the referenced project is located north side Stonebrook Parkway and far west side of

Teel Parkway in the City of Frisco, Texas. At the time of this investigation, the site was vacant land

covered with native vegetation and trees. The general location and orientation of the site is

shown in the Illustrations section of this report.

Purposes and Scope of Work

The principal purposes of this investigation were to

1). Develop subsurface soil and rock stratigraphy at the boring locations;

2). Evaluate soil swell potential and provide alternatives to reduce soil movement;

3). Provide recommendations for foundation design parameters;

4). Provide pavement recommendations and

5). Provide site preparation recommendations

Report Format

The first sections of this report describe the field and laboratory phases of the study. The

remaining sections present our engineering analysis that was used to develop geotechnical

parameters for the type of foundation system proposed for this site. Boring logs and laboratory

test results are presented in the Illustrations section of this report.



FIELD INVESTIGATION

The field portion of this investigation involved drilling and sampling a total of seven (7) test

borings. Test borings B-1 to B-3 were drilled to a depth of 30 feet below ground surface in the

proposed building pad area and test borings B-4 to B-7 were drilled to a depth of 5 feet in the

proposed paved area. The approximate locations of the borings are indicated on Plate A in the

Illustrations Section of this report. Boring logs with descriptions of the soils sampled are attached

on Plates 1 and 7. Soil strata boundaries shown on the boring logs are approximate.

The borings were advanced using continuous flight auger techniques. Undisturbed cohesive soil

samples were obtained using a 3-inch diameter thin-walled tube sampler pushed into the soils.

The un-drained compressive strength of cohesive soils was estimated in the field using a

calibrated pocket penetrometer.

To evaluate the relative density and consistency of harder formations, Texas Department of

Transportation Cone Penetrometer tests were performed at selected locations. The actual test

consists of driving a three-inch diameter cone with a 170-pound hammer freely falling 24 inches.

In relatively soft materials, the penetrometer cone is driven one foot and the number of blows

required for each six-inch penetration is tabulated at respective test depths, as blows per six

inches on the boring log. In hard materials, the penetrometer cone is driven with the resulting

penetrations, in inches, accurately recorded for the first and second 50 blows for a total of 100

blows. The penetration for the total 100 blows is recorded at the respective testing depths on the

boring log.

All soil samples were removed or extruded from the samplers in the field, visually classified, and

placed in appropriate containers to prevent loss of moisture or disturbance during transfer to the

laboratory. The borings were advanced using dry auger procedures to observe the water level

at the time of the exploration. These water level observations are recorded on the boring logs.

LABORATORY TESTING

Engineering properties of the foundation soils were evaluated in the laboratory by tests

performed on representative soil samples, a series of moisture contents were performed to

develop soil moisture profiles at the boring locations and to aid in evaluating the uniformity of soil

conditions. Plastic and liquid limit (Atterberg limits), dry unit weight determinations and

percentage passing number 200 sieve tests were performed on selected samples from the



borings to confirm visual classification and to evaluate soil volume change potentials. Shear

strengths of cohesive soils were estimated by field pocket penetrometer and laboratory

unconfined compression tests performed on selected samples. The results of these tests are

presented on the boring logs.

Review

Descriptions of subsurface materials obtained in the field at the time the boring was drilled were

modified in accordance with results of laboratory tests and visual examination in the laboratory.

All recovered soil samples were examined and classified in accordance with ASTM D 2487 and

described as recommended in ASTM D 2488 and the Unified Soil Classification procedures.

Classification of the soils and finalized material descriptions are shown on the boring logs.

GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Stratigraphy

Based on our interpretation of the borings drilled for this investigation, the subsurface stratigraphy

at this site consists predominately of clay soils underlain by calcareous clay followed by shaly

clay soils deeper by gray shale.

More specifically, the subsurface stratigraphy encountered within the depths of the test borings

drilled for this study consisted of:

Dark brown underlain by brown and tan CLAY (CH) soils with calcareous nodules from existing

ground surface elevation to a depth of 3.5 to 6 feet in test borings B-1 to B-3 and B-7, and to the

completion depth of shallower test borings B-4 to B-6 drilled. Below 3.5 to 6 feet in test borings B-1

to B-3 and B-7, tan and occasional light gray CALCAREOUS CLAY (CH) soils with limestone and

shaly clay seams were encountered and remained visible to a depth of 14.5 to 15 feet in test

borings B-1 to B-3 and to the completion depth of shallower test boring B-7 drilled. Below 14.5 to

15 feet in test borings B-1 to B-3, tan and gray SHALY CLAY (CH) soils with calcareous nodules

were encountered and remained visible to a depth of 25.5 to 27.5 feet in the deeper drilled test

borings. At 25.5 to 27.5 feet in test borings B-1 to B-3, gray weathered SHALE was encountered

and remained in evidence to the completion depths of test borings B-1 to B-3 drilled.

Detailed descriptions of the subsurface stratigraphies encountered at this site are presented on

the boring logs in the Illustrations Section of this report.



Subsurface Water Conditions

The borings were advanced using dry auger drilling procedures in order to observe any

groundwater seepage levels. At the time of this investigation, groundwater seepage was

encountered to a depth of 24.5 to 25.5 feet during drilling and 23 to 26 feet upon completion of

drilling in test borings B-1 to B-3 drilled. NO groundwater seepage was encountered in the

shallower test borings B-4 to B-7 drilled at the time of this study. It should be noted however that

future construction activities may alter the surface and subsurface drainage characteristics of

this site. As such, we suggest re-verifying the depth to groundwater just prior to and during

construction. If there is a noticeable change from the conditions reported herein, this office

should be notified immediately to review the effect that it may have on the design

recommendations. Based on short-term observations, it is not possible to accurately predict the

magnitude of subsurface water fluctuations that might occur. Also water seepage may

encounter within the fractures of the soils particularly after a period of heavy rainfall.

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Construction Consultation and Monitoring

We recommend that GETI be given an opportunity to review the final design drawings and

specifications to ensure that the recommendations provided in this report have been properly

interpreted. Wide variations in soil conditions are known to exist between the boring locations,

particularly in the vicinity of this site. Further, unanticipated variations in subsurface conditions

may become evident during construction. During the excavation and foundation phases of the

project, we recommend that a reputable Geotechnical Engineering firm be retained to provide

construction surveillance services in order to 1) observe compliance with the geotechnical

design concepts, specifications and recommendations, and 2) observe subsurface conditions

during construction to verify that the subsurface conditions are as anticipated, based on the

boring performed for this investigation. Geoscience is available to perform the aforementioned

services.

Soil Movement

The near surface subgrade soils encountered at this site exhibited plasticity indices between 31

and 48. These type soils are considered as highly expansive in nature and are capable of

significant vertical and horizontal ground movements due to soil swell and shrinkage which



occurs with changes in soil moisture content(s). The magnitude of the movements experienced

by the foundation will depend on one or a combination of several factors including the moisture

content and the depth at which plastic soils are encountered at the time of construction, soil

plasticity, rainfall moisture index, local drainage characteristics, and other related factors.

Potential Vertical Movement was calculated using Texas Department of Transportation method

(TxDOT 124-E). Based on the aforementioned method, the estimated moisture induced Potential

vertical movement of the soils at the time of this investigation is at the location of the test borings

drilled is on the order of 4.75 to 5.5 inches. Considerably more movement will occur in areas

where water ponding is allowed to occur during and/or after construction-or- in areas where

additional fill other than select fill is placed –or- if the thickness of the clay soils is greater than

that encountered in the test borings. Site grading may also increase or decrease the potential

for the movement.

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

The site is located in the Eagle Ford Formation and west of Preston Road. The soils in this region

are known to contain some concentrations of soluble sulfate. Sulfate resistance concrete should

be used for all the foundation construction.

A. Under-reamed Pier Type Foundation System

Based on the findings of this study, the structural loads of the proposed structure can be

supported by auger excavated, under-reamed, steel reinforced, cast-in-place concrete piers.

The piers should extend to a depth of at least 15 feet from finished ground surface elevation.

Some adjustment to the pier depth may require in the event water bearing material is

encountered at the pier depth. The piers may be sized using an allowable net end bearing

pressure of 3,500 psf. The under-reamed piers should have a bell to shaft diameter ratio ranging

between 2.5 to 3. The bearing capacity should be reduced for piers closer than 3-bell diameters

center-to-center.

B. Straight Shaft Pier Type Foundation System

The structural loads can be supported by auger excavated straight-sided, cast-in-place,

reinforced concrete piers. The piers should be founded at 3 feet within gray weathered shale

encountered at a depth of 25.5 to 27.5 feet at the location of deeper drilled test borings. The



net allowable end bearing capacity of 14,000-psf and skin friction of 1,800 psf in compression

and 1,500 psf in tension can be used. The skin friction component should only be applied to the

portion of the shaft located in the bearing material below the recommended minimum

penetration. We recommend that our firm should monitor the pier drilling operation in order to

assure that the pier has been installed within limestone stratum

Soil Induced Uplift Loads

The drilled shafts will be subjected to some uplift loads due to heaving in the overlying clay soils.

The uplift loads can be approximated by assuming a uniform uplift of 1,800 psf over the shaft

perimeter of 10 feet of the pier length. The uplift pressure can be neglected for the depth of

select fill if placed to reduce the soil swell potential. The uplift loads can be reduced to 1,000 psf

to a depth of moisture conditioned soils. To resist the net tensile load, the shaft must contain

sufficient continuous vertical reinforcement to the full depth of the pier.

Foundation piers designed and constructed in accordance with the information provided in this

report will have a factor of safety in excess of 2.5 against shear type failure and will experience

minimal settlement (less than one inch).

Pier Installation

The construction of all piers should be observed by experienced geotechnical personnel during

construction to ensure compliance with design assumptions and to verify: (1) the bearing

stratum; (2) the minimum penetration; (3) the removal of all smear zones and cuttings; (4) that

groundwater seepage is correctly handled; and (5) that the shafts are vertical and within

acceptable tolerance levels. Our Firm is available to provide these services upon request.

Reinforcing steel and concrete should be placed immediately after the excavation has been

completed and observed. In no event should a pier excavation be allowed to remain open for

more than 8 hours. Concrete should be placed in such a manner to prevent segregation of the

aggregates. Subsurface conditions at the time our borings were advanced indicate that

temporary casing will be required for straight shaft piers only.



Grade Beams

Grade beams should be structurally connected into the top of the piers or spread footings. The

soil swell potential should be reduced to less than an inch by moisture conditioning the subgrade

soils as per the procedure outlined in later section of this report.

Alternatively, the grade beam cab be suspended (most positive option). A minimum void space

of 10 inches should be provided beneath the grade beams. This void space allows movement

of the soils below the grade beams without distressing the structural system. Structural cardboard

forms are typically used to provide this void beneath grade beams. Cardboard forms must have

sufficient strength to support the concrete grade beams during construction.

Our previous experiences indicate that major distress in the grade beams will occur if the

integrity of the void box is not maintained during and after construction. The excavation that the

void box lays in must remain dry. Cardboard cartons can easily collapse during concrete

placement if the cardboard becomes wet. Backfill material must not be allowed to enter the

carton area below grade beams as this reduces the void space which underlying soils need to

swell.

Floor Systems

In conjunction with piers, two types of floor systems may be considered for use at this site:

i) Suspended Floor System (most positive option) - The most positive floor system for pier

type foundation systems in areas with expansive soils consists of a suspended floor system. The

floor system of the proposed building should be structurally supported on the foundation piers

and a minimum void space of 10 inches should be provided between the bottom of the slab

and the underlying soils.

ii) Ground Supported Slab - A ground-supported slab may be considered for use at this

site, provided the risk of some post-construction movement is acceptable. The slab may be of a

grid-type grade beam and slab reinforced with conventional rebar type foundation system. A

ground-supported slab, if used, then the soil swell potential should be reduced to one inch.

There are several methods generally used in DFW area which include chemical or water pressure

injection, placement of select fill soils and moisture conditioning the subgrade soils.



Due to present of limestone seams within calcareous clay at the location of borings drilled,

chemical or water pressure injection may not be applicable and placement of select fill soil is

not economically feasible. To reduce the soil swell potential to one inch, subgrade soils should

be improved by moisture conditioning method.

• Moisture conditioning method:

Remove the subgrade soils to a depth of 10 feet below the finished grade elevation and

stockpile. The exposed surface should be watered and proof- rolled with heavy equipment. The

previously removed soils should be placed back in the building pad area in 6 to 8 inches loose

lifts and mixed thoroughly to form a homogenous consistent soil and each lift should be

compacted to between 93 and 98 percent of the maximum standard proctor dry density with a

minimum moisture content of 4 points above optimum. We recommend the improvements

extend an additional five feet beyond the perimeter of the building pad and should include all

the areas sensitive to the movement. The upper one foot of the soils should consist of select fill

soils –or- onsite lime stabilized soils –or- flex base materials.

In the event that select fill soil is planned to be used as a cap, then it should be placed in 6 to 8

inches loose lifts and compacted between 95 and 100 percent of the maximum dry density as

per ASTM D 698 with moisture contents within three points of optimum moisture as per ASTM D

698. We recommend select fill soils not be extended beyond the building line however; the

perimeter outside the grade beam should be capped with high plasticity index clay soils in order

to retard any water seepage underneath the foundation.

In the event that lime stabilization to the existing subgrade is planned as a cap, then it should be

stabilized with a minimum of 36 pounds per square yard of lime for 6-inch-thick soil.

If the flex base is used as a cap atop of moisture conditioned soils, then the flex base should be

placed in 6 to 8 inches loose lifts compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of maximum dry

density as per ASTM D 698 and the moisture content should be between -2 to +3 percent points

above optimum.

Field density tests should be taken at the rate of at least one test per each 2,500 square feet, per

lift, in the area of all compacted fill. For areas where hand tamping is required, the testing

frequency should be increased to approximately one test per lift, per 100 linear feet of area.



Construction of the building slab should start shortly upon completion of the subgrade

improvement process. Moisture loss of the improved soils should not be allowed to occur

between the time the improvement procedures are completed and the start of the

construction.

A net allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 psf can be used to design the grade beam and slab

for the moisture conditioned soils and 2,000 psf for select fill soils. A moisture barrier of

polyethylene sheeting or similar type material should be placed between the slab and the

subgrade soils to retard moisture migration through the slab. Grade beams and floor slabs should

be adequately reinforced to minimize cracking as normal movements occur in the foundation

soils. It should be understood that a soil-supported foundation system will experience some

movement over time.

C. Slab-on-Grade Type Foundation

In the event that the structural loads are light, then a slab-on-grade type foundation system is a

feasible option for use at this site provided:

• All vegetation, trees and tree roots (if any) and loose soil are completely removed and

disposed of the site.

• The risk of some post-construction movement is acceptable. Slab on grade type of

foundation system require periodic cosmetic repairs to building finishes. Additionally,

there is a risk that the ground movements could be greater than anticipated which

could lead to the need for more extensive repairs. These circumstances are most often

associated with poor drainage around the slab perimeter, sub-slab plumbing leaks, or

trees or shrubs planted too close to the foundation. The potential for these movements,

risks associated with long-term performance of slab-on-grade foundations, and owner

maintenance responsibilities should be fully understood.

• The PVR is reduced to one inch by moisture conditioning method as per the procedure

outlined in previous section of this report.

• Additional fill soil if is required should consist of select fill soils.



The foundation should be designed with exterior and interior grade beams adequate to provide

sufficient rigidity to the foundation system to sustain the vertical soil movements expected at this

site. Where heavier column loads are anticipated we recommend shallow footings be used. The

depth of the spread/shallow footings should be a minimum of 3 feet below finished grade. A net

allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf can be used for the spread footing bearing in moisture

conditioned soils.

The grade beam should be a minimum of 2 feet deep and 12 inches wide and should be

installed within moisture conditioned soils or select fill soils. A net allowable soil bearing pressure

of 1,500 pounds per square foot may be used for design of all grade beams and slab bearing in

moisture conditioned soils and 2,000 psf for select fill soils. The bottom of the beams should be

free of any loose or soft material prior to the placement of the concrete. All grade beams and

floor slabs should be adequately reinforced to minimize cracking as normal movements occur in

the foundation soils. Also, a moisture barrier of polyethylene sheeting or similar material should

be placed between the slab and the subgrade soils to retard moisture migration through the

slab. It should be understood by all parties that a soil-supported foundation system will

experience movement with time.

Building Pad Preparation

Prior to the placement of fill soils, all loose soils and any vegetation should be removed and

disposed of the site until hard stratum is encountered.

For a suspended floor system, after removal of all above referenced items, the exposed

surface should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches water as required and compacted

between 95 and 100 percent of the maximum dry density as defined by ASTM D 698 (Standard

Proctor Test) at a moisture content between optimum and 4 points above optimum. Additional

fill, if required, should consist of clean on-site or off-site soils compacted to resist the initial

concrete loads. Placement of select fill soils is not required for suspended floor system.

For a ground supported floor system: upon removal of all the referenced above items,

then the soils swell movement should be reduced to an inch or less by moisture conditioning

method as per the procedure outlined in previous section of this report. Additional fill, if is

required, should consist of select fill soils only.



Select fill materials should be placed in six (6) to eight (8)-inch loose lifts at moisture contents

between optimum and 3 percentage points above optimum. Each lift compacted to between

95 and 100 percent of the maximum dry density as defined in ASTM D 698. Field density tests

should be taken at the rate of one test per every 2,500 square feet per lift, or a minimum of 3

tests per lift in the area of all compacted fill. For areas where hand tamping is required, the

testing frequency should be increased to approximately one test per lift, per 100 linear feet of

area.

Select Fill

"Select fill," as referred to in this report, should consist of clayey sands free of organic materials

with a Plasticity Index between 6 and 16, a Liquid Limit of 38 or less, and between 15 and 45

percent passing a No. 200 sieve. Placement and compaction of the select fill should be

performed in accordance with the "Building Pad Preparation" section of this report. It is

preferable to place the select fill above the surrounding ground surface. The provision of a

subsurface drainage system will be required in areas where the select fill is placed below the

surrounding ground surface.

Flex Base

TxDOT 247 -Type 1.

PAVEMENT AND SUBGRADE

General

Specific wheel loading and traffic volume characteristics were not available at the time of this

investigation. However, we have assumed that light passenger vehicle traffic will be most

predominant in the parking areas and the relatively heavier fire truck traffic will occur in the

drive areas area around and behind the structure, and in the fire lane.

Based on assumed loading conditions, we have developed the following Portland cement

concrete pavement design sections for use at this site.



Minimum

Thickness

(inches)

Light Traffic

Portland Cement Concrete 5

Minimum Lime Stabilized Subgrade 6

Heavy Traffic

Portland Cement Concrete 6

Minimum Lime Stabilized Subgrade 6

Prior to the placement of any fill in the pavement area, we recommend that all loose and fill (if

any) soils and any vegetation should be removed and disposed of the site until hard stratum is

encountered.

The exposed surface should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches water as required and

compacted to 95 and 100 percent of maximum dry density. Additional fill soil if is required,

should consist of onsite natural clay soils. The fill soils should be compacted between 95 and 100

percent of the maximum dry density as defined by ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor Test) at

moisture content between optimum and 4 points above optimum.

The upper 6 inches of the final grade in all the areas of the pavement should then be stabilized

with lime. We estimate approximately 6 to 10 percent of hydrated lime (between 32 and 36

pounds of lime per square yard for 6-inch-thick soil) will be required to stabilize the subgrade soils

(to reduce the plasticity index to 15 or less). It should be noted that after the final grade is

complete, the actual amount of lime required should be calculated by lime series test in the

laboratory.

The site is located in the Eagle Ford Formation and west of Preston Road. The soils in this region

are known to contain some concentrations of soluble sulfate. Given the fact that sulfate tends to

negate the effects of lime, we recommend a Sulfate Analysis be performed on the finished

grade of the paving area prior to lime stabilizing the subgrade. In the event that lime stabilization

of the subgrade soils is not economically feasible or the sulfate concentration is higher than 1000

ppm, then the thickness of the concrete can be increased by an additional 1 inch or City

recommended thickness as an alternative and Sulfate resistance concrete should be used for all

the paving area.



Design of the concrete pavement should specify a minimum 28-day concrete compressive

strength of 3000 psi for all the pavement and 4000 psi for the fire lane with 4 percent to 6 percent

entrained air. The concrete should be placed within one and one-half hours of batching. During

hot weather, the concrete placement should follow ACI 311 Hot Weather concreting and in no

case should the concrete temperature be allowed to exceed 95ºF. To avoid excessive heat

periods, consideration should be given to limiting concrete placement to a time of day that will

minimize large differences in the ambient and concrete temperature.

Past experience indicates that pavements with sealed joints on 15 to 20-foot spacings, cut to a

depth of at least one-quarter of the pavement thickness, generally exhibit less uncontrolled post-

construction cracking than pavements with wider spacings. As a minimum, expansion joints

should be used wherever the pavement abut a structural element subject to a different

magnitude of movement, e.g., light poles, retaining walls, existing pavement, building walls, or

manholes. After construction, the construction and expansion joints should be inspected

periodically and resealed, if necessary. The pavement should be reinforced using at least No. 3

bars, 24 inches on center, each way and for fire lane the rebar should be No. 4 rebars 24 inches

c/c or city standards should be followed.

SITE GRADING and DRAINAGE

All grading should provide positive drainage away from the proposed structures and should

prevent water from collecting or discharging near the foundations. Water must not be permitted

to pond adjacent to the structures during or after construction.

Surface drainage gradients should be designed to divert surface water away from the buildings

and edges of pavements and towards suitable collection and discharge facilities. Unpaved

areas and permeable surfaces should be provided with steeper gradients than paved areas.

Pavement drainage gradients within 5 feet of buildings should be constructed with a minimum

slope of one inch per foot to prevent negative drainage gradients (ponding water conditions)

from developing due to differential upward pavement movements. Sidewalk drainage gradients

should be along maximum slopes allowed by local codes.

Roofs should be provided with gutters and downspouts to prevent the discharge of rainwater

directly onto the ground adjacent to the building foundations. Downspouts should not discharge

into any landscaped bed near the foundations. Downspouts should discharge directly into storm



drains or drainage swales, if possible. Roof downspouts and surface drain outlets should

discharge into erosion-resistant areas, such as paving or rock riprap. Recessed landscaped

areas filled with pervious sandy loam or organic soil should not be used near the foundation. All

trees should be a minimum of one-half their mature height away from the building or pavement

edges to reduce potential moisture losses. Water permitted to pond in planters, open areas, or

areas with unsealed joints next to structures can result in on-grade slab or pavement

movements, which exceed those, indicated in this report.

Exterior sidewalks and pavements will be subject to some post construction movement as

indicated in this report. These potential movements should be considered during preparation of

the grading plan. Flat grades should be avoided. Where concrete pavement is used, joints

should be sealed to prevent the infiltration of water. Some post-construction movement of

pavement and flatwork may occur. Particular attention should be given to joints around the

building. These joints should be periodically inspected and resealed where necessary.

CLOSURE

It should be noted that some variations in soil and moisture conditions may exist between boring

locations. Statements in this report as to subsurface variations over given areas are intended as

estimations only, based upon the data obtained from specific boring locations.

The results, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are directed at, and

intended to be utilized within the scope of work outlined in this report. The report is not intended

for use in any other manner. Geoscience Engineering and Testing, Inc., makes no claim or

representation concerning any activity or condition falling outside the specified purposes for

which this report is directed; said purposes being specifically limited to the scope of work as

defined herein. Inquiries regarding scope of work, activities and/or conditions not specifically

outlined herein, should be directed to GETI.

The completed landscaping should be carefully inspected to verify that plantings properly drain.

Soil in plantings may settle, which will tend to pond water, or plantings may block entrances to

surface drains. Therefore, maintaining positive drainage from landscape irrigation will be an

ongoing concern.




GEOSCIENCE, Inc.

ILLUSTRATIONS


GEOSCIENCE, Inc.

Approximate Boring Location BORING LOCATION PLAN

Proposed WONDERLAND MONTESSORU ACADEMY

Stonebrook Parkway

Frisco, Texas

Project No. 18-DG9175 Plate A

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

P4.5+

P4.5+

P4.5+

P4.5

P3.25

P3.25

P1.0

T100/5.2"

5

14.5

26.5

30

Dark brown CLAY (CH) with calcareous nodules

-brown and tan below 3'

Tan CALCAREOUS CLAY (CH) with limestone andshaly clay seams

Tan and light gray SHALY CLAY (CH) withcalcareous nodules

Gray weathered SHALE

10

15

16

14

16

22

30

40

52

64

21

23

31

41

106

96

2.3

1.8

66

LOG OF BORING NO. B-1Proposed "Wonderland Montessori School"

Stonebrook ParkwayFrisco, Texas

Project No. 18-DG9175

REMARKS:

TUBESAMPLE

AUGERSAMPLE

SPLIT-SPOON

ROCKCORE

THDCONEPEN.

NORECOVERY

DEPTH

(ft

.)

FIELD DATA

SO

IL &

RO

CK

SY

MBO

L

SA

MPLE T

YPE

P: H

AN

D P

EN

., T

SF

T: TH

D, BLO

WS/F

T.

N: SPT, BLO

WS/F

T.

STRA

TU

M D

EPTH

(FT.)

DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM

Location: See Location Plan

Surface Elevation: Unknown

Drilling Method: CFA

Date Boring Drilled: 05/29/2018

Completion Depth: 30

Groundwater Information:Seepage Encountered During Drilling: 25.5Upon Completion: 26

WA

TER C

ON

TEN

T, %

LABORATORY DATA

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

STIC

LIM

IT

PLA

STIC

ITY

IN

DEX

UN

IT D

RY

WEIG

HT

(PC

F)

UN

CO

NFIN

ED

STREN

GTH

(TSF)

% P

ASSIN

G N

O. 200

SIE

VE

SO

IL S

UC

TIO

N T

EST

(TO

TA

L C

M. O

F

WA

TER)

Plate 1Geoscience Engineering & Testing

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

P4.5+

P3.75

P4.5+

P4.5

P3.25

P1.0

P1.0

T100/5.7"

6

15

27.5

30


-brown and tan below 2'

Tan and light gray CALCAREOUS CLAY (CH) withlimestone seams

-increase in limestone seams below 9'



17

22

24

17

17

30

33

42

71

50

26

20

45

30 103 2.1

84

67




REMARKS:

TUBESAMPLE

AUGERSAMPLE

SPLIT-SPOON

ROCKCORE

THDCONEPEN.

NORECOVERY

DEPTH

(ft

.)

FIELD DATA

SO

IL &

RO

CK

SY

MBO

L

SA

MPLE T

YPE

P: H

AN

D P

EN

., T

SF

T: TH

D, BLO

WS/F

T.

N: SPT, BLO

WS/F

T.

STRA

TU

M D

EPTH

(FT.)







Groundwater Information:Seepage Encountered During Drilling: 25Upon Completion: 25.5

WA

TER C

ON

TEN

T, %

LABORATORY DATA

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

STIC

LIM

IT

PLA

STIC

ITY

IN

DEX

UN

IT D

RY

WEIG

HT

(PC

F)

UN

CO

NFIN

ED

STREN

GTH

(TSF)

% P

ASSIN

G N

O. 200

SIE

VE

SO

IL S

UC

TIO

N T

EST

(TO

TA

L C

M. O

F

WA

TER)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

P4.5+

P4.5+

P4.5+

P4.5

P4.0

P0.5

P0.5

T100/6.2"

3.5

14.5

25.5

30


Tan CALCAREOUS CLAY (CH) with limestone andshaly clay seams


-saturated below 20'


22

22

14

24

24

35

33

47

76 28 48

98

78




REMARKS:

TUBESAMPLE

AUGERSAMPLE

SPLIT-SPOON

ROCKCORE

THDCONEPEN.

NORECOVERY

DEPTH

(ft

.)

FIELD DATA

SO

IL &

RO

CK

SY

MBO

L

SA

MPLE T

YPE

P: H

AN

D P

EN

., T

SF

T: TH

D, BLO

WS/F

T.

N: SPT, BLO

WS/F

T.

STRA

TU

M D

EPTH

(FT.)







Groundwater Information:Seepage Encountered During Drilling: 24.5Upon Completion: 23

WA

TER C

ON

TEN

T, %

LABORATORY DATA

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

STIC

LIM

IT

PLA

STIC

ITY

IN

DEX

UN

IT D

RY

WEIG

HT

(PC

F)

UN

CO

NFIN

ED

STREN

GTH

(TSF)

% P

ASSIN

G N

O. 200

SIE

VE

SO

IL S

UC

TIO

N T

EST

(TO

TA

L C

M. O

F

WA

TER)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

P4.5+

P4.5+

P4.5+ 5


-brown and tan below 3.5'

27

17

17 74 25 49




REMARKS:

TUBESAMPLE

AUGERSAMPLE

SPLIT-SPOON

ROCKCORE

THDCONEPEN.

NORECOVERY

DEPTH

(ft

.)

FIELD DATA

SO

IL &

RO

CK

SY

MBO

L

SA

MPLE T

YPE

P: H

AN

D P

EN

., T

SF

T: TH

D, BLO

WS/F

T.

N: SPT, BLO

WS/F

T.

STRA

TU

M D

EPTH

(FT.)






Completion Depth: 5

Groundwater Information:Seepage Encountered During Drilling: NoneUpon Completion: Dry

WA

TER C

ON

TEN

T, %

LABORATORY DATA

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

STIC

LIM

IT

PLA

STIC

ITY

IN

DEX

UN

IT D

RY

WEIG

HT

(PC

F)

UN

CO

NFIN

ED

STREN

GTH

(TSF)

% P

ASSIN

G N

O. 200

SIE

VE

SO

IL S

UC

TIO

N T

EST

(TO

TA

L C

M. O

F

WA

TER)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

P4.5+

P4.5+

P4.5+ 5



23

19

17

73 25 48 103




REMARKS:

TUBESAMPLE

AUGERSAMPLE

SPLIT-SPOON

ROCKCORE

THDCONEPEN.

NORECOVERY

DEPTH

(ft

.)

FIELD DATA

SO

IL &

RO

CK

SY

MBO

L

SA

MPLE T

YPE

P: H

AN

D P

EN

., T

SF

T: TH

D, BLO

WS/F

T.

N: SPT, BLO

WS/F

T.

STRA

TU

M D

EPTH

(FT.)






Completion Depth: 5


WA

TER C

ON

TEN

T, %

LABORATORY DATA

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

STIC

LIM

IT

PLA

STIC

ITY

IN

DEX

UN

IT D

RY

WEIG

HT

(PC

F)

UN

CO

NFIN

ED

STREN

GTH

(TSF)

% P

ASSIN

G N

O. 200

SIE

VE

SO

IL S

UC

TIO

N T

EST

(TO

TA

L C

M. O

F

WA

TER)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

P4.5+

P4.5+

P4.5+ 5



18

18

21 75 27 48 97




REMARKS:

TUBESAMPLE

AUGERSAMPLE

SPLIT-SPOON

ROCKCORE

THDCONEPEN.

NORECOVERY

DEPTH

(ft

.)

FIELD DATA

SO

IL &

RO

CK

SY

MBO

L

SA

MPLE T

YPE

P: H

AN

D P

EN

., T

SF

T: TH

D, BLO

WS/F

T.

N: SPT, BLO

WS/F

T.

STRA

TU

M D

EPTH

(FT.)






Completion Depth: 5


WA

TER C

ON

TEN

T, %

LABORATORY DATA

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

STIC

LIM

IT

PLA

STIC

ITY

IN

DEX

UN

IT D

RY

WEIG

HT

(PC

F)

UN

CO

NFIN

ED

STREN

GTH

(TSF)

% P

ASSIN

G N

O. 200

SIE

VE

SO

IL S

UC

TIO

N T

EST

(TO

TA

L C

M. O

F

WA

TER)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

P4.5+

P3.5

P4.5+

3.5

5


Tan CALCAREOUS CLAY (CH) with limestone seams

20

22

23 68 25 43




REMARKS:

TUBESAMPLE

AUGERSAMPLE

SPLIT-SPOON

ROCKCORE

THDCONEPEN.

NORECOVERY

DEPTH

(ft

.)

FIELD DATA

SO

IL &

RO

CK

SY

MBO

L

SA

MPLE T

YPE

P: H

AN

D P

EN

., T

SF

T: TH

D, BLO

WS/F

T.

N: SPT, BLO

WS/F

T.

STRA

TU

M D

EPTH

(FT.)






Completion Depth: 5


WA

TER C

ON

TEN

T, %

LABORATORY DATA

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

STIC

LIM

IT

PLA

STIC

ITY

IN

DEX

UN

IT D

RY

WEIG

HT

(PC

F)

UN

CO

NFIN

ED

STREN

GTH

(TSF)

% P

ASSIN

G N

O. 200

SIE

VE

SO

IL S

UC

TIO

N T

EST

(TO

TA

L C

M. O

F

WA

TER)


Documents

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed WONDERLAND …constructionindfw.com/plans/stonebrook/geotech_report_stonebrook.pdf · This report presents the results of a Geotechnical Investigation