Geotechnical Engineering Report

Geotechnical Engineering Report
COST PLUS WORLD MARKET

PHARR, TEXAS
March 16, 2015
Terracon Project No. 88155020
Prepared for:
Levcor, Inc
Houston, Texas
Prepared by:
Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Pharr, Texas
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i
1.0
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
2.0
PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 1
2.1
Project Description ............................................................................................... 1
2.2
Site Location and Description .............................................................................. 2
3.0
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 2
3.1
Geology ............................................................................................................... 2
3.1.1 Site Geology............................................................................................. 2
3.2
Typical Profile ...................................................................................................... 2
3.3
Groundwater ........................................................................................................ 3
4.0
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ...................................... 3
4.1
Geotechnical Considerations ............................................................................... 4
4.1.1 Interaction with Existing Structures ........................................................... 4
4.1.1 Swell Test Results .................................................................................... 4
4.2
Earthwork ............................................................................................................ 4
4.2.1 Compaction Requirements ....................................................................... 7
4.2.2 Wet Weather/Soft Subgrade Considerations ............................................ 7
4.2.3 Grading and Drainage .............................................................................. 7
4.3
Foundation Systems ............................................................................................ 8
4.3.1 Design Recommendations Slab-on-Grade Foundation System ................... 9
4.3.1.1 Slab-on-Grade Foundation Construction Considerations .................. 9
4.3.2 Design Recommendations Drilled Pier Foundation System ................. 10
4.3.2.1 Drilled Piers Construction Considerations ................................. 11
4.3.3 Grade Beams/Tilt-Wall Panels................................................................ 12
4.3.4 Foundation Construction Monitoring ....................................................... 12
4.4
Floor Slab .......................................................................................................... 13
4.4.1 Design Recommendations ..................................................................... 13
5.0
GENERAL COMMENTS ............................................................................................... 13
APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION
Exhibit A-1
Vicinity Map
Exhibit A-2
Plan of Borings
Exhibit A-3
Field Exploration Description
Exhibits A-4 and A-5
Boring Logs
APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING
Exhibit B-1
Laboratory Testing
Exhibit B-2
Swell Test Results
APPENDIX C SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Exhibit C-1
General Notes
Exhibit C-2
Unified Soil Classification

Cost Plus World Market Pharr, Texas
March 16, 2015 Terracon Project No. 88155020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A geotechnical investigation has been performed for the proposed Cost Plus World Market to be
located within the grounds of the existing Pharr Town Center on the northeast corner (NEC) of
Jackson Road and Expressway 83 in Pharr, Texas. Two borings, designated B-1 and B-2, were
performed to depths of approximately 20 feet below the existing grade within the proposed building
area. Groundwater was observed in boring B-1 at a depth of 15 feet during drilling operations.
Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the site can be developed for
the proposed project. The following geotechnical considerations were identified:
Stripping should include existing pavements, loose topsoil, or other unsuitable materials
in the building area.
Proofrolling should be performed to detect weak areas.
The surface soils are moisture sensitive.
After site stripping, (including removal of pavement surface course) a minimum of 18
inches of granular select fill should be constructed directly below the floor slab and
should also extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the edge of the proposed building.
A foundation system consisting of a slab-on-grade or drilled-and-underreamed piers (or
straight shafts) would be appropriate to support the structural loads of the proposed
building, provided the subgrade is prepared as discussed in this report.
Grade beams for a slab-on-grade foundation system should be sized for a net total load
allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf.
Drilled-and-underreamed piers or drilled shafts (straight-sided piers) may be utilized to
support the structural loads of the proposed building planned at this site. Drilled-andunderreamed piers or drilled shafts should bear at a minimum of 10 feet below existing
grade and no deeper than 15 feet below existing grade (grade at the time of our field
activities).
This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It
should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and
the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items
contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an
understanding of the report limitations.
Responsive Resourceful Reliable
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

COST PLUS WORLD MARKET
PHARR, TEXAS
Project No. 88155020
March 16, 2015
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Terracon is pleased to submit our Geotechnical Engineering Report for the proposed Cost Plus
World Market to be located on Jackson Road and Expressway 83 in Pharr, Texas. This project
was authorized by Mr. Aldo Antu, Director of Construction of Levcor, Inc. through signature of
our Supplement to Agreement for Services on February 27, 2015. The project scope was
performed in general accordance with Terracon Proposal No. P88140232, dated July 27, 2014.
Terracon performed geotechnical services on the existing property under project No. 88145038
and submitted a report on September 3, 2014.
The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions observed at the borings
drilled for this study, analyze and evaluate the test data, and provide recommendations with
respect to:
Site and subgrade preparation; and,

Foundation design and construction;
2.0
PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1
Project Description
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
Site layout
See Appendix A, Exhibit A-2, Plan of Borings
Building
The project will include a single-story building adjacent to an

existing building with an approximate area of 20,200 square
feet (sf).
Building construction
Tilt-wall construction (assumed).
Finished floor elevation

Typical loads
FFE is set at El. 115.03 feet, about 1 foot above existing

grade.
Columns: 80 kips
Walls: 3.0 klf
Floor Slab: 250 psf

2.2
Site Location and Description

ITEM
DESCRIPTION
Location
This project will be located within the grounds of the existing

Pharr Town Center on the northeast corner (NEC) of Jackson
Road and Expressway 83 in Pharr, Texas.
Existing improvements
Site is vacant land with existing paved areas.
Current ground cover
The site is undeveloped and mostly covered with existing

pavements.
Existing topography
The site appears flat and level.
3.0
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1
Geology
3.1.1 Site Geology

Based on the Geologic Atlas of Texas, McAllen Brownsville prepared by The University of
Texas, the site is located on the Beaumont Formation of the Pleistocene Period of the
Quaternary Age. The soils are mostly composed of clay, silt, sand, and gravel and include
mainly stream channel, point bar, natural levee and back-swamp deposits. Concretions and
massive accumulations of calcium carbonate (caliche) and concretions of iron oxide and ironmanganese oxides can be found in the zone of weathering. In particular, the site is located in
areas that are dominantly clay and mud of low permeability, high water-holding capacity, high
compressibility, high to very high shrink-swell potential, poor drainage, level to depressed relief,
low shear strength and high plasticity. Geologic units include inter-distributary muds, abandoned
channel-fill muds, and fluvial overbank muds.
3.2
Typical Profile
Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized
as follows:
Description
Depth
(ft)
Plasticity
Index
(%)
Asphalt &
Base Material
0 - 1
In-situ
Moisture
Content
(%)
Moisture content
1
vs. Plastic limit
(%)
Dry
Wet
SPT
2
N-Value
(bpf)
Fines
(%)

Description
Depth
(ft)
Plasticity
Index
(%)
In-situ
Moisture
Content
(%)
Sandy Lean
Clay (CL) / Fat
Clay (CH)
1 - 20
26 - 44
14 - 19
1.
2.
3.
Moisture content
1
vs. Plastic limit
(%)
Dry
Wet
1-6
SPT
2
N-Value
(bpf)
Fines
(%)
8 - 39
61 - 63
The difference between a soil samples in-situ moisture content and its corresponding plastic limit.
bpf = blows per foot.
Percent passing the No. 200 sieve.
Conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs.
Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil
types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for each of the borings can
be found on the boring logs in Appendix A of this report.
3.3
Groundwater
The borings were advanced using dry drilling techniques to their termination depths in an effort
to evaluate groundwater conditions at the time of the field investigation. Groundwater was
observed the borings as summarized below.
B-1
Depth to groundwater (feet)

15 min. After Boring
During Drilling
Termination
15
16
B-2
Not encountered
Location
Not encountered
These groundwater observations are considered short-term, since the borings were open for a
short time period. On a long-term basis, groundwater may be present at shallower depths.
Additionally, groundwater will fluctuate seasonally with weather changes and should be
evaluated at the time of utility construction.
4.0
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
The following recommendations are based upon the data obtained in our field and laboratory
programs, project information provided to us, and on our experience with similar subsurface
and site conditions.

4.1
Geotechnical Considerations
Finish Floor Elevation (FFE) is set at about elevation (El.) 115.03 feet. Existing grade
information was not provided. However, we anticipate that final grade will be set about 6 inches
above existing grade
Expansive soils are present at the site. This report provides recommendations to help mitigate
the effects of soil shrinkage and expansion. However, even if these procedures are followed,
some movement and at least minor cracking in the structures should be anticipated. The
severity of cracking and other cosmetic damage such as uneven floor slabs will probably
increase if any modification of the site results in excessive wetting or drying of the expansive
soils. Eliminating the risk of movement and cosmetic distress may not be feasible, but it may be
possible to further reduce the risk of movement if significantly more expensive measures are
used during construction. We would be pleased to discuss other construction alternatives that
could further reduce the potential for movement with you upon request. Recommendations to
minimize excessive movements are discussed in the "4.2 Earthwork Considerations" and
"4.4.1 Design Considerations" sections of this report.
4.1.1 Interaction with Existing Structures

The construction of additions to an existing structure can often create a situation that leads to
the formation of distress in both structures if they are connected to each other. Typically, such
distress occurs due to the use of different foundations and as a result of the structures having
different framing stiffness. These differences often lead to dissimilar performances between the
additions and existing structure. Such performance dissimilarities typically manifest themselves
as differential movements and can cause significant amounts of distress. The risks associated
with dissimilar performances between the additions and existing structure may be reduced by
the following:
Design the foundation of the addition using the type and geometry similar to the
existing foundation system (when appropriate);
Dowel the addition and existing foundations/floor slabs together to prevent

differential vertical movements across the joint; and
Construct an expansion joint between the new and existing structure to allow for
differential horizontal movement between the addition and existing structure.
Excavating adjacent to the existing foundation should be performed with care. Excavations
adjacent to the existing structure could cause the foundation to become undermined and the
foundation or structure could suffer damages. We recommended that the contractor monitor the

existing foundation carefully during construction and be prepared to brace the existing
foundation if necessary.
4.1.2 Swell Test Results

A swell test was performed on a soil sample from the borings drilled at the site. The samples
were inundated with water for about 72 to 96 hours while measurements of vertical
displacement were taken. The magnitude of swell is recorded as a function of the change in
thickness during the test in relation to the initial thickness of the sample. Based on our
laboratory results, the sample tested generally exhibited a moderate free swell potential as
indicated by percent a free swell of 2.3 percent within the top 10 feet. The summary of test
results is presented in Appendix B, Exhibit B-2.
4.2
Earthwork
We recognize the uncertainty of knowing what will be encountered during site excavation as a
result of the previous structures, or previous underground construction. Any debris, foundations
or utilities that are present within recommended cut or fill zones must be removed. If these
elements are below any cut/fill, they may remain in place provided they do not interfere with the
foundation/pavement system. However, if the utility is a sewer line, we recommend that it be
filled with a cementitious grout material as part of the abandonment.
Construction areas should be stripped of existing pavements, vegetation, topsoil, and other
unsuitable material. Additional excavation as recommended in the "4.4.1 Design
Considerations" section of this report should be performed within the building area. Once final
subgrade elevations have been achieved, the exposed subgrade should be carefully proofrolled
with a 20-ton pneumatic roller or a fully loaded dump truck to detect weak zones in the
subgrade. Special care should be exercised when proofrolling the fill soils to detect soft/weak
areas. Weak areas detected during proofrolling, as well as zones of fill containing organic matter
and/or debris should be removed and replaced with select fill in the proposed building area.
Weak areas observed in proposed pavement areas may be replaced with clean on-site soils or
select fill.
Proper site drainage should be maintained during construction so that ponding of surface runoff
does not occur and causes construction delays and/or inhibit site access.
Subsequent to proofrolling, and just prior to placement of fill, the exposed subgrade within the
construction area should be evaluated for moisture and density. If the moisture, density, and/or
the requirements do not meet the criteria described in the table below, the subgrade should be
scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, moisture adjusted and compacted to at least 95
percent of the Standard Effort (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density. Select fill and on-site soils
should meet the following criteria.

Fill Type
Select Fill
USCS Classification
CL and/or SC
(7PI20)
Acceptable Location for Placement

Must be used to construct the building pad under the
floor slab and for all grade adjustments within the
building area
Aggregate base
2
course
SC, GC, Caliche,

Crushed Limestone
Base
Top 6 inches of building pad (above the existing grade)
On-Site Soils
CL
The on-site soils are not suitable for re-use as select

fill within the building areas.
1.
Prior to any filling operations, samples of the proposed borrow and on-site materials should be
obtained for laboratory moisture-density testing. The tests will provide a basis for evaluation of fill
compaction by in-place density testing. A qualified soil technician should perform sufficient inplace density tests during the filling operations to evaluate that proper levels of compaction,
including dry unit weight and moisture content, are being attained.
2.
The clayey gravel and caliche materials should meet the gradation requirements of Item 247,
Type B, Grades 1 through 3 as specified in the 2004 TxDOT Standard Specifications Manual and
a plasticity index between 7 and 20. Crushed limestone or crushed concrete material should meet
the requirements of 2004 TxDOT Item 247, Type A or D, Grade 1. The select fill materials should
be free of organic material and debris, and should not contain stones larger than 2 inches in the
maximum dimension.
If imported, blended or mixed soils are intended for use to construct the building pad, Terracon
should be contacted to provide additional recommendations. Blended or mixed soils do not
occur naturally. These soils are a blend of sand and clay and will require mechanical mixing at
the site. If these soils are not mixed thoroughly to break down the clay clods and blend-in the
sand to produce a uniform soil matrix, the fill material may be detrimental to the slab
performance. If blended soils are used, we recommend that additional samples of the blended
soils, as well as the clay clods, be obtained prior to and during earthwork operations to evaluate
if the blended soils can be used in lieu of select fill. The actual type and amount of mechanical
mixing at the site will depend on the amount of clay and sand, and properties of the clay.

4.2.1 Compaction Requirements

ITEM
Fill Lift Thickness
Compaction Requirements (on-site

soils, subgrade)
Compaction Requirements (select fill)
DESCRIPTION
The fill soils should be placed on prepared surfaces in
lifts not to exceed 8 inches loose measure, with
compacted thickness not to exceed 6 inches.
The on-site soils should be compacted to at least 95
percent of the Standard Effort (ASTM D 698) maximum
dry density, between optimum and 4 percent wet of
optimum moisture content,
The select fill soils should be compacted to at least 95
percent of The Standard Effort (ASTM D698) maximum
dry density within 2 percent of the optimum moisture
content.
4.2.2 Wet Weather/Soft Subgrade Considerations

Construction operations may encounter difficulties due to the wet or soft surface soils becoming
a general hindrance to equipment due to rutting and pumping of the soil surface, especially
during and soon after periods of wet weather. If the subgrade cannot be adequately compacted
to minimum densities as described above, one of the following measures will be required: 1)
removal and replacement with select fill, 2) chemical treatment of the soil to dry and increase
the stability of the subgrade, or 3) drying by natural means if the schedule allows.
In our experience with similar soils in this area, chemical treatment is the most efficient and
effective method to increase the supporting value of wet and weak subgrade. Terracon should
be contacted for additional recommendations if chemical treatment of the soils is needed.
Prior to placing any fill, all pavements, vegetation, topsoil, possible fill material and any
otherwise unsuitable materials should be removed from the construction areas. Wet or dry
material should either be removed or moisture conditioned and recompacted. After stripping
and grubbing, the subgrade should be proof-rolled where possible to aid in locating loose or soft
areas. Proof-rolling can be performed with a 20-ton roller or fully loaded dump truck. Soft, dry
and low-density soil should be removed or compacted in place prior to placing fill.
4.2.3 Grading and Drainage

All grades must provide effective drainage away from the building area during and after
construction. Water permitted to pond next to the building can result in distress in the building.
These greater movements can result in unacceptable differential floor slab movements, cracked
slabs and walls, and roof leaks.

Building slab and foundation performances described in this report are based on effective
drainage for the life of the structure and cannot be relied upon if effective drainage is not
maintained. Exposed ground should be sloped away from the building for at least 10 feet
beyond the perimeter of the building.
After building construction and landscaping, we recommend verifying final grades to document
that effective drainage has been achieved. Grades around the structures should also be
periodically inspected and adjusted as necessary, as part of the structure's maintenance
program.
Locate sprinkler mains and spray heads a minimum of 5 feet away from the building lines. Lowvolume, drip style landscaped irrigation should not be used near the building. Collect roof runoff
in drains or gutters. Discharge roof drains and downspouts onto pavements and/or flatworks
which slope away from the building or extend down spouts a minimum of 10 feet away from
structures.
Flatworks and pavements will be subject to post construction movement. Maximum grades
practical should be used for paving and flatwork to prevent water from ponding. Allowances in
final grades should also consider post-construction movement of flatwork, particularly if such
movement would be critical. Where paving or flatwork abuts the structure, effectively seal and
maintain joints to prevent surface water infiltration.
Utility trenches are a common source of water infiltration and migration. All utility trenches that
penetrate beneath the building should be effectively sealed to restrict water intrusion and flow
through the trenches that could migrate below the building.
We recommend constructing an effective clay trench plug that extends at least 5 feet out from
the face of the building exterior. The plug material should consist of clay compacted at a water
content at or above the soils optimum water content. The clay fill should be placed to completely
surround the utility line and be compacted in accordance with recommendations in this report.
4.3
Foundation Systems
Based upon the subsurface conditions observed during our investigation, a slab-on-grade
foundation system or a deep foundation such as drilled-and-underreamed piers (if feasible) or
drilled straight shafts would be appropriate to support the structural loads of the proposed
building provided the subgrade is prepared as discussed in this report. Recommendations for
these types of foundation systems are provided in the following sections, along with other
geotechnical considerations for this project.

4.3.1 Design Recommendations Slab-on-grade Foundation System

The foundation design parameters presented below are based on our evaluation using
published theoretical and empirical design methods.
These were developed based on our understanding of the proposed project, our interpretation
of the information and data collected as a part of this study, our area experience and the results
of our evaluation. The structural engineer should select the appropriate slab design method and
code for the amount of anticipated slab movement indicated.
The slab-on-grade foundation may be designed using the following parameters provided the
subgrade is prepared as outlined in the 4.2 Earthwork and 4.5.1 Design
Recommendations sections of this report:
DESCRIPTION
COLUMNS
Select Fill Pad
Minimum 1 feet
Net total load 2,500 psf
Bearing Pressure
Climatic Rating
15
Design Plasticity Index
25
Soil Support Index

Estimated PVR
0.90
Approximate total settlement
About 1 inch
2
Estimated differential settlement
About 1 inch
3
Minimum perimeter grade beam embedment

4
depth
Approximately of total settlement

24 inches below final existing grade
1. The slab-on-grade foundation system should be designed to tolerate the anticipated soil
movement and provide satisfactory support to the proposed building. The foundation should
have adequate exterior and interior grade beams to provide sufficient rigidity to the foundation
system such that the slab deflections that result are considered tolerable to the supported
building.
2. This estimated post-construction settlement is assuming proper construction practices are
followed.
3. Differential settlement may result from variances in subsurface conditions, loading conditions and
construction procedures. The settlement response of the foundation will be more dependent upon
the quality of construction than upon the response of the subgrade to the foundation loads.
4. To bear within the select fill or native soils. The grade beams may be thickened and widened
where necessary to support column loads.
4.3.1.1
Slab-on-grade Foundation Construction Considerations
Excavations for grade beams should be performed with equipment capable of providing a
relatively clean bearing area. The bottom 6 inches of the excavations should be completed with
a smooth-mouthed bucket or by hand labor.

The excavations should be neatly excavated and properly formed. Debris in the bottom of the
excavation should be removed prior to steel placement. Water should not be allowed to
accumulate at the bottom of the excavation. To reduce the potential for groundwater seepage
into the excavations and to minimize disturbance to the bearing area, we recommend that
concrete and steel be placed as soon as possible after the excavations are completed.
Excavations should not be left open for more than 36 hours. The bearing surface of the grade
beams should be evaluated after excavation is completed and immediately prior to placing
concrete.
4.3.2 Design Recommendations Drilled Pier Foundation System

Drilled-and-underreamed piers or straight shafts may be considered to support the proposed
building. Recommendations for this type of foundation system are provided in the table below.
Description
Column
Minimum embedment below existing grade
Maximum embedment below existing grade

Allowable Bearing pressures
10 feet below existing grade

(at the time of our field investigation)
15 feet below existing grade

(at the time of our field investigation)
Net dead plus sustained live load 5,000 psf
Net total load 7,500 psf
Maximum underream-to-shaft diameter ratio
3:1
2:1
Minimum underream-to-shaft diameter ratio

Average allowable side-shear
450 psf
Estimated uplift pressure (kips)
Estimated uplift resistance (kips)

Minimum percentage of steel
Approximate total settlement
Estimated differential settlement

Allowable passive pressure
9*d
5
5 (D d )
As required by structural engineer
1 inch
Approximately of total settlement

1,000 psf
10

Continued from page 10
1. To bear within the native clay soils.
2. Whichever condition yields a larger bearing area.
3. This minimum underream-to-shaft diameter ratio should result in a large enough diameter of the
underream to overcome uplift forces on the footing without causing local soil failure to the overlying
soils.
4. The magnitude of uplift is difficult to predict and will vary with in-situ moisture contents. Additionally,
structural uplift loads on the piers will be resisted by the dead weight of the piers and supported
structure. For uplift resistance, we recommend total unit weights of 120 pounds per cubic foot (pcf)
for soil and 150 pcf for reinforced concrete be utilized. The diameter of the pier shaft in feet should
be used in place of d.
5. Bell diameter should be used for D and shaft diameter should be used for d.
6. The piers should contain sufficient vertical reinforcing steel throughout the entire shaft length to
resist uplift (tensile) forces due to post-construction heave of the clay soils. The structural engineer
should determine the required reinforcing steel throughout the entire shaft length to resist the axial
and lateral forces.
7. Provided proper construction practices are followed. A clear distance between the piers of three
times the pier diameter should be provided to develop the recommended bearing pressures and to
control settlements. If this clearance cannot be maintained in every case, Terracon should be
contacted so that we may determine the reduced capacities. Settlements provided for single,
isolated piers/piles only.
8. Will result from variances in subsurface conditions, loading conditions and construction
procedures, such a cleanliness of the bearing area or flowing water in the shaft.
9. For piers placed against an undisturbed vertical face of the in-situ soils. Lateral resistance of the
drilled piers is primarily developed by passive resistance of the soils against the side of the pier.
Due to surface effects, the lateral resistance of the upper 3 feet of the soils at the surface for
exterior piers should be neglected unless area paving is provided up to the edge of the proposed
building.
4.3.2.1
Drilled Piers Construction Considerations
Drilled excavations to a minimum depth of about 10 feet below existing grade (grade at the time
of our field activities) will be necessary for installation of the drilled and uderreamed piers or
straight shafts for the proposed building at this site. Please, note that construction of
underreamed piers may not be feasible due to the relatively shallow subsurface water level
encountered in the borings drilled at the site. The excavations should be performed with
equipment capable of providing a relatively clean bearing area. The presence of sandy clay
soils and secondary structures such as sand/silt pockets/seams, etc. can cause sloughing
during pier excavation. Thus, the drilling contractor should have casing (or slurry for drilled
straight sided piers) available in the event that sloughing causes improperly formed shafts.
Casing will only be suitable for use if the piers are bearing in clay soils. Slurry drilling methods
are suitable for drilled straight sided piers.
Based on our current groundwater observations (refer to the 3.3 Groundwater section),
groundwater was observed between 15 and 16 feet below existing grade during our field
11

activities. However, depending on weather conditions, groundwater levels may vary from the
levels observed during our field program.
Water must not be allowed to accumulate in the bottom of the pier excavations. Therefore, the
contractor should be prepared to remove water from the pier excavations if necessary. To
reduce the potential for water seepage into the pier excavation and to minimize disturbance to
the bearing area, we recommend that concrete and steel be placed as soon as possible after
pier excavations are completed. Preferably, pier excavations should be backfilled with concrete
within about 2 to 4 hours of completion of the drilling and in no case should an excavation be left
open overnight. The concrete placed in the excavations should have a 6-inch slump with a plus
or minus one inch tolerance. The bottom of each pier excavation should be free of all loose
materials and/or water, and the bearing surface should be evaluated immediately prior to
placing concrete.
4.3.3 Grade Beams/Tilt-Wall Panels

Grade beams/tilt-wall panels associated with the drilled piers should be designed to span
between the piers without subgrade support. Often, a vertical void of about 6 to 8 inches is
provided beneath the grade beams/tilt-wall panels in clay soils such as those observed at this
site. However, recent experience indicates that the voids beneath the grade beams/tilt-wall
panels often fill with water, providing moisture to the surrounding subgrade. Therefore, provided
that the subgrade is prepared as recommended in this report, grade beams may be constructed
without a void at this site. However, due to the underlying clay soils, nominal upward movement
of the grade beams may occur during moisture variations of the subgrade.
For tilt-wall panels, our experience is that the dead load on the tilt-wall panels resulting from the
wall and roof loads is generally large enough to significantly reduce the expansion of the
subsurface soil. In addition, during placement of the panels and subsequent backfill around the
panels, a void typically occurs below the panels. This condition is a result of the panels being
placed on drilled piers which normally are slightly above the subgrade. Based on the above
discussion, construction of voids will not be required under the panels.
Backfill against the outside face of the grade beams/tilt-wall panels should consist of select fill
used to prepare the building pad. The select fill should be uniformly compacted to at least 95
percent of the Standard Effort (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density at moisture contents within 2
percent of optimum moisture content.
4.3.4 Foundation Construction Monitoring

The performance of the foundation system for the proposed structure will be highly dependent
upon the quality of construction. Thus, we recommend that fill pad compaction and foundation
installation be monitored full time by an experienced Terracon soil technician under the direction
of our Geotechnical Engineer. During foundation installation, the base should be monitored to
12

evaluate the condition of the subgrade. We would be pleased to develop a plan for compaction
and foundation installation monitoring to be incorporated in the overall quality control program.
4.4
Floor Slab
Finish Floor Elevation (FFE) is set at about elevation (El.) 115.03 feet. Existing grade
information was not provided. However, we anticipate that final grade will be set about 6 inches
above existing grade. If cuts and/or significant fills are planned, Terracon should be notified to
review and/or modify our recommendations given in this subsection.
4.4.1 Design Recommendations

The subsurface soils at this site generally exhibit a moderate to high expansion potential. Based
on the information developed from our field and laboratory programs and on method TEX-124-E
in the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Manual of Testing Procedures, we estimate
that the subgrade soils at this site exhibit a Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) of about 1 to 1
inches in present condition. The actual movements could be greater if poor drainage, ponded
water, and/or other sources of moisture are allowed to infiltrate beneath the structure after
construction.
After site stripping, a minimum of 18 inches of select fill pad over 6 inches of moistureconditioned and compacted subgrade soils should be constructed directly below the floor slab
and should also extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the edge of the proposed building. The final
exterior grade adjacent to the building should be sloped to promote positive drainage away from
the structure.
The subgrade and select fill soils should be prepared as outlined in the 4.2 Earthwork section
of this report, which contains material and placement requirements for select fill, as well as other
subgrade preparation recommendations. The floor slab should be designed using the following
recommendations.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
Excavation
Removing existing surface course (asphalt)
Floor slab support
As needed to achieve FFE (Min. 18 inches)
Modulus of subgrade reaction

Estimated Potential Vertical Rise (PVR)
5.0
125 pounds per cubic inch (pci)

About 1 inch
GENERAL COMMENTS
Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments
can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations
13

in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and
testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related
construction phases of the project.
The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in
this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the
site, or due to the modifying effects of weather. The nature and extent of such variations may
not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be
immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be
provided.
The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any
environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or
prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the
potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the
project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering practices. No warranties, either expressed or implied, are intended or made. Site
safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the
event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are
planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered
valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this
report in writing.
14
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
Project Site
Project Manager:
Project No.
AAS
Drawn by:
88155020
Scale:
SCH
DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION
ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR
CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
Checked by:
N.T.S.
File Name:
AAS
Approved by:
88155020
1506 Mid Cities Drive
Date:
AAS
3/16/2015
PH. (956) 283-8254
Pharr, Texas 78577

FAX. (956) 283-8279
Vicinity Map
Exhibit
Cost Plus World Market

Jackson Road and Expressway 83
Pharr, Texas
A-1
B-1
B-2
LEGEND:
Approximate Bore Locations
Project Manager:
Project No.
AAS
Drawn by:
SCH
DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION
ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR
CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
Boring Location Map
88155020
Scale:
Checked by:
N.T.S.
File Name:
AAS
Approved by:
88155020
Date:
AAS
3/16/2015
PH. (956) 283-8254
Pharr, Texas 78577

FAX. (956) 283-8279

Pharr, Texas
Exhibit
A-2

Field Exploration Description

Subsurface conditions were evaluated by drilling two test borings to depths of about 20 feet
below existing grade within the footprint of the proposed building. The borings were drilled using
truck-mounted drilling equipment at the approximate location shown on the Plan of Borings,
Exhibit A-2 of Appendix A. The borings were located by measuring from existing site features
shown on the drawing provided to us without the use of surveying equipment. The boring depths
were measured from the existing ground surface at the time of our field activities. At the
completion of our field activities, the borings were backfilled with soil cuttings.
The Logs of Borings, presenting the subsurface soil descriptions, type of sampling used, and
additional field data, are presented on Exhibits A-4 and A-5 of Appendix A. The General Notes,
which defines the terms used on the log, are presented on Exhibit C-1. The Unified Soil
Classification System is presented on Exhibit C-2 of Appendix C.
Cohesive soil samples were generally recovered using open-tube samplers. Pocket penetrometer
tests were performed on samples of cohesive soils to serve as a general measure of consistency.
Granular soils and soils for which good quality open-tube samples could not be recovered were
obtained by means of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). This test consists of measuring the
number of blows (N) required for a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 inches to drive a standard
split-spoon sampler 12 inches into the subsurface material after being seated six inches. This
blow count or SPT N-value is used to evaluate the stratum.
Samples were removed from samplers in the field, visually classified, and appropriately sealed in
sample containers to preserve their in-situ moisture contents. Samples were returned to our
laboratory in Pharr, Texas.
Exhibit A-3
BORING LOG NO. B-1

PROJECT: Cost Plus World Market
CLIENT: Levcor, Inc.

1001 West Loop South, Houston, Texas
17
14
4-4-5
N=9
19
18
3.0 (tsf) (HP)
2.25
5.5
18
108
21
4.0 (tsf) (HP)
1.65
6.3
17
111 45-14-31
17
4.5+ (tsf) (HP)
15
16
4.5+ (tsf) (HP)
17
LL-PL-PI
PERCENT FINES
3-5-5
N=10
DRY UNIT
WEIGHT (pcf)
WATER
CONTENT (%)
17
STRAIN (%)
3-8-11
N=19
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(tsf)
13
TEST TYPE
DEPTH
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
FIELD TEST
RESULTS
Longitude: -98.20126
STRENGTH TEST
RECOVERY (In.)
Latitude: 26.2045
SAMPLE TYPE
LOCATION See Exhibit A-2
WATER LEVEL
OBSERVATIONS

Pharr, Texas
DEPTH (Ft.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SITE:
Page 1 of 1
Asphalt (2") and Base Material (11")

1.0
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), dark gray and brown,

very stiff to stiff
- grades to grayish-brown below 2 feet
- grades to brown; with calcareous deposits below 4

feet
- grades to light brown below 6 feet
38-11-27
61
42-13-29
THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT.
GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 88155020.GPJ
10
- hard below 13 feet
15
- with Fat Clay (CH) seams at 18 feet

20.0
20
Boring Terminated at 20 Feet
Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.
Advancement Method:
Dry augered from 0 to 20 feet.
Abandonment Method:
Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.
Hammer Type: Rope and Cathead
See Exhibit A-3 for description of field

procedures.
See Appendix B for description of laboratory
procedures and additional data (if any).
See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and
abbreviations.
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

During drilling
15 minutes after boring termination
Cave-in depth
58-14-44

Pharr, Texas
Notes:
Boring Started: 3/5/2015
Boring Completed: 3/5/2015
Drill Rig: CME 55
Driller: SWD
Project No.: 88155020
Exhibit:
A-4
BORING LOG NO. B-2

PROJECT: Cost Plus World Market
CLIENT: Levcor, Inc.

1001 West Loop South, Houston, Texas
19
15
3-3-7
N=10
18
16
5-10-13
N=23
17
16
9-11-15
N=26
17
18
10-13-16
N=29
14
16
12-18-21
N=39
16
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
LL-PL-PI
PERCENT FINES
3-3-5
N=8
DRY UNIT
WEIGHT (pcf)
11
WATER
CONTENT (%)
14
STRAIN (%)
7-7-8
N=15
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(tsf)
11
TEST TYPE
DEPTH
FIELD TEST
RESULTS
Longitude: -98.20174
STRENGTH TEST
RECOVERY (In.)
Latitude: 26.20449
SAMPLE TYPE
LOCATION See Exhibit A-2
WATER LEVEL
OBSERVATIONS

Pharr, Texas
DEPTH (Ft.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SITE:
Page 1 of 1
Asphalt (2") and Base Material (18")

1.0
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), dark gray and brown, stiff

to very stiff
- with Clayey Sand (SC) seams to 2 feet
- grades to brown below 2 feet
- grades to light brown below 4 feet
THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT.
GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 88155020.GPJ
10
- with Fat Clay (CH) seams at 13 feet
15
- grades to reddish-brown; hard at 18 feet

20.0
20
Boring Terminated at 20 Feet
Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.
Advancement Method:
Dry augered from 0 to 20 feet.
Abandonment Method:
Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.
39-13-26
63
40-14-26
54-13-41
Hammer Type: Rope and Cathead
See Exhibit A-3 for description of field

procedures.
See Appendix B for description of laboratory
procedures and additional data (if any).
See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and
abbreviations.
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

No free water observed
Cave-in depth
43

Pharr, Texas
Notes:
Boring Started: 3/5/2015
Boring Completed: 3/5/2015
Drill Rig: CME 55
Driller: SWD
Exhibit:
A-5
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory Testing
Soil samples were tested in the laboratory to measure their dry unit weight and natural water
content. Selected samples were also classified using the results of Atterberg limit testing. The
calibrated hand penetrometer has been correlated with unconfined compression tests and
provides a better estimate of soil consistency than visual examination alone. The test results
are provided on the boring logs included in Appendix A.
Descriptive classifications of the soils indicated on the boring logs are in accordance with the
enclosed General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System. Also shown are estimated
Unified Soil Classification Symbols. A brief description of this classification system is attached
to this report. All classification was by visual manual procedures.
Exhibit B-1

Pharr, Texas
SWELL TEST SUMMARY

INITIAL CONDITIONS
Boring
No.
B-1
Depth
(feet)
7.0
Overburden
Moisture
Pressure
(psf)
100
Content
(%)
19.2
FINAL CONDITIONS
Moisture
gd
(pcf)
102.4
Exhibit B-2
Content
(%)
24.7
Moisture
gd
(pcf)
80.3
Gain
(%)
5.5
Percent
Swell
2.30
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
APPENDIX C
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Exhibit C-1
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Soil Classification
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests
Coarse Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained
on No. 200 sieve
Gravels:
More than 50% of
coarse
fraction retained on
No. 4 sieve
Sands:
50% or more of coarse
fraction passes
No. 4 sieve
Silts and Clays:
Liquid limit less than 50
Fine-Grained Soils:
50% or more passes the
No. 200 sieve
Silts and Clays:
Liquid limit 50 or more
Highly organic soils:
A
B
Clean Gravels:
Less than 5% fines C
Gravels with Fines:
More than 12% fines C
Clean Sands:
Less than 5% fines D
Sands with Fines:
More than 12% fines D
Inorganic:
Organic:
Inorganic:
Organic:
Cu = D60/D10
Cc =
(D30 )
D 10 x D 60
F
G
If soil contains 15% sand, add with sand to group name.

If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.
Group
Symbol
Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E
Group Name B
GW
Well-graded gravel F
Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3
Fines classify as ML or MH
GP
Poorly graded gravel F
GM
Silty gravel F,G, H
Fines classify as CL or CH
GC
Clayey gravel F,G,H
Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3
SW
Well-graded sand I
SP
Poorly graded sand I
SM
Silty sand G,H,I
SC
Clayey sand G,H,I
Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3
Fines classify as ML or MH
E
Fines Classify as CL or CH
PI 7 and plots on or above A line
PI 4 or plots below A line
Liquid limit - oven dried
Liquid limit - not dried
CL
Lean clay K,L,M
ML
Silt K,L,M
0.75
OL
Organic clay K,L,M,N

Organic silt K,L,M,O
PI plots on or above A line
CH
Fat clay K,L,M
PI plots below A line
MH
Elastic Silt K,L,M
Liquid limit - oven dried

Liquid limit - not dried
Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor
Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve

If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add with cobbles
or boulders, or both to group name.
Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded
gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly
graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.
Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded
sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded
sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay
H
I
J
K
N
O
P
Q
0.75
OH
PT
Organic clay K,L,M,P

Organic silt K,L,M,Q
Peat
If fines are organic, add with organic fines to group name.

If soil contains 15% gravel, add with gravel to group name.
If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.
If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add with sand or with
gravel, whichever is predominant.
If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add sandy
to group name.
If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add
gravelly to group name.
PI 4 and plots on or above A line.
PI 4 or plots below A line.
PI plots on or above A line.
PI plots below A line.
Exhibit C-2

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Geotechnical Engineering Report

COST PLUS WORLD MARKET

Terracon Consultants, Inc.