D.4.2 - 201 W 30th St - Structural Studies - Complete — original pdf

Backup

Appendix K | 10 Structural Investigations & Geotech Report The following City of Austin documents are included in this Appendix: All Stations 1. AFD 3 and AFD 22 / EMS 12 Summary Report - Ph. 1 2. AFD 3 and AFD 22 / EMS 12 Summary Report - Ph. 2 3. City Engineer letter from Forensic Study 4. AFD 3 and AFD 22 / EMS 12 Geotech Report 319 Fire and EMS Station Rebuild and Renovations | Design Criteria ManualLawrence Group | Austin New York St. Louis Architecture Interior Design Planning Landscape Graphic Design Development ConstructionAustin, TX Office: 3737 Executive Center Drive, Suite 255 Austin, TX 78731-1633 P: 512-219-4075 F: 512-219-4077 August 31, 2017 Karim Helmi, P.E. City of Austin – Public Works Department 105 Riverside Drive, Suite 100 Austin, TX 78704 Alejandro Wolniewitz Austin Fire Department 4201 Ed Bluestein Boulevard Austin, TX 78721 Feasibility Study Report – Austin Fire Department Fire Stations Nos. 3 and 22 Fire Station No. 3 – 201 W. 30th St., Austin, TX Fire Station No. 22 – 5309 E. Riverside Dr., Austin, TX CTLGroup Project No. 231701, Phase 2 Dear Mr. Helmi and Mr. Wolniewitz: Phone: 512-974-1286 Email: Alejandro.Wolniewitz@austintexas.gov Phone: 512-974-6539 Email: Karim.Helmi@austintexas.gov Based on the work performed during Phase 1 of this project, it was determined that the garage floor systems at both fire stations lack adequate strength to support the anticipated vehicular loads. The City of Austin (COA) requested that a repair design be developed to strengthen the existing floor systems. In order to properly identify repair requirements and a strengthening solution, a feasibility study was performed on the floor systems at each fire station garage (Phase 2). The following tasks were performed as part of Phase 2 for this project: • CTLGroup obtained additional core samples for compressive strength testing and carbonation depth testing. As discussed in our Phase 1 report, the purpose of the additional core sampling and subsequent compressive strength testing was to reduce the scatter of core strength data. This allows for more representative compressive strength values to be used in the structural analysis and subsequent repair design. Also as discussed in our Phase 1 report, carbonation could be an issue at Fire Station No. 3. The extent of carbonation will influence our repair recommendations and carbonation depth testing was performed to evaluate this condition. • The preliminary structural analysis performed during Phase 1 of this project was updated to include the revised compressive strength values. It should also be noted that liberal assumptions were purposely made in our analysis during Phase 1 to study whether the floor systems could support the anticipated vehicular loads in a favorable condition. For Phase 2, these liberal assumptions were replaced by more conservative assumptions (where applicable/appropriate per code requirements). The capacity and demand values for the beams at both fire stations were also calculated as part of Phase 2. • Based on the results of our testing and structural analysis, the feasibility of various repair options was evaluated. CTLGroup’s Phase 1 report was issued on May 12, 2017. Please refer to this report for additional information regarding this project, including background information. The following report summarizes the findings from our feasibility study. Registered Texas Engineering Firm F-3849 Austin, TX • Bradenton, FL • Chicago, IL • Horsham, PA • Naperville, IL • Washington, DC • Doha, Qatar Corporate Office: 5400 Old Orchard Road, Skokie, IL 60077-1030 P: 847-965-7500 F: 847-965-6541 www.CTLGroup.com CTLGroup is a registered d/b/a of Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc. Mr. Karim Helmi – City of Austin Feasibility Study – Fire Stations Nos. 3 and 22 CTLGroup No. 231701, Phase 2 SITE WORK Page 2 of 10 (plus appendices) August 31, 2017 CTLGroup re-visited the fire stations on June 14 and 15, 2017 (Fire Station No. 22), and June 16 and 19, 2017 and July 28, 2017 (Fire Station No. 3). The following CTLGroup staff members were present during the site visits: Bradley East, P.E. and Jonathan Poole, Ph.D., P.E. (June 15, 2017 only). Various Austin Fire Department personnel were present during CTLGroup’s site visits. During the site visits, additional cores were taken through the slab/joists and beams at Fire Station No. 22, and slab/beam at Fire Station No. 3. As previously discussed, the additional core samples were obtained for compressive strength testing and carbonation depth testing. The core samples were extracted by Texas Cutting and Coring, L.P. The cores were extracted in general accordance with ASTM C421. Following the removal of the cores, all core holes were patched by CTLGroup using a non-shrink grout material. Additional Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) scans were also performed to confirm shear reinforcing and to more accurately identify the locations and lengths of negative moment reinforcing (Fire Station No. 3). One particular item of note was that no discernible shear reinforcing was detected in the middle beams at Fire Station No. 3. The middle beams were scanned from both the sides and underside. The core locations and reinforcing details are included on the drawings in Appendix A. These drawings have been updated/revised since issuance of our Phase 1 report. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TESTING Compressive strength tests in general accordance with ASTM C42 were performed on the additional core samples obtained during Phase 2. At fire station No. 22, compressive strength tests were performed on core samples C10 and C11 (joist), and C13 through C18 (beam). At Fire Station No. 3, compressive strength tests were performed on core samples C6 through C14 (slab/beam). CTLGroup’s compressive strength testing reports for Phase 2 can be found in Appendix B at the end of this report. A statistical adjustment was applied to the core strength data (from Phases 1 and 2) in general accordance with ACI 214.4R2. The purpose of this adjustment was to convert the core strength data to an equivalent design compressive strength value. The equivalent compressive strength used for design purposes “is the lower tenth percentile of the in-place strength and is consistent with the statistical description of the specified compressive strength of concrete”. Two methods are presented in ACI 214.4R for estimating the equivalent strength. For reference purposes, the Tolerance Factor Method with a 75% confidence level was used during our analysis. It should also be noted that during the statistical analysis the core data was evaluated for outliers in general accordance with ASTM E1783. One (1) outlier was discarded from the slab/beam core strength data sample from Fire Station No. 3. 1 ASTM C42 “Standard Test Method for Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete” 2 ACI 214.4R-10 “Guide for Obtaining Cores and Interpreting Compressive Strength Results” 3 ASTM E178 “Standard Practice for Dealing with Outlying Observations” Mr. Karim Helmi – City of Austin Feasibility Study – Fire Stations Nos. 3 and 22 CTLGroup No. 231701, Phase 2 The equivalent strengths of the floor system elements at each fire station are summarized below in Table 1. As previously discussed, the preliminary structural analyses performed during Phase 1 of this project were updated based on these values. Page 3 of 10 (plus appendices) August 31, 2017 Table 1 – Summary of equivalent design compressive strengths Element Fire Station No. 22 Fire Station No. 3 Joists Beams Slab/Beams Equivalent Compressive Strengths, f’c (psi) 4823 4572 2639 CARBONATION DEPTH TESTING Carbonation is the reaction between CO2 in the air and the hydrated cement paste, generally the calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2, or CH in cement chemistry notation). In dense, well consolidated and properly cured concrete, carbonation is a slow reaction that generally occurs over many years. This reaction converts the CH to calcium carbonate (CaCO3), which reduces the pH of the concrete and can lead to the depassivation of the steel. Depassivation of the steel allows corrosion to occur. Carbonation depth tests in general accordance with ASTM C 8564 were performed on core samples obtained/collected during Phases 1 and 2. This includes Cores C5, C14, C15 and C16 from Fire Station No. 3, and Core C12 from Fire Station No. 22. The following are items of note regarding the tested samples: • The tested sample for Core C14 at Fire Station No. 3 was a partial sample. Only the bottom approximately 0.9 in. of the original core underwent testing. • Core C5 at Fire Station No. 3 was collected during Phase 1. This core had been drilled by others prior for plumbing/mechanical purposes) and had been left onsite. This core had not been extracted from garage floor framing, but rather from concrete framing in another area of the fire station. involvement with to CTLGroup’s this project (likely • Core C12 at Fire Station No. 22 was originally a core taken through both the topping slab and precast joist flange at the garage area. The bottom approximately 0.3 in. of the sample had been removed prior to carbonation depth testing. Only the carbonation depth of the precast concrete was tested. The carbonation depth test reports can be found in Appendix B at the end of this report. To summarize, carbonation depth testing indicates that the bottom portion of the slab concrete in the garage area at Fire Station No. 3 is significantly carbonated. The carbonation depths exceed the bottom concrete cover in the slab (i.e. distance from the underside of the slab to the surface of the bottom layer of reinforcing steel). The extent of carbonation in the slab/beam concrete in the garage area at Fire Station No. 3 is not known; however, carbonation was 4 ASTM C856 “Standard Practice for Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete”; an abbreviated version of this test standard was performed pertaining to paste carbonation; a full petrographic examination was not performed on these core samples. Mr. Karim Helmi – City of Austin Feasibility Study – Fire Stations Nos. 3 and 22 CTLGroup No. 231701, Phase 2 detected in all three (3) samples tested from this area. Minimal to no carbonation was detected in samples C5 from Fire Station No. 3 and C12 from Fire Station No. 22. Page 4 of 10 (plus appendices) August 31, 2017 STRUCTURAL ANALYSES As previously discussed, the preliminary structural analyses performed during Phase 1 of this project were updated/revised to include equivalent design compressive strength values for the concrete. Additionally, our assumptions were modified to reflect typical design standards rather than favorable conditions. The results/calculations from our analyses can be found in Appendices C and D at the end of this report. The methodology used to calculate the capacities of the various structural elements and the demands placed on these elements was similar for both fire stations, which includes the following: • The flexural capacities of the various structural elements were computed using StructurePoint5 software in accordance with ACI 318-146. • The shear capacities of the various structural elements were calculated in general accordance with ACI 318-14. • Analyses were performed using SAP20007 software on both the slab and joists at Fire Station Nos. 3 and 22, respectively. The shear, flexure and end reaction envelopes for these elements were determined based on this analysis. Trucks were assumed to occupy either centered as well as left-of-center or right-of-center positions within each bay. • Based on the end reaction envelopes of the slab and joists at Fire Station Nos. 3 and 22, respectively, a load distribution ratio was determined for the beams at both fire stations (i.e. percent of axle load distributed to the beams). • Taking into consideration the load distribution ratio, a moving wheel load analysis in the longitudinal direction was performed on the beams at each fire station using SAP2000 software. The shear and moment envelopes for the beams were determined based on this analysis. • From the shear and moment envelopes, the maximum moment and shear demands on the various structural elements were determined. The demand capacity ratios were then calculated. In addition to the above methodology, the following conditions and assumptions were included in our analyses: General • Since issuance of our Phase 1 report, CTLGroup received clarification on the anticipated vehicles that will operate from each fire station. At Fire Station No. 22 this includes a Pierce 105’ Heavy Duty Aerial Ladder with water tank (Job No. 27566) and a Pierce Impel Pumper (Job No. 25403). At Fire Station No. 3 this includes a Pierce 105’ Heavy 5 StructurePoint, LLC, https://www.structurepoint.org/; computer software for the analysis and design of reinforced concrete structures. 6 ACI 318-14 “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete” 7 Computers and Structures, Inc., SAP200 software Mr. Karim Helmi – City of Austin Feasibility Study – Fire Stations Nos. 3 and 22 CTLGroup No. 231701, Phase 2 Page 5 of 10 (plus appendices) August 31, 2017 Duty Aerial Ladder with water tank (Job No. 27566) and a Pierce Velocity Pumper (Job No. 29905). The dimensions and weights associated with these vehicles were used in our analyses. These specifications can be found in the structural analyses packet included in Appendices C and D. • The loads considered in the structural analyses included the self-weight of the concrete elements and the axle weights of the above vehicles. • As previously discussed, no discernible shear reinforcing was detected in the middle beams at Fire Station No. 3. As a result, it was assumed in our analyses that there was no shear reinforcement in the middle beams at Fire Station No. 3. Fire Station No. 3 Fire Station No. 22 • Additional non-destructive testing (NDT) would need to be performed on the slab at Fire Station No. 22 to adequately evaluate the extent of composite action between the existing topping slab and joists. However, of all the cores taken through both the topping slab and joists at this fire station, approximately half were de-bonded. Additionally, visual evaluation of the joist cores indicates that there was minimal roughening of the top surface of the joists. Therefore, it was conservatively assumed that there was no composite action between the existing topping slab and joists in our analyses. • Extensive cracking was observed in the topping slab at Fire Station No. 22. Therefore, the non-composite cracked topping was considered incapable of distributing wheel loads between adjacent joists. • The joists at Fire Station No. 22 frame into the sides of the beams. CTLGroup found no evidence to indicate that there were any tie-bars (or similar) connecting the joists to the beams. As a result, the joists were assumed to be simply supported. • Welded wire reinforcement (WWR) was found in the stems/webs of the joists at Fire Station No. 22. Since code requires multiple cross-wires of WWR in order to provide full development, at best only partial development of WWR would be effective in joists. Based on our analyses, various elements of both fire stations lack the necessary capacity to support the anticipated vehicular loads. Tables 2 to 4 below summarize the capacities of the various structural elements, the load demands placed on these elements, and the Demand Capacity Ratios (DCR). A DCR greater than 1.0 indicates a strength deficiency. Mr. Karim Helmi – City of Austin Feasibility Study – Fire Stations Nos. 3 and 22 CTLGroup No. 231701, Phase 2 Page 6 of 10 (plus appendices) August 31, 2017 Table 2 –Capacities at Fire Station Nos. 22 and 3 Element Shear (kips) Fire Station No. 22 Fire Station No. 3 Joists North Beam Middle Beam South Beam Slab West Beam Middle Beams Element Shear (kips) Fire Station No. 22 Fire Station No. 3 Joists North Beam Middle Beam South Beam Slab West Beam Middle Beams Table 3 –Demands at Fire Station Nos. 22 and 3 Capacities Positive Moment (k-ft) 35.4 385.5 470.2 374.4 45.6 67.9 89.1 Negative Moment (k-ft) N/A 385.5 470.2 374.4 45.3 64.4 90.3 Demands Positive Moment (k-ft) 118.6 202.2 320.9 192.5 98.0 48.3 184.7 Negative Moment (k-ft) N/A 173.3 401.2 158.9 112.0 58.3 189.7 DCR Positive Moment 3.35 0.52 0.68 0.51 2.15 0.71 2.07 Negative Moment N/A 0.45 0.85 0.42 2.47 0.91 2.10 7.6 60.0 115.5 82.9 49.5 40.9 23.6 37.0 60.8 130.5 74.6 66.3 44.4 91.1 Shear 4.83 1.01 1.13 0.90 1.34 1.09 3.86 Element Fire Station No. 22 Fire Station No. 3 Joists North Beam Middle Beam South Beam Slab West Beam Middle Beams Table 4 –Demand Capacity Ratios (DCR) at Fire Station Nos. 22 and 3. Values in red have a strength deficiency Mr. Karim Helmi – City of Austin Feasibility Study – Fire Stations Nos. 3 and 22 CTLGroup No. 231701, Phase 2 Page 7 of 10 (plus appendices) August 31, 2017 DISCUSSION OF REPAIR OPTIONS FIRE STATION NO. 3 The underside of the slab was spalled at several locations. At several spalled areas, the reinforcing steel was exposed and visibly corroded/rusted, likely indicative of carbonation- induced corrosion. Carbonation depth testing performed by CTLGroup further confirms that carbonation is an issue of concern in the garage area at Fire Station No. 3. Due to the depth of carbonation, the future service life of the garage floor system could be limited. However, additional testing and service life modeling would be needed to more accurately estimate the functional lifespan of the garage floor system. Considering the slab thickness, it would be difficult to repair existing areas of corroded reinforcing without the repair extending through the full depth of the slab. Additional NDT work would also be needed to determine the full extent of existing corroded reinforcing. Additionally, preventing future carbonation-induced corrosion (such as with cathodic protection) would add considerable cost to any repair/strengthening program. The slab and middle beams at Fire Station No. 3 are considerably deficient with respect to supporting the anticipated vehicular loads (see Table 4). The slab is overloaded by nearly 150% in flexure. The middle beams are overloaded by nearly 300% in shear and nearly 100% in flexure. Due to the degree to which the slab and middle beams are overloaded in conjunction with the presence of carbonation-induced corrosion, we do not believe that repair/strengthening of the garage floor system at Fire Station No. 3 can be accomplished in a cost-effective manner without substantial replacement of framing elements. CTLGroup proposes two (2) options to address the strength deficiency and carbonation issue, which includes the following: 1. Remove and replace large portions of the existing floor system, or 2. Fill the crawlspace beneath the garage area with a cementitious flowable fill material. With regard to removal and replacement, this will require the removal of the slab and middle beams in the garage area. The west beam, perimeter foundation walls, and columns can likely remain in place. A new monolithic slab/beam system would be designed and constructed such that it would tie into these existing elements. In lieu of a cast-in-place monolithic slab/beam system, structural precast members could also be considered. If the City of Austin decides to replace the garage floor system, CTLGroup is available to design its replacement and provide details and drawings for construction phase services. This work would be performed as part of Phase 3 of this project. Some geotechnical investigation may be necessary to demonstrate adequacy of existing foundations. As an alternative to this repair option, the City may also consider replacement of the entire bay area of the fire station. This would allow other upgrades including increasing overhead clearance. With regard to Option 2, the existing garage floor system at Fire Station No. 3 would remain in place and the crawlspace area beneath the garage would be filled with a cementitious flowable fill material. In this scenario, the garage floor system would generally function as a slab-on- grade type system. The slab and middle beams would no longer be suspended, and as a result the strength deficiencies in these elements would no longer be a concern. This is likely the Mr. Karim Helmi – City of Austin Feasibility Study – Fire Stations Nos. 3 and 22 CTLGroup No. 231701, Phase 2 fastest and least disruptive remedy. However, depending on the soil characteristics at the subject site, this option may not be possible. Specifically, expansive soil is common in the Austin area. The void underneath the slab systems provides protection against differential soil movement due to moisture variations in the soil. Filling the void beneath the slab could compromise this protection. Page 8 of 10 (plus appendices) August 31, 2017 Based on a preliminary review of the soils at the subject site, the structure is situated on “Urban land” according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey8. No additional information is provided for this soil. This includes the plasticity index which generally governs a soil’s shrink/swell potential. Geotechnical borings and a soil evaluation would be needed to determine the precise characteristics of the foundation subgrade. If the City of Austin desires to explore this option further, CTLGroup can arrange for a geotechnical evaluation as part of Phase 3 of this project. FIRE STATION NO. 22 CTLGroup considered multiple repair/retrofit options as repair strengthening solutions for the floor framing at Fire Station No. 22. However, the extent of deficiencies present in the existing floor system results in a relatively complex and expensive repair/strengthening program. Repair/strengthening requirements included the following: • Replacement of the existing, poorly bonded topping slab, • Shear strengthening of existing joists, and • Flexural strengthening of existing joists. The current 3.5 in. topping slab is not a reliable composite overlay. To achieve a sound composite overlay system, the current topping would need to be removed, the top of the existing joist flanges would need to be roughened to an approximately ¼ in. amplitude, and a new composite topping slab would need to be installed. However, the existing joist flange thickness is only 1½ in. Removing the topping and roughening the top of joist flange would likely involve damaging the existing joist flange. Repairing damaged joist flanges would be difficult and would increase the cost and duration of the retrofit. The joists are potentially overloaded in shear by over 400%. Shear strengthening of existing joists could potentially be accomplished by use of FRP reinforcing, or installation of external threaded rod reinforcement. FRP is a composite material composed of a polymer matrix that is reinforced with high strength fibers. As a repair material for concrete, the fibers typically consist of carbon or glass. FRP can be installed by laying dry fabric into uncured epoxy resin or by adhering FRP laminates to existing concrete framing. However, there are limits to the extent of strengthening that can be accomplished with FRP. ACI 440.2R9 that governs the use of FRP as an externally applied repair material for concrete structures requires that “the unstrengthened structural member, without FRP reinforcement, should have sufficient strength to resist a certain level of load”. More specifically, the standard generally requires that the concrete member be able to support 75% of the service live load (i.e. the vehicular wheel loads) in addition to the 8 USDA, “Web Soil Survey,” http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed August 17, 2017). 9 ACI 440.2R “Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures” Mr. Karim Helmi – City of Austin Feasibility Study – Fire Stations Nos. 3 and 22 CTLGroup No. 231701, Phase 2 dead load (i.e. self-weight of the concrete). The extent of strength deficiencies in the floor framing is greater than this threshold. Page 9 of 10 (plus appendices) August 31, 2017 Shear strengthening by use of external threaded rods would involve installing threaded rods through the 1 in. space between adjacent joists. The rods would be secured to the joists with steel plates and nuts at both the tops and bottoms of the joists. The top plates would be embedded/encased in the topping composite slab concrete. While this is a viable repair methodology, the extent of strengthening required in some areas compromises the practicality of this repair. Flexural strengthening of the joists would require a strengthening level that also prohibits use of FRP reinforcing alone. The most practical method of strengthening appeared to be thickening the concrete overlay. This, however, would reduce overhead clearance, thereby requiring retrofit of overhead doors to accommodate the thickened overlay. Transitions would also be necessary where the garage meets other portions of the fire station. Thus, addressing each deficiency would result in a complex and expensive retrofit program. Therefore, similar to Fire Station No. 3, CTLGroup proposes two (2) options to address the strength deficiency in the floor framing at Fire Station No. 22, which include the following: 1. Remove and replace the existing topping slab and joists in the garage area, or 2. Fill the crawlspace beneath the garage area with a cementitious flowable fill material Removal and replacement would be limited to the topping slab and joists. The beams can remain in place with limited strengthening. A new joist/slab system would be designed and constructed such that it would tie into the existing beams. It would likely be most practical to replace the joists with custom precast members. If the City of Austin decides to replace the joists and slab at the garage area, CTLGroup is available to design its replacement and provide details and drawings for construction phase services. This work would be performed as part of Phase 3 of this project. Some geotechnical investigation may be necessary to demonstrate adequacy of existing foundations. As an alternative to this repair option, the City may also consider replacement of the entire bay area of the fire station. This would allow other upgrades including increasing overhead clearance. With regard to Option 2, the existing garage floor system at Fire Station No. 22 could remain in place and the crawlspace area beneath the garage would be filled with a cementitious flowable fill material. As discussed above, expansive clay could make this option not feasible. Geotechnical borings and a soil evaluation would be needed to determine the precise characteristics of the existing subgrade. If the City of Austin desires to explore this option further, CTLGroup can arrange for a geotechnical evaluation as part of Phase 3 of this project. Mr. Karim Helmi – City of Austin Feasibility Study – Fire Stations Nos. 3 and 22 CTLGroup No. 231701, Phase 2 CLOSING Page 10 of 10 (plus appendices) August 31, 2017 Thank you for the opportunity to assist you on this project. Please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions or concerns, or need any additional information. Peter R. Kolf Principal Structural Engineer PKolf@CTLGroup.com Phone: (847) 972-3214 Hamid R. Lotfi Senior Engineer HLotfi@CTLGroup.com Phone: (847) 972-3206 August 31 , 2017 Jonathan L. Poole, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Engineer JPoole@CTLGroup.com P. 512-219-4075 COA# F3849  Appendix A Plan Views and Cross-Section Details  Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Client: Project Name: City of Austin Austin Fire Department Stations 3 & 22 Structural Capacity Assessment Karim Helmi Bradley East Contact: Submitter: Date Received: June 21, 2017 CTLGroup Project No.: CTLGroup Project Mgr.: Analyst: Approved by: Date Analyzed: Date Reported: 231701 Bradley East WD, CA Bradley East June 27, 2017 June 28, 2017 ASTM C42 Standard Test Method for Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete Section 7: Cores for Compressive Strength Specimen Identification CTLGroup Identification Client Identification Date Core Obtained from the Field Date end preparation was completed and core was placed in sealed bag Date Core was Tested Concrete Description Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size, in. Concrete Age at Test Moisture Condition at Test Length of Core, As Drilled, in. Orientation of Core Axis in Structure Cylinder End Preparation 4475701 No. 3-C6 Not Stated 6/22/17 6/27/17 4475702 No. 3-C7 Not Stated 6/22/17 6/27/17 4475703 No. 3-C8 Not Stated 6/22/17 6/27/17 3/4 ~65 years Per Standard 6 1/2 Vertical Capped 3/4 ~65 years Per Standard 7 Vertical Capped 3/4 ~65 years Per Standard 6 3/4 Vertical Capped Concrete Dimensions Diameter 1, in. Diameter 2, in. Average Diameter, in. Cross-Sectional Area, in2 Length Trimmed, in. Length Capped, in. Density, pcf Compressive Strength and Fracture Pattern Maximum Load, lb Uncorrected compressive Strength, psi Ratio of Capped Length to Diameter Corrected Compressive Strength, psi Fracture Pattern Schematic of Typical Fracture Patterns < 1 in. [25 mm] 2.74 2.74 2.74 5.90 5.2 5.3 140 17,620 2,990 1.95 2,990 Type 4 2.74 2.74 2.74 5.90 5.2 5.3 142 18,006 3,050 1.95 3,050 Type 1 2.74 2.74 2.74 5.90 5.2 5.4 139 15,659 2,650 1.97 2,650 Type 1 Type 1 Reasonable well-formed cones on both ends, less than 1 in. [25 mm] of cracking through caps Type 2 Well-formed cone on one end, vertical cracks running through caps, no well-defined cone on other end Type 3 Columnar vertical cracking through both ends, no well-formed cones Type 4 Diagonal fracture with no cracking through ends; tap with hammer to distinguish from Type I Type 5 Side fractures at top or bottom (occur commonly with unbonded caps) Type 6 Similar to Type 5 but end of cylinder is pointed Notes: 1. This report may not be reproduced except in its entirety. QLT 39-001 Revision 5 Corporate Office and Laboratory: 5400 Old Orchard Road Skokie, Illinois 60077-1030 Page 1 of 1 Client: Project Name: City of Austin Austin Fire Department Stations 3 & 22 Structural Capacity Assessment Karim Helmi Bradley East Contact: Submitter: Date Received: June 21, 2017 CTLGroup Project No.: CTLGroup Project Mgr.: Analyst: Approved by: Date Analyzed: Date Reported: 231701 Bradley East WD, CA Bradley East June 27, 2017 June 28, 2017 ASTM C42 Standard Test Method for Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete Section 7: Cores for Compressive Strength Specimen Identification CTLGroup Identification Client Identification Date Core Obtained from the Field Date end preparation was completed and core was placed in sealed bag Date Core was Tested Concrete Description Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size, in. Concrete Age at Test Moisture Condition at Test Length of Core, As Drilled, in. Orientation of Core Axis in Structure Cylinder End Preparation 4475704 No. 3-C9 Not Stated 6/22/17 6/27/17 4475705 No. 3-C10 Not Stated 6/22/17 6/27/17 4475706 No. 3-C11 Not Stated 6/22/17 6/27/17 3/4 ~65 years Per Standard 6 1/2 Vertical Capped 3/4 ~65 years Per Standard 6 3/4 Vertical Capped 3/4 ~65 years Per Standard 5 1/4 Vertical Capped Concrete Dimensions Diameter 1, in. Diameter 2, in. Average Diameter, in. Cross-Sectional Area, in2 Length Trimmed, in. Length Capped, in. Density, pcf Compressive Strength and Fracture Pattern Maximum Load, lb Uncorrected compressive Strength, psi Ratio of Capped Length to Diameter Corrected Compressive Strength, psi Fracture Pattern Schematic of Typical Fracture Patterns < 1 in. [25 mm] 2.74 2.74 2.74 5.90 5.2 5.4 140 15,534 2,630 1.96 2,630 Type 4 2.74 2.74 2.74 5.90 5.2 5.3 141 15,388 2,610 1.95 2,610 Type 1 2.74 2.74 2.74 5.90 5.2 5.4 141 18,126 3,070 1.96 3,070 Type 1 Type 1 Reasonable well-formed cones on both ends, less than 1 in. [25 mm] of cracking through caps Type 2 Well-formed cone on one end, vertical cracks running through caps, no well-defined cone on other end Type 3 Columnar vertical cracking through both ends, no well-formed cones Type 4 Diagonal fracture with no cracking through ends; tap with hammer to distinguish from Type I Type 5 Side fractures at top or bottom (occur commonly with unbonded caps) Type 6 Similar to Type 5 but end of cylinder is pointed Notes: 1. This report may not be reproduced except in its entirety. QLT 39-001 Revision 5 Corporate Office and Laboratory: 5400 Old Orchard Road Skokie, Illinois 60077-1030 Page 1 of 1 Client: Project Name: City of Austin Austin Fire Department Stations 3 & 22 Structural Capacity Assessment Karim Helmi Bradley East Contact: Submitter: Date Received: June 21, 2017 CTLGroup Project No.: CTLGroup Project Mgr.: Analyst: Approved by: Date Analyzed: Date Reported: 231701 Bradley East WD, CA Bradley East June 27, 2017 June 28, 2017 ASTM C42 Standard Test Method for Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete Section 7: Cores for Compressive Strength Specimen Identification CTLGroup Identification Client Identification Date Core Obtained from the Field Date end preparation was completed and core was placed in sealed bag Date Core was Tested Concrete Description Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size, in. Concrete Age at Test Moisture Condition at Test Length of Core, As Drilled, in. Orientation of Core Axis in Structure Cylinder End Preparation 4475707 No. 3-C12 Not Stated 6/22/17 6/27/17 4475708 No. 3-C13 Not Stated 6/22/17 6/27/17 4475709 No. 3-C14 Not Stated 6/22/17 6/27/17 3/4 ~65 years Per Standard 6 Vertical Capped 3/4 ~65 years Per Standard 5 1/4 Vertical Capped 3/4 ~65 years Per Standard 5 3/4 Vertical Capped Concrete Dimensions Diameter 1, in. Diameter 2, in. Average Diameter, in. Cross-Sectional Area, in2 Length Trimmed, in. Length Capped, in. Density, pcf Compressive Strength and Fracture Pattern Maximum Load, lb Uncorrected compressive Strength, psi Ratio of Capped Length to Diameter Corrected Compressive Strength, psi Fracture Pattern Schematic of Typical Fracture Patterns < 1 in. [25 mm] 2.74 2.74 2.74 5.90 5.2 5.4 140 18,485 3,130 1.96 3,130 Type 4 2.74 2.74 2.74 5.90 5.2 5.4 142 20,585 3,490 1.95 3,490 Type 1 2.74 2.75 2.75 5.94 5.1 5.3 143 17,159 2,890 1.94 2,890 Type 1 Type 1 Reasonable well-formed cones on both ends, less than 1 in. [25 mm] of cracking through caps Type 2 Well-formed cone on one end, vertical cracks running through caps, no well-defined cone on other end Type 3 Columnar vertical cracking through both ends, no well-formed cones Type 4 Diagonal fracture with no cracking through ends; tap with hammer to distinguish from Type I Type 5 Side fractures at top or bottom (occur commonly with unbonded caps) Type 6 Similar to Type 5 but end of cylinder is pointed Notes: 1. This report may not be reproduced except in its entirety. QLT 39-001 Revision 5 Corporate Office and Laboratory: 5400 Old Orchard Road Skokie, Illinois 60077-1030 Page 1 of 1 Copy No. 1 Report for City of Austin 105 W. Riverside Drive, Austin, Texas 78704 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Paste Carbonation Determination of Two Concrete Cores from the City of Austin Fire Department Station 3 Structural Capacity Assessment, Austin, Texas August 9, 2017 Submitted by: Meredith Strow Jean L. Randolph COA #F-3849 5400 Old Orchard Road Skokie, Illinois 60077-1030 (847) 965-7500 Austin, TX • Bradenton, FL • Chicago, IL • Horsham, PA Naperville, IL • Washington, DC • Doha, Qatar www.CTLGroup.com C T L G r o u p i s a r e g i s t e r e d d / b / a o f C o n s t r u c t i o n T e c h n o l o g y L a b o r a t o r i e s , I n c . REPORT OF PASTE CARBONATION DETERMINATION Date: August 9, 2017 CTLGroup Project No.: 231701 Paste Carbonation Determination of Two Concrete Cores from the City of Austin Fire Department Station 3 Structural Capacity Assessment, Austin, Texas Two concrete cores, identified as FS #3 C15 and FS #3 C16 (Figs. 1 and 2), were received on August 1, 2017, by the CTLGroup Petrographic Laboratory from Mr. Bradley East, CTLGroup Engineer, on behalf of the City of Austin, Texas. Table 1 identifies and briefly describes the as- received cores. TABLE 1 IDENTIFICATION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE CORE SAMPLES Core Identification Brief Description As-Received Photographs FS #3 C15 Full-depth 1.7-in.-dia. core consisting of one concrete with a very thin layer of clear topping material on the top surface. A couple randomly-oriented hairline cracks are present on the top surface. FS #3 C16 Full-depth 1.7-in.-dia. core consisting of one concrete with a very thin layer of clear topping material on the top surface. Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Determination of the depth of paste carbonation of the two cores was requested, specifically from the core bottom surface up into the concrete. This report presents the details and results of the analysis. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Core FS #3 C15 does not contain rebar. Paste carbonation is present in both the top and bottom portions of the concrete core (Fig. 3a). From the top surface, the paste is carbonated to Austin, TX • Bradenton, FL • Chicago, IL • Horsham, PA • Naperville, IL • Washington, DC • Doha, Qatar Corporate Office: 5400 Old Orchard Road, Skokie, IL 60077-1030 P: 847-965-7500 F: 847-965-6541 www.CTLGroup.com CTLGroup is a registered d/b/a of Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc. City of Austin City of Austin Fire Department Station 3 Structural Capacity Assessment CTLGroup Project No. 231701 depths of 22 to 29 mm (0.9 to 1.1 in.). From the bottom surface, the paste is carbonated to Page 2 of 7 August 9, 2017 depths of 10 to 27 mm (0.4 to 1.1 in.) into the concrete. Core FS #3 C16 does not contain rebar. Paste carbonation is observed only in the bottom portion of the concrete core (Fig. 3b). From the bottom surface, the paste is carbonated to depths of 29 to 44 mm (1.1 to 1.7 in.) into the concrete. All information obtained in the examination is presented in the laboratory data forms at the end METHODS OF TEST Depth and pattern of paste carbonation was determined by application of a pH indicator solution (phenolphthalein) to a freshly saw-cut, longitudinal concrete surface of each core. The solution imparts a deep magenta stain to high pH, non-carbonated paste. Carbonated paste does not Jean L. Randolph Senior Petrographer and Group Manager Petrography Group Notes: 1. Results refer specifically to the samples submitted. 2. This report may not be reproduced except in its entirety. of this report. change color. Meredith Strow Petrography Group MLS/JLR/ www.CTLGroup.com City of Austin City of Austin Fire Department Station 3 Structural Capacity Assessment CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 3 of 7 August 9, 2017 e c a f r u s p o t 1a. Core top surface. Surface is flat, even concrete surface with a very thin layer of clear topping material. Yellow arrows point to hairline cracks. 1b. Side view of core. 1c. Core bottom surface. The surface is a formed wavy shape. Red arrows point to corrugated ridge. www.CTLGroup.com Fig. 1 Core FS #3 C15, as received in the Petrographic Laboratory for testing. City of Austin City of Austin Fire Department Station 3 Structural Capacity Assessment CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 4 of 7 August 9, 2017 2a. Core top surface. Surface is flat, even concrete surface with a very thin layer of clear topping material. 2b. Side view of core. 2c. Core bottom surface. The surface is a formed wavy shape. Red arrows point to corrugated ridge. www.CTLGroup.com e c a f r u s p o t Fig. 2 Core FS #3 C16, as received in the Petrographic Laboratory for testing. City of Austin City of Austin Fire Department Station 3 Structural Capacity Assessment CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 5 of 7 August 9, 2017 FS #3 C15 FS #3 C16 0.9 to 1.1 in. 0.4 to 1.1 in. 3a. Core FS #3 C15 3b. Core FS #3 C16 Fig. 3 Saw-cut, cross-sectional concrete surfaces of Cores FS #3 C15 and FS #3 C16. Phenolphthalein (a pH indicator solution) was applied to the surface to determine paste carbonation levels. Non-carbonated paste is deep magenta; carbonated paste did not change color. Yellow bars and text designate depth into the concrete from the nearest surface. Scale is in inches. 1.1 to 1.7 in. www.CTLGroup.com City of Austin City of Austin Fire Department Station 3 Structural Capacity Assessment CTLGroup Project No. 231701 LABORATORY DATA FORM Page 6 of 7 August 9, 2017 STRUCTURE: City of Austin Fire Station #3 DATE RECEIVED: August 1, 2017 LOCATION: Austin, Texas EXAMINED BY: Meredith Strow SAMPLE Client Identification: FS #3 C15. CTLGroup Identification: 4506701. Dimensions: Core diameter = 44 mm (1.7 in.), core length = 137 to 152 mm (5.4 to 6 in.); full structure thickness. Top Surface: Flat, even, concrete surface with very thin layer of clear topping material. A couple long, randomly-oriented, hairline cracks extend across the full diameter of the core. Bottom Surface: Wavy, fairly smooth, formed concrete surface with one corrugated ridge. Cracks, Joints, Large Voids: No additional cracks present; no joints or large voids present. Reinforcement: None present. PASTE Depth of Carbonation: 22 to 29 mm (0.9 to 1.1 in.) from top surface; 10 to 27 mm (0.4 to 1.1 in.) from bottom surface. www.CTLGroup.com City of Austin City of Austin Fire Department Station 3 Structural Capacity Assessment CTLGroup Project No. 231701 LABORATORY DATA FORM Page 7 of 7 August 9, 2017 STRUCTURE: City of Austin Fire Station #3 DATE RECEIVED: August 1, 2017 LOCATION: Austin, Texas EXAMINED BY: Meredith Strow SAMPLE Client Identification: FS #3 C16. CTLGroup Identification: 4506702. Dimensions: Core diameter = 44 mm (1.7 in.), core length = 136 to 150 mm (5.4 to 5.9 in.); full structure thickness. Top Surface: Flat, even, concrete surface with very thin layer of clear topping material. Bottom Surface: Wavy, fairly smooth, formed concrete surface with one corrugated ridge. Cracks, Joints, Large Voids: None present. Reinforcement: None present. PASTE Depth of Carbonation: Negligible from top surface; 29 to 44 mm (1.1 to 1.7 in.) from bottom surface. www.CTLGroup.com Copy No. 1 Report for City of Austin 105 W. Riverside Drive, Austin, Texas 78704 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Paste Carbonation Determination on Core Samples from Austin Fire Department Stations 3 and 22 Structural Capacity Assessment, Austin, Texas June 28, 2017 Submitted by: Meredith Strow Jean L. Randolph COA #F-3849 5400 Old Orchard Road Skokie, Illinois 60077-1030 (847) 965-7500 Austin, TX • Bradenton, FL • Chicago, IL • Horsham, PA Naperville, IL • Washington, DC • Doha, Qatar www.CTLGroup.com C T L G r o u p i s a r e g i s t e r e d d / b / a o f C o n s t r u c t i o n T e c h n o l o g y L a b o r a t o r i e s , I n c . REPORT OF PASTE CARBONATION DETERMINATION Date: June 28, 2017 CTLGroup Project No.: 231701 Paste Carbonation Determination on Core Samples from Austin Fire Department Stations 3 and 22 Structural Capacity Assessment, Austin, Texas Two concrete core samples were received June 23, 2017, in the CTLGroup Petrographic Laboratory from Mr. Bradley East, CTLGroup Engineer, on behalf of the City of Austin, Texas. Table 1 identifies and briefly describes the as-received specimens. TABLE 1 IDENTIFICATION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE CORE SAMPLES Core Identification Brief Description No. 3-Big Core Full-depth 5.6-in.-dia. core, consisting of a terrazzo-type topping, then a thick mortar- like layer, then the substrate concrete. No. 3-C14 Specimen is the bottom 0.9-in. portion of a longer, 2.7-in.-dia. core. The bottom portion was saw-cut from the overlying core. As-Received Photographs Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Determination of the depth of paste carbonation of the two core specimens was requested, from the core bottom surface up into the concrete. This report presents the details and results of the analysis. surface. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Core 3-Big Core contains three rebar segments, which are located in the bottom portion of the concrete. The rebar segments have concrete cover ranging from 0.5 to 1 in. from the bottom Austin, TX • Bradenton, FL • Chicago, IL • Horsham, PA • Naperville, IL • Washington, DC • Doha, Qatar Corporate Office: 5400 Old Orchard Road, Skokie, IL 60077-1030 P: 847-965-7500 F: 847-965-6541 www.CTLGroup.com CTLGroup is a registered d/b/a of Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc. City of Austin Austin Fire Department Stations 3 and 22 Structural Capacity Assessment CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Carbonation in Core No. 3-Big Core is minimal and does not reach any of the four rebar Page 2 of 8 June 28, 2017 segments present within the concrete (Fig. 3). The rebar segments have concrete cover ranging from 0.5 to 1 in. from the bottom surface. Four small, local regions of carbonation extend from the bottom surface to depths of 0.3 to 0.5 in. into the concrete. The carbonated region which extends 0.5 in. into the concrete is relatively far away from the rebar segments. The closest rebar segment to this carbonated region has 1 in. of concrete cover; the rebar is not comprised. Core No. 3-C14 is a 0.9-in.-thick offcut from a longer core. No rebar is present in this core sample. Carbonation in No. 3-C14 is substantial. The majority of the paste is carbonated throughout the full depth of the core sample, with small amounts of noncarbonated paste along the bottom surface (Fig. 4). The non-carbonated paste appears to extend upwardly into the concrete in a relatively random nature. Due to the amount of carbonation, it is likely that the carbonated paste is present beyond the 0.9 in. portion of the core evaluated in this examination. All information obtained in the examination is presented in the laboratory data forms at the end METHODS OF TEST Depth and pattern of paste carbonation was determined by application of a pH indicator solution (phenolphthalein) to a freshly saw-cut, longitudinal concrete surface of each core. The solution imparts a deep magenta stain to high pH, non-carbonated paste. Carbonated paste does not Jean L. Randolph Senior Petrographer and Group Manager Petrography Group Notes: 1. Results refer specifically to the samples submitted. 2. This report may not be reproduced except in its entirety. www.CTLGroup.com of this report. change color. Meredith Strow Petrography Group MLS/JLR/ City of Austin Austin Fire Department Stations 3 and 22 Structural Capacity Assessment CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 3 of 8 June 28, 2017 1a. Top surface. Surface is a terrazzo-like concrete material. Red arrows point to a thin reinforcement plate. 1b. Side view of core. Core consists of a terrazzo-like concrete topping, with an underlying mortar-like layer, then the underlying substrate concrete. Three rebar segments (red arrows) are present in the bottom portion of the concrete. The concrete bottom surface is a formed, wavy corrugated shape. 1c. Core bottom surface. The surface is a formed wavy shape. Green arrows point to corrugated ridges. www.CTLGroup.com Fig. 1 Core No. 3-Big Core, as received in the Petrographic Laboratory for testing. City of Austin Austin Fire Department Stations 3 and 22 Structural Capacity Assessment CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 4 of 8 June 28, 2017 2a. Top of sample, which is a saw-cut surface. 2b. Side view of sample. The concrete bottom surface is a formed, wavy corrugated shape. Green arrow points to a corrugated ridge. 2c. Bottom of sample. Green arrows point to a corrugated ridge. www.CTLGroup.com Fig. 2 Core No. 3-C14, as received in the Petrographic Laboratory for testing. City of Austin Austin Fire Department Stations 3 and 22 Structural Capacity Assessment CTLGroup Project No. 231701 top surface Page 5 of 8 June 28, 2017 0.3 in. 0.4 in. 0.5 in. 0.4 in. Fig. 3 Saw-cut, cross-sectional concrete surface of Core No. 3-Big Core. Phenolphthalein (a pH indicator solution) was applied to the surface to aid in carbonation assessment. Non- carbonated paste is deep magenta; carbonated paste did not change color. Four local regions of carbonated paste are present along the bottom surface; yellow arrows point to these regions and yellow bars and text designate depth into the concrete from the nearest bottom surface. Scale is in inches. www.CTLGroup.com City of Austin Austin Fire Department Stations 3 and 22 Structural Capacity Assessment CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 6 of 8 June 28, 2017 saw-cut top surface Fig. 4 Saw-cut, cross-sectional concrete surface of Core No. 3-C14. Phenolphthalein (a pH indicator solution) was applied to the surface to aid in carbonation assessment. Non- carbonated paste is deep magenta; carbonated paste did not change color. The majority of the paste is carbonated throughout the full depth of the concrete sample. A small amount of non-carbonated paste is present along the bottom surface and mottled upwardly into the concrete. Scale is in inches. www.CTLGroup.com City of Austin Austin Fire Department Stations 3 and 22 Structural Capacity Assessment CTLGroup Project No. 231701 LABORATORY DATA FORM Page 7 of 8 June 28, 2017 STRUCTURE: Austin Fire Department DATE RECEIVED: June 23, 2017 LOCATION: Austin, Texas EXAMINED BY: Meredith Strow SAMPLE Client Identification: No. 3-Big Core. CTLGroup Identification: 4402614. Dimensions: Core diameter = 142 mm (5.6 in.), core length = 205 to 219 mm (8.1 to 8.6 in.); full structure thickness. Top Surface: Flat, even, saw-cut terrazzo-type material surface. Bottom Surface: Wavy, fairly smooth, formed concrete surface with corrugated ridges. Cracks, Joints, Large Voids: None present. Reinforcement: • Three rebar segments are present in the bottom portion of the concrete; all three are oriented parallel to the top surface. Information regarding each segment is summarized below: o One 11-mm-dia. (0.4-in.-dia.) segment.  Located at depth of 168 mm (6.6 in.) from core top surface, or 112 mm (4.4 in.) from concrete top surface.  Concrete cover of 26 mm (1 in.) from the nearest bottom surface. o One segment has a diameter of 12 mm (0.5 in.) and has  Located at depth of 178 mm (7 in.) from core top surface, or 122 mm (4.8 in.) from concrete top surface.  Concrete cover of 17 mm (0.7 in.) from the nearest bottom surface.  This rebar segment was cut through at an angle and appears elongated on the lapped surface image. o One 6-mm-dia. (0.2-in.-dia.) segment.  Located at depth of 191 mm (7.5 in.) from core top surface, or 131 mm (5.2 in.) from concrete top surface.  Concrete cover of 12 mm (0.5 in.) from nearest bottom surface. PASTE Depth of Carbonation: Four local regions of carbonated paste are observed in the near- bottom region of the concrete. These regions extend from the bottom surface to depths of 7 mm (0.3 in.), 12.5 mm (0.5 in.), 10.5 mm (0.4 in.), and 10 mm (0.4 in.). No carbonated paste reaches rebar segments. www.CTLGroup.com City of Austin Austin Fire Department Stations 3 and 22 Structural Capacity Assessment CTLGroup Project No. 231701 LABORATORY DATA FORM Page 8 of 8 June 28, 2017 STRUCTURE: Austin Fire Department DATE RECEIVED: June 23, 2017 LOCATION: Austin, Texas EXAMINED BY: Meredith Strow SAMPLE Client Identification: No. 3-C14. CTLGroup Identification: 4475709-01. Dimensions: Core diameter = 69 mm (2.7 in.). Core length = 22 mm (0.9 in.); partial structure thickness. Top Surface: Flat, even, saw-cut concrete surface. Bottom Surface: Wavy, fairly smooth, formed concrete surface with a corrugated ridge. Cracks, Joints, Large Voids: None present. Reinforcement: None present. PASTE Depth of Carbonation: The majority of the paste is carbonated throughout the full depth of the concrete sample. A small amount of non-carbonated paste is present along the bottom surface and mottled upwardly into the concrete. www.CTLGroup.com Copy No. 1 Report for City of Austin 105 W. Riverside Drive, Austin, Texas 78704 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Paste Carbonation Determination on Core FS#22-C12 from Austin Fire Department Stations 3 and 22 Structural Capacity Assessment, Austin, Texas August 8, 2017 Submitted by: Jaclyn Ferraro Jean L. Randolph COA #F-3849 5400 Old Orchard Road Skokie, Illinois 60077-1030 (847) 965-7500 Austin, TX • Bradenton, FL • Chicago, IL • Horsham, PA Naperville, IL • Washington, DC • Doha, Qatar www.CTLGroup.com C T L G r o u p i s a r e g i s t e r e d d / b / a o f C o n s t r u c t i o n T e c h n o l o g y L a b o r a t o r i e s , I n c . REPORT OF PASTE CARBONATION DETERMINATION Date: August 8, 2017 CTLGroup Project No.: 231701 Paste Carbonation Determination on Core FS#22-C12 from Austin Fire Department Stations 3 and 22 Structural Capacity Assessment, Austin, Texas One concrete core sample, identified as FS#22-C12, was received August 1, 2017, in the CTLGroup Petrographic Laboratory from Mr. Bradley East, CTLGroup Engineer, on behalf of the City of Austin, Texas. The core was received with saw-cut ends that are covered with a capping compound. Determination of paste carbonation in the concrete core was requested. This report presents the details and results of the analysis. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS No paste carbonation is observed in the concrete of Core FS#22-C12 (Fig. 1). The sample contains one 4-mm-diameter (0.2-in.-dia.) wire mesh segment. All information obtained in the examination is presented in the laboratory data form at the end of this report. METHODS OF TEST Pattern of paste carbonation was determined by application of a pH indicator solution (phenolphthalein) to a freshly saw-cut, longitudinal concrete surface and fresh fractured surface of the core. The solution imparts a deep magenta stain to high pH, non-carbonated paste. Carbonated paste does not change color. Jaclyn Ferraro Petrography Group JMF/JLR/ Notes: 1. Results refer specifically to the sample submitted. 2. This report may not be reproduced except in its entirety. Jean L. Randolph Senior Petrographer and Group Manager Petrography Group Austin, TX • Bradenton, FL • Chicago, IL • Horsham, PA • Naperville, IL • Washington, DC • Doha, Qatar Corporate Office: 5400 Old Orchard Road, Skokie, IL 60077-1030 P: 847-965-7500 F: 847-965-6541 www.CTLGroup.com CTLGroup is a registered d/b/a of Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc. Page 2 of 3 August 8, 2017 City of Austin Austin Fire Department Stations 3 and 22 Structural Capacity Assessment CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Fresh fractured surface Saw-cut surface Fig. 1 Core FS#22-C12, after being saw-cut longitudinally in the Petrographic Laboratory. One resultant longitudinal saw-cut surface is shown on the right. The other longitudinal saw- cut surface was freshly fractured in the laboratory (left). Phenolphthalein (a pH indicator solution) was applied to these surfaces to determine localities of paste carbonation in the concrete. Non-carbonated paste is deep magenta; carbonated paste does not change color. In the core specimen, no carbonation is observed. Scale is in inches. www.CTLGroup.com City of Austin Austin Fire Department Stations 3 and 22 Structural Capacity Assessment CTLGroup Project No. 231701 LABORATORY DATA FORM Page 3 of 3 August 8, 2017 STRUCTURE: Austin Fire Department DATE RECEIVED: August 1, 2017 LOCATION: Austin, Texas EXAMINED BY: Jaclyn Ferraro SAMPLE Client Identification: FS#22-C12. CTLGroup Identification: 4475713. Dimensions: Core diameter = 32 mm (1.3 in.). Core length without capping compound = 31 mm (1.2 in.); partial structure thickness. Top and Bottom Surfaces: Saw-cut concrete surface covered by a capping compound. Cracks, Joints, Large Voids: None present. Reinforcement: One 4-mm-diameter (0.2-in.-dia.) wire mesh segment is present within the core. PASTE Depth of Carbonation: None observed. www.CTLGroup.com  Appendix C Structural Analyses – Fire Station No. 3  City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 1 of 33 August 25, 2017 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN REVIEW OF CITY OF AUSTIN FIRE STATION NO. 3 PHASE 2 This appendix describes the analysis and design review of Fire Station No. 3 floor system. DESCRIPTION OF THE FLOOR SYSTEM Fire Station No. 3 floor system is described in the main body of the report. CODES AND STANDARDS The design review of Fire Station No. 3 floor system is based on ACI 318-14. MATERIAL PROPERTIES An equivalent concrete compressive strength of 2639 psi is obtained from the statistical analysis of the concrete core test data. An elastic modulus of 2928 ksi is calculated per ACI 318-14 Equation 19.2.2.1.b. A weight density of 141 pcf is obtained from the concrete core test data and used in the structural analysis. Mild deformed reinforcing steel is assumed to have a minimum yield strength equal to 40,000 psi based on the age of the structure. The structure reportedly was constructed in the 1950’s. City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 2 of 33 August 25, 2017 The material properties used in the analyses are summarized in Table 1. The flexural capacity of slab and beams are calculated using the spColumn computer program The shear capacity of slab and beams are calculated and summarized in Table 2. MEMBER CAPACITIES as shown in Figures 1 to 7. LOADS Gravity dead load includes the self-weight of the floor system. The self-weight of the floor system is calculated using a weight density of 141 pcf. Gravity live load includes a ladder truck in one bay and an engine truck in the other bay. The ladder truck weight and wheel footprint calculations are shown in Figure 8. The engine truck weight and wheel footprint calculations are shown in Figure 9. In structural analysis, the length of the tire footprint (parallel to traffic direction) is assumed 10 inches and the width of the footprint (normal to traffic direction) is assumed 20 inches similar to those of a standard truck per AASHTO LRFD 2010. No other live loads besides the truck loads are considered in the structural analyses. FLOOR SLAB ANALYSIS A three-span strip of the floor slab is analyzed under dead and live loads. The analysis model is shown in Figures 10 and 11. The effective width of one-way slab is calculated per AASHTO LRFD 2010 as shown in Table 3. Based on these results, an effective width of 99 in. is assumed for a single axle and an effective width of 151 in. is assumed for a tandem axle with 52 in. spacing between the parallel axles. City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 3 of 33 August 25, 2017 An analysis of the slab strip is conducted under a 27-kip axle load in the left bay and a 27-kip axle load in the right bay as shown in Figures 12 and 13. In this analysis, possible truck/axle positions are considered to be anywhere between a far left position and a far right position within the bay. The shear force and bending moment envelopes are shown in Figures 14 and 15. The maximum shear force, positive bending moment, and negative bending moment from these envelope diagrams constitute the maximum demand (D) on the slab. FLOOR SLAB DESIGN REVIEW The slab strip capacity (C) is obtained by multiplying the unit-wide strip capacities and the strip The slab shear force and bending moment demand capacity ratios (DCR) are summarized in The slab punching shear demand capacity ratio (DCR) under a wheel load is calculated in Table FLOOR SLAB REACTIONS Figure 16 shows the slab reactions as the axle is positioned from one side of the left bay to the other side of the left bay. Figure 17 shows the slab reactions as the axle is positioned from one side of the right bay to the other side of the right bay. These reactions are used to calculate the percentage of the axle load that is carried by each support as shown in Table 6. WIDE BEAM ANALYSIS A four-span continuous beam model of the wide beam is analyzed under dead and live loads. The analysis model is shown in Figures 18 and 19. width. Table 4. 5. City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 4 of 33 August 25, 2017 Moving load analyses of the wide beam are conducted under a ladder truck and an engine truck as shown in Figures 20 to 23. The results of these analyses are scaled by the percentages shown in Table 5 and combined. The shear force and bending moment envelopes are shown in Figures 24 and 25. The maximum shear force, positive bending moment, and negative moment from these envelope diagrams constitute the maximum demand (D) on the wide beam. WIDE BEAM DESIGN REVIEW The wide beam shear force and bending moment demand capacity ratios (DCR) are summarized in Table 7. NARROW BEAM ANALYSIS A four-span continuous beam model of the wide beam is analyzed under dead and live loads. The analysis model is shown in Figures 26 and 27. Moving load analyses of the wide beam are conducted under a ladder truck and an engine truck similar to those shown in Figures 20 to 23. The results of these analyses are scaled by the percentages shown in Table 5 and combined. The shear force and bending moment envelopes are shown in Figures 28 and 29. The maximum shear force, positive bending moment, and negative moment from these envelope diagrams constitute the maximum demand (D) on the wide beam. NARROW BEAM DESIGN REVIEW The wide beam shear force and bending moment demand capacity ratios (DCR) are summarized in Table 8. City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 RESULTS SUMMARY Page 5 of 33 August 25, 2017 The slab, wide beam, and narrow beam shear force and bending moment demand capacity ratios (DCR) are summarized in Table 9. ANALYSIS NOTES design. In the current analyses, the ends of the slab strip and the ends of beams are assumed fixed against rotation. An alternative pinned assumption will also be considered in the final retrofit In the current analyses, the shear demand is evaluated at the face of the supports. A small reduction in the shear demand will be considered in the final retrofit design by evaluating shear at a distance equal to effective depth from the face of the support. In the current analyses, two different types of truck in the left and right bays of the fire station are considered. Per information provided by client, the case of two heavy ladder trucks on adjacent bays need not be considered. City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 6 of 33 August 25, 2017 Table 1: Material properties Concrete compressive strength Concrete modulus of elasticity Concrete Poisson's ratio Concrete weight density Concrete modulus of rupture Concrete direct tensile strength f'c Ec n g fr ft fy 2639 2928 0.2 141 385 205 psi ksi --- pcf psi psi ksi Reinforcementyield stress 40 City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 7 of 33 August 25, 2017 Figure 1: Flexural capacity of 1-ft wide slab strip in transverse direction at midspan City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 8 of 33 August 25, 2017 Figure 2: Flexural capacity of 1-ft wide slab strip in transverse direction at support City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 9 of 33 August 25, 2017 Figure 3: Flexural capacity of 1-ft wide slab strip in longitudinal direction City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 10 of 33 August 25, 2017 Figure 4: Flexural capacity of wide beam at midspan City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 11 of 33 August 25, 2017 Figure 5: Flexural capacity of wide beam at support City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 12 of 33 August 25, 2017 Figure 6: Flexural capacity of narrow beam at midspan City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 13 of 33 August 25, 2017 Figure 7: Flexural capacity of narrow beam at support City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 14 of 33 August 25, 2017 Table 2: Shear capacity Member Slab 1-ft Strip Slab 99-in. Strip Slab 151-in. Strip Narrow Beam 2,639 12 4.25 0.75 5.2 3.9 --- 2,639 99 4.25 0.75 43.2 32.4 --- 2,639 151 4.25 0.75 65.9 49.5 --- Wide Beam 2,639 36 8.50 0.75 31.4 23.6 --- f'c b d f Vc fVc Stirrups Av fy s Vs fVs fVn psi in in --- kips/ft kips/ft in2 psi in kip kip kip 3.93 32.4 49.5 23.6 40.9 2,639 12 18.13 0.75 22.3 16.8 #4@9 0.4 40 9 32.2 24.2 City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 15 of 33 August 25, 2017 Front Axle lb 22,800 Rear Axle lb 54,000 Total lb 76,800 Wheel footprint per CalTrans 2004 Section 3.3 Axle front rear Axle Weight Wheel Weight Area (in2) 114 135 (lb) 22,800 54,000 (lb) 11400 13500 Length Width Pressure (in) 16.9 18.4 (psi) 100 100 Wheel footprint per AASHTO 2010 Section 3.6.1.2.5 Axle front rear Axle Weight Wheel Weight Area (in2) 91.2 108 (lb) 22,800 54,000 (lb) 11400 13500 Length Width Pressure g IM (in) 6.4 6.4 (in) 14.3 16.9 (psi) 125 125 1 0 1 0 (in) 6.8 7.3 Standard truck wheel footprint per AASHTO 2010 Section 3.6.1.2.5 Length a (in) 10.0 Width b (in) 20.0 Figure 8: Ladder truck City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 16 of 33 August 25, 2017 Front Axle Rear Axle lb 22,800 lb 27,000 Total lb 49,800 Wheel footprint per CalTrans 2004 Section 3.3 Axle front rear Axle Weight Wheel Weight Area Length Width Pressure (in2) 114 135 (lb) 22,800 27,000 (lb) 11400 13500 (psi) 100 100 (in) 16.9 18.4 (in) 6.8 7.3 Axle Axle Weight Wheel Weight Area Length Width Pressure g IM Wheel footprint per AASHTO 2010 Section 3.6.1.2.5 front rear (lb) 22,800 27,000 (lb) 11400 13500 (in2) 91 108 (in) 6.4 6.4 (in) 14.3 16.9 (psi) 125 125 1 0 1 0 Standard truck wheel footprint per AASHTO 2010 Section Length a (in) 10.0 Width b (in) 20.0 Figure 9: Engine truck City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Figure 10: Continuous 1-ft strip model of slab Page 17 of 33 August 25, 2017 Entrance Column Entrance Column Entrance Column Left Bay Right Bay Narrow Beam Wide Beam Wide Beam Wall Figure 11: Continuous 1-ft strip model of slab showing member thicknesses Table 3: Effective width of one-way slab per AASHTO LRFD 2010 Section 4.6.2.1.3 Span Span length Width for M +ve Width for M -ve ft in. in. Left 8.5 82 74 Middle 11 99 81 Right 9.5 89 77 City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 18 of 33 August 25, 2017 Figure 12: 27-kip axle extreme positions in the left bay Figure 13: 27-kip axle extreme positions in the right bay City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 19 of 33 August 25, 2017 Figure 14: Shear force envelope due to factored self-weight of 99-in. strip plus factored truck loads in left and right bays Figure 15: Bending moment envelope due to factored self-weight of 99-in. strip plus factored truck loads in left and right bays City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 20 of 33 August 25, 2017 Table 4: Slab shear force and bending moment demand capacity ratios (DCR) 99 in - Slab Strip under a Single Axle 151 in - Slab Strip under a Tandem Axle Vu kip 33.2 Vu kip 66.3 fVn DCR-v Mu+ve fMn+ve DCR-M+ve Mu-ve fMn-ve DCR-M-ve kip 32.4 ft-kip 56.0 ft-kip 49.0 kip 29.9 kip 29.7 --- 1.02 --- 1.64 --- 1.89 fVn DCR-v Mu+ve fMn+ve DCR-M+ve Mu-ve fMn-ve DCR-M-ve kip 49.5 ft-kip 98.0 ft-kip 112.0 kip 45.6 kip 45.3 --- 1.34 --- 2.15 --- 2.47 City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Table 5: Slab punching shear demand capacity ratio (DCR) Wheel Weight kips 11.4 13.5 Page 21 of 33 August 25, 2017 f'c l f Type c1 c2 d Vu Mx My b0 Ac Jcx Jcy vu1 vux vuy |vu1| |vux| |vuy| vu kips 18.2 21.6 kips.in kips.in 0 0 interior interior 2639 1 0.75 6.40 14.30 3.81 2639 1 0.75 6.40 16.90 3.81 4372 4889 10330 14189 0 0 62 236 92 92 0 0 0 0 92 57 216 84 84 0 0 0 0 84 psi --- --- --- in. in. in. in. in2 in4 in4 psi psi psi psi psi psi psi --- --- --- --- --- psi --- b as 4 2 + 4/b 2 + asd /b0 fvc DCR 2.23 40.00 4.00 3.79 4.69 146 0.58 2.64 40.00 4.00 3.51 4.47 135 0.68 City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 22 of 33 August 25, 2017 Figure 16: Reactions due to 27-kip axle positions in the transverse direction in left bay City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 23 of 33 August 25, 2017 Figure 17: Reactions due to 27-kip axle positions in the transverse direction in right bay Table 6: Percentage of the axle load that is carried by each support Narrow Beam Wide Beam Truck on left bay Truck on right bay 60% 3% 95% 17% Wide Beam 25% 94% Wall 2% 64% . City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 24 of 33 August 25, 2017 Figure 18: Continuous model of wide beam Figure 19: Model of wide beam showing member cross section City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 25 of 33 August 25, 2017 Figure 20: Ladder truck moving inside City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 26 of 33 August 25, 2017 Figure 21: Ladder truck backing up City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 27 of 33 August 25, 2017 Figure 22: Engine truck moving inside City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 28 of 33 August 25, 2017 Figure 23: Engine truck backing up City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 29 of 33 August 25, 2017 Figure 24: Wide beam shear envelope due to factored self-weight plus factored truck loads Figure 25: Wide beam moment envelope due to factored self-weight plus factored truck loads City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 30 of 33 August 25, 2017 Table 7: Wide beam shear force and bending moment demand capacity ratios (DCR) Vu kip 91.1 fVn DCR-v Mu+ve fMn+ve DCR-M+ve Mu-ve fMn-ve DCR-M-ve kip 23.6 ft-kip 184.7 ft-kip 189.7 kip 89.1 kip 90.3 --- 3.86 --- 2.07 --- 2.10 Wide Beam City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 31 of 33 August 25, 2017 Figure 26: Continuous model of narrow beam Figure 27: Model of narrow beam showing member cross section City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 32 of 33 August 25, 2017 Figure 28: Narrow beam shear envelope due to factored self-weight plus factored truck loads Figure 29: Narrow beam moment envelope due to factored self-weight plus factored truck loads City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 CTLGroup Project No. 231701 Page 33 of 33 August 25, 2017 Table 8: Narrow beam shear force and bending moment demand capacity ratios (DCR) Vu kip fVn DCR-v Mu+ve fMn+ve DCR-M+ve Mu-ve fMn-ve DCR-M-ve kip ft-kip ft-kip kip kip --- --- --- Narrow Beam 44.4 40.9 1.09 48.3 67.9 0.71 58.3 64.4 0.91 Table 9: Summary of shear force and bending moment demand capacity ratios (DCR) 151 in - Slab Strip under a Tandem Axle Wide Beam Narrow Beam Vu fVn DCR-v Mu+ve fMn+ve DCR-M+ve Mu-ve fMn-ve DCR-M-ve kip --- kip 66.3 49.5 1.34 91.1 23.6 3.86 44.4 40.9 1.09 ft-kip 98.0 184.7 48.3 ft-kip 112.0 189.7 58.3 kip 45.6 89.1 67.9 kip 45.3 90.3 64.4 --- 2.15 2.07 0.71 --- 2.47 2.10 0.91 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY FIRE STATION #3 AND #22 BAY REPLACEMENT 201 W. 30TH STREET / 5309 EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE AUSTIN, TEXAS KLEINFELDER PROJECT NO. 20190836.001A October 24, 2018 Copyright 2018 Kleinfelder All Rights Reserved ONLY THE CLIENT OR ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES MAY USE THIS DOCUMENT AND ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED. 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page i of iv October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 A Report Prepared for: Mr. Alejandro Wolniewitz – Facilities Process Manager Ms. Tica Chitrarachis – Rotation List Manager City of Austin Fire Department 4201 Ed. Bluestein Boulevard Austin, Texas 78721 Geotechnical Engineering Study Fire Station #3 and #22 Bay Replacement 201 W. 30th Street / 5309 East Riverside Drive Austin, Texas Prepared by: ______________________________ Benjamin Baugh, EIT Staff Professional Orlando Boscan, PE Project Manager KLEINFELDER, INC 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M Austin, Texas 78758 Phone: 512.926.6650 Fax: 512.833.5058 October 24, 2018 Kleinfelder Project No.: 20190836.001A 20183136.002A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page ii of iv October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ....................................................................................... 1 1.2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................. 3 FIELD EXPLORATION .......................................................................................... 3 2.1 LABORATORY TESTING ..................................................................................... 5 2.2 2.2.1 Chemical Tests .......................................................................................... 5 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 6 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 6 3.1 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY ......................................................................... 6 3.2 3.3 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS .................................................................... 7 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 8 GENERAL ............................................................................................................. 8 4.1 EXPANSIVE SOIL CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................. 8 4.2 DRILLED STRAIGHT-SIDED PIERS .................................................................... 9 4.3 4.3.1 Axial Capacity ............................................................................................ 9 4.3.2 Group Effects ........................................................................................... 11 4.3.3 LPILE Parameters (Version 7.0) .............................................................. 11 INTERIOR FLOOR SUPPORT............................................................................ 12 4.4.1 General .................................................................................................... 12 4.5 SOLUBLE SULFATE ........................................................................................... 13 PAVEMENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA ............................................. 15 GENERAL ........................................................................................................... 15 5.1 PAVEMENT THICKNESS FOR BAY DRIVEWAYS ............................................ 15 5.2 5.3 PAVEMENTS ON EXPANSIVE SOILS ............................................................... 15 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................... 17 DEMOLITION ...................................................................................................... 17 6.1 EXISTING UTILITIES .......................................................................................... 17 6.2 SITE PREPARATION .......................................................................................... 17 6.3 EXCAVATION ..................................................................................................... 18 6.3 6.3.1 General .................................................................................................... 18 6.4 MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS............................................................................. 18 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................. 21 4.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Figures 1 and 2, Exploration Location Plan and Vicinity Map FIGURE APPENDIX A. Field Exploration Program B. Chemical Analysis Report C. GBA Geotechnical Report Insert 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page iv of iv October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY FIRE STATION #3 AND #22 BAY REPLACEMENT 201 W. 30TH STREET / 5309 EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE AUSTIN, TEXAS 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that the proposed project consists of the complete demolition and reconstruction of the fire engine bays for the City of Austin Fire Stations (FS) #3 and #22 in Austin, Texas. Reportedly, the results of a recent engineering forensic study indicated that the existing fire engine bay structures may be inadequate to support the loads from current, and likely future, fire-fighting vehicles. Reportedly, column loads for both existing bay structures are supported on drilled shaft foundations. Floor loads are supported by suspended structural slabs. We understand that the proposed reconstruction may include relatively minor expansion of the current bays footprints. The current planed dimensions for the existing bay structures are approximately 55 to 60 feet in length, and 35 to 40 feet in width. We also understand that the City of Austin is planning to support the new bays on drilled shaft and suspended floor slab foundation system. Specific structural loading information was not available at the time of this report. Once available, loading information should be provided so that we can confirm the applicability of our recommendations. 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE Our study was generally performed based upon the Scope of Services presented in our proposal No. AUS18P77507R2 dated April 30, 2018. However, due to the encountered bedrock conditions in Fire Station 3, the borings were drilled deeper than originally planned to obtain the necessary subsurface information for foundation design. The primary purpose of this geotechnical study is to provide recommendations for the design and construction of foundations for the proposed Fire Station #3 and #22 bays. To accomplish this purpose, our study included the following scope: • Borings at FS #3 Site: Drilled and sampled 2 borings to a depth of approximately 45 feet below grade and 1 boring to a depth of 50 feet below grade. Hand-augered one boring south of the existing bay building to a depth of 5 feet below grade. 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 1 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 • Borings at FS #22 Site: Drilled and sampled 3 borings to a depth of approximately 60 feet below grade. • Performed laboratory tests on select samples for classification and to estimate engineering properties of the subsurface materials. • Performed engineering analyses using the field and laboratory data to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for use during the design of the foundations of the proposed structures. Design of the project including site civil and building structural design has not been performed, and the assumed locations and/or elevations of structures may change. Kleinfelder should be provided with the design information when it is available to evaluate whether recommendations presented herein are still applicable or require modifications, it is possible that modification of our recommendations may be required based upon the final design. 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 2 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling and sampling 6 borings with a truck-mounted Mobile B-57 drill rig. An additional boring at FS #3 was advanced using hand-auger drilling. A schedule of the borings is presented in Table 2.1, and the approximate location of these borings is presented on Figures 1 and 2, Exploration Location Plan, and Vicinity Maps in Appendix A. Table 2.1 - Schedule of Borings Location Boring No. Depth Date Drilled Structure FS #3 FS #3 FS #3 FS #22 SB-1 50 feet August 27, 2018 Engine Bay SB-2 and SB-3 45 feet August 28 - 29, 2018 Engine Bay SB-4 5 feet September 11, 2018 Engine Bay B-1 to B-3 60 feet August 29 - 30, 2018 Engine Bay Boring locations were established in the field by a representative of Kleinfelder. A hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) with a horizontal accuracy of about 15 feet was used to record the boring locations. If required, a professional surveyor should be hired to obtain accurate boring location information. Hand auguring, Shelby-tube sampling, split spoon sampling, rock coring, and solid-stem auger drilling techniques were used to complete the borings. Relatively undisturbed samples of cohesive soils were collected by using the drilling rig to push a seamless, steel tube sampler into the soil (based upon ASTM D1587). The depths at which these samples were collected are indicated on the boring logs in Appendix A, Field Exploration Program. After a tube was recovered, the sample was extruded in the field, examined, and logged. The sample was then placed in a plastic bag to reduce moisture loss and protect the sample. During logging, an estimate of the sample consistency was obtained using a pocket penetrometer. This test provides relative strength data that is used as an approximate indicator of shear strength. The result of the penetrometer reading is recorded at a corresponding depth on the boring log. 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 3 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 At select locations, samples were also collected by driving a split-spoon sampler in conjunction with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). This technique involves driving the spoon sampler a distance into the soil using a free-falling hammer (based upon ASTM D1586). During the test, the logger records the number of blows required to drive the spoon sampler over three successive 6-inch increments. The first 6 inches is the “seating drive,” while the number of blows required to drive the sampler the last two 6-inch increments is the “penetration” in blows per foot. Where resistance was high, the number of inches of penetration for 50 blows of the hammer is recorded. When less than 6 inches of penetration is obtained, the test is terminated regardless of the drive increment. The results of the penetration test are reported on the boring logs at the corresponding depth. Materials recovered from the split spoon sampler are then examined and placed in a plastic bag to reduce moisture loss and protect the sample. Samples of rock and/or rock-like materials were collected with an NX size double-tube core barrel fitted with a carbide bit. Sample recovery and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) for each core run of rock and rock-like material were calculated and recorded on the field logs. The RQD is a modified core recovery percentage in which all the pieces of sound core over 4 inches long are summed and divided by the length of the core run. The RQD measurements and calculations were conducted in accordance with the procedures described in the Reference. Core breaks caused by the drilling process were fitted together and counted as one piece. Where it was difficult to discern natural breaks from drilling breaks, the break was considered a natural break, thus providing conservatism in the RQD calculation. The core run intervals for the project were typically 5 feet in length. RQD is categorized according to Table 2.2. Table 2.2 – RQD Categorization Description of Rock Quality RQD (%) 0 – 25 25 – 50 50 – 75 75 – 90 90 – 100 Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent At the completion of drilling, each boring was backfilled with 3/4-inch bentonite hole plug and auger cuttings up to and slightly above the existing ground surface except in borings that were drilled through concrete. The borings that were drilled through existing pavements were patched at the surface with concrete. 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 4 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 Boring logs are presented in Appendix A with soil and rock description keys. The logs indicate the material types, depths, and other details of materials encountered for each boring. Soil/rock descriptions presented upon the boring log resulted from a combination of field and laboratory test data. Stratigraphy lines in the boring logs correspond to the approximate boundary between strata. However, the in-situ subsurface transition can be, and is often gradual. 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING Samples of subsurface materials from the borings were visually examined and the field classifications were verified by the engineer in the laboratory. Natural moisture content tests, Atterberg limits (liquid and plastic limits) determinations, unconfined compression tests, and sieve analysis tests were performed on select soil samples to establish index and strength properties and grain size characteristics, and to classify the soils according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The results of these tests are shown on the boring logs. 2.2.1 Chemical Tests One combined soil sample for FS #3 and one combined soil sample for FS #22 were tested to determine the pH, soluble sulfate, chloride concentrations, and soil resistivity. A summary of these test results is listed in Section 4.6 of this report and the detailed test results are provide in Appendix B. 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 5 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 3 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 GEOLOGY The Austin Sheet of the Geologic Atlas of Texas locates the FS #22 project site within the Ozan Formation (Ko) of the Cretaceous-Late age. These materials primarily consist of highly-plastic clay, with various amounts of calcareous materials, silt, and sand. The site of FS #3 is situated within an outcropping of the Austin Chalk Formation. The Austin Chalk formation typically consists of clays overlying chalky limestone. The thickness of the clay above the limestone varies but is generally encountered at a shallow depth. The upper portions of the limestone are generally weathered, fractured, and very light brown to light yellow brown in color. Some zones of severely weathered limestone that are clay-like can be present above the weathered material. The underlying primary limestone is generally harder than the weathered limestone and is light to medium gray in color. 3.2 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY The borings at FS #3 indicate the presence of moderate to high plasticity clay of depths varying from 26 to 28 feet. The clay overlays light gray limestone to the boring termination depth of approximately 50 feet below grade. Based on the results of the borings at FS #22, the subsurface conditions at the site indicate the presence of alternating clay, sand, and gravel layers overlaying weathered gray shale. The gray shale was encountered at an approximate depth of 35 to 38 feet below grade. The various types and depths of subsurface strata observed in the borings drilled for this study are shown on the Boring Logs presented in Appendix A of this Report. The strata thickness and general descriptions on the boring logs are based solely on the materials observed in the borings drilled for this study. The descriptions are general and the range of depths approximate, because boundaries between different strata are seldom clear and abrupt in the field. In addition, the lines separating major strata types on the boring Logs do not necessarily represent distinct lines of demarcation for the various strata. 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 6 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 3.3 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS The borings were advanced using techniques that allow for direct and indirect observations of seepage and groundwater during drilling operations. Water was encountered in Boring B-3 at a depth of 35 feet below grade. 15 minutes after encountering water in boring B-3, the water depth was measured to be 34 feet below grade. Free water was not encountered in the remaining borings. Once rock coring is performed on a boring, water is introduced to the boring and water readings were not taken below the start of rock coring. These observations do not preclude the possibility of seepage or groundwater, and are only indicative of conditions at the time and place indicated. The occurrence and variation of groundwater can vary due to many factors. These factors include seasonal changes, site topography, surface runoff, the layering and permeability of subsurface strata; water levels in waterways, utilities, and other factors not evident at the time of this study. Groundwater is likely perched above the limestone bedrock and within joints in the bedrock, especially during rainy seasons. The possibility of groundwater and its fluctuation should be considered when developing this project. 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 7 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 4 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 GENERAL Based on the results of our evaluation, in our professional opinion, the project site can be developed for the proposed construction using conventional grading and excavation and foundation construction techniques, provided that the recommendations presented herein are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Recommendations submitted herein are based, in part, upon data obtained from our subsurface exploration. The nature and extent of subsurface variations that may exist at the proposed project site will not become evident until construction. Kleinfelder should be on site during foundation subgrade preparation to observe conditions. If significant variations are observed, the recommendations presented in this report may need to be revised. In addition, if changes in the nature, design, location or depth of the proposed structure are planned, Kleinfelder should be notified to review and modify the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report as appropriate. Changes in subgrade preparation and foundation design recommendations will not be considered valid unless provided in writing. General recommendations regarding geotechnical aspects of the project design and construction are presented below. 4.2 EXPANSIVE SOIL CHARACTERISTICS An estimate of the potential vertical movement (PVM) was made using the Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) Method 124-E published by TxDOT, engineering judgment, and our experience. Based on this information, the estimated soil movement, or Potential Vertical Movement (PVM) for each site was estimated for a full seasonal moisture cycle based on the Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) Method 124-E published by TxDOT. The estimated PVM for each site is summarized in Table 4.1 below. TABLE 4.1: Estimated PVM for FS #3 and FS #22 Location Estimated PVM (inches) FS #3 FS #22 1 ½ to 3 2 to 3 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 8 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 These soil movements can be caused by either shrink or swell movements, depending on seasonal moisture fluctuations. Recognize that this value range is not exact and is only an indication of the potential movements due to expansive soil for seasonal moisture fluctuations. Actual movements may be significantly larger than estimated due to inadequate site grading, poor drainage, ponding surface water, and/or leaks in utility lines. Significant changes to existing site grades can also alter actual movements by changing the thickness of the expansive soil and/or altering the active moisture zone depth. Recognize that this value is not an exact value but is only an indication of the potential movements due to expansive soil for seasonal moisture fluctuations. 4.3 DRILLED STRAIGHT-SIDED PIERS 4.3.1 Axial Capacity In our opinion, the proposed FS #3 and FS #22 bays can be supported on straight-sided drilled shafts. Based on the encountered subsurface conditions at FS #3, the drilled shafts should terminate in the light gray limestone strata. If the drilled shafts terminate in the light gray limestone strata, then bearing capacity and side friction between the concrete and the limestone can be used to support the loads. The side friction and bearing capacity by depth is summarized in Table 4.2 below. TABLE 4.2: Bearing Capacity and Side Friction by Depth (FS #3) Stratum Depth (ft) Maximum Allowable Maximum Allowable Bearing Capacity (psf) Side Friction (psf) Light Gray Limestone 28-50 40,000 2,000 Side resistance values can be used for both compressive and tensile load resistance. The shafts should have a minimum penetration of 10 feet into the light gray limestone strata and have a minimum diameter of 24 inches to support the proposed structure. Final penetration should be determined by the structural engineer based on axial and lateral loadings. We consider that the proposed FS #22 bay can also be supported on straight-sided drilled shafts. Based on the encountered subsurface conditions at FS #22, the drilled shafts should terminate in the dark gray weathered shale strata. If the drilled shafts terminate in the dark gray weathered 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 9 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 shale strata, then bearing capacity and side friction between the concrete and the weathered shale can be used to support the loads. The side friction and bearing capacity is summarized in Table 4.3 below. TABLE 4.3: Side Friction by Depth (FS #22) Stratum Depth (ft) Maximum Allowable Maximum Allowable Side Bearing Capacity (psf) Friction (psf) Dark Gray Weathered Shale 36-38 5,000 1,200 Side resistance values can be used for both compressive and tensile load resistance. The shafts should have a minimum penetration of 15 feet into the dark gray weathered shale strata and have a minimum diameter of 24 inches to support the proposed structure. Final depths should be determined by the structural engineer based on axial and lateral loadings. The expansive subgrade may subject the shafts to uplift pressures and create tensile forces within the shafts. Accordingly, each shaft should be steel reinforced to withstand these forces. The actual uplift forces will vary with depth and moisture condition, but steel reinforcement design for the soil uplift pressures may be modeled using 1,000 psf acting over the entire shaft perimeter that is within the upper 12 feet. Settlements of properly designed and constructed shafts should be less than ¾ inch. It should be noted that the performance of the foundations will be more sensitive to the construction quality than the soil-structure interaction. Monitoring of the foundation installation by the geotechnical engineer or representative of the engineer is recommended. Groundwater was not encountered during our field exploration at FS #3. At FS #22, free water was encountered in Borings B-1 and B-3 at a depth of approximately 34 feet below grade. Groundwater may be encountered during installation of the shafts, particularly if construction proceeds during a wet period of the year. In some cases, rapid placement of steel and concrete may permit shaft installation to proceed; however, the seepage rates could be sufficient to require the use of temporary casing for proper installation of the shafts. The casing should be seated in the bearing stratum with water and most loose material removed prior to beginning the design penetration. Care must be taken that a sufficient head of plastic concrete is maintained within the casing during extraction. 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 10 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 The concrete should have slump within 4 and 6 inches for uncased shafts and 5 and 7 inches for cased shafts. The concrete must be placed in a manner to avoid striking the reinforcing steel during placement. Compete installation of individual shafts should be accomplished within an 8-hour period in dry excavations and preferably as rapidly as possible in order to prevent deterioration of bearing surfaces. Some intervals of the limestones are hard. These limestones can be difficult to penetrate, especially when drilling large diameter shafts. The drilled shaft excavations should be performed with hard rock drilling equipment suitable to perform this work by a contractor experienced in this area. 4.3.2 Group Effects Some reduction for group effects should be considered where shafts will be installed in a group condition or where any shafts will be installed close together. To develop full load carrying capacity in side resistance, adjacent straight-sided drilled shafts should have a minimum center to center spacing of 2.5 times the diameter of the larger shaft. This spacing requirement includes proximity to existing shafts. Closer spacing will require some reductions in side resistance and/or changes in installation sequences. The design side shear for axial or uplift loads may be considered to vary linear from the full value at a spacing of 2.5 times the diameter of the larger shaft to 50 percent of the design value at a spacing of 1 times the diameter of the larger shaft. 4.3.3 LPILE Parameters (Version 7.0) The LPILE parameters provided below are for the subsurface material described in the boring logs for the project. The depth of each layer can be generalized from the boring log. The top 5 feet of the subsurface profile in contact with the drilled shaft is neglected. p-y. Tables 4.4 and 4.5 provide the LPILE parameters for FS #3 and FS #22. 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 11 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058  TABLE 4.4: Lpile Parameters for FS #3 Lpile p-y Cohesion Friction Unit Wt. Modulus Curve Model Depth (ft) (psf) Angle (deg.) (pcf)(1) k (pci) Effective Soft Clay 0-5 0 Stiff Clay w/o Free Water Stiff Clay w/o Free Water Stiff Clay w/o Free Water 5-15 4,000 15-28 2,400 28-50 7,000 Soft Clay 0-5 0 -- Stiff Clay w/o Free Water 5-17 2,500 API Sand 17-34 Stiff Clay w/o Free Water 34-60 7,000 -- -- -- -- -- -- 30 -- 58 58 58 83 58 58 53 78 20 270 135 540 20 135 25 540 TABLE 4.5: Lpile Parameters for FS #22 Lpile p-y Cohesion Friction Unit Wt. Modulus Curve Model Depth (ft) (psf) Angle (deg.) (pcf)(1) k (pci) Effective No reduction in individual lateral shaft capacity is required for drilled shafts spaced at a minimum center-to-center spacing of five diameters. Appropriate lateral reduction factors should be used, if the spacing between shafts is less than five diameters. INTERIOR FLOOR SUPPORT 4.4 4.4.1 General Near-surface soil conditions at this site are interpreted to be relatively uniform and consist of high plasticity clay soil. The high plasticity clay soils remain stable with constant moisture contents; 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 12 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058  however, a change in the moisture content will cause the soil to swell or shrink thereby potentially causing movement and damage to the overlying structure It is our understanding that the proposed bay reconstruction project includes structurally suspended floor slabs and crawl space. Based on this, potential shrink/swell movements associated with the near-surface highly-plastic clays should not affect the performance of the selected bay floor system. The crawl space will provide the necessary separation between the slab and soil movements associated with shrink/swell behavior. Similarly, structurally suspended grade beams will be isolated from soil movements by the crawl space. SOLUBLE SULFATE 4.5 The degradation of concrete or cement grout can be caused by chemical agents in the soil or groundwater that react with concrete to either dissolve the cement paste or precipitate larger compounds within the concrete causing cracking and flaking. The concentration of water-soluble sulfates in the soils is a good indicator of the potential for chemical attack of concrete or cement grout. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) publication Guide to Durable Concrete (ACI 201.2R- 08) provides guidelines for this assessment. The results of the sulfate testing indicate the potential for deterioration of concrete at FS #3 has a Class 0 exposure. For sites with Class 0 sulfate exposure, ACI does not have special requirements for sulfate resistance. The results of the sulfate testing indicate the potential for deterioration of concrete at FS #22 has a Class 1 exposure. For sites with Class 1 sulfate exposure, ACI recommends Type II cement or equivalent. The results from the sulfate content analysis can be seen below in Table 4.4. TABLE 4.4: Sulfate Test Results Location Boring Depth (feet) Sulfate (ppm) FS #3 FS #22 SB-2 0.5 to 4 B-3 2-4 331 20.9 SEISMIC HAZARDS SITE CLASS 4.6 This area of Texas is considered seismically inactive. Seismic designs in Texas are typically based upon the criteria established in the 2012 International Building Code (IBC). The seismic design is based upon the Site Class, as defined in Sections 1613.5.2 and 1613.5.5. Based upon 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 13 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 the results of the site-specific borings and our experience with the local geologic conditions, the average subsurface conditions at both sites correspond to Site Class “C”. For this site class, the Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at short periods (Ss) is about 0.064g, and the Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at a 1 second period (S1) is about 0.033g. For these accelerations, the Site Coefficients Fa and Fv are 1.2 and 1.7, respectively. 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 14 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 5 PAVEMENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA 5.1 GENERAL Based on information provided by City of Austin, we understand that the replacement of the existing driveways may be part of the proposed fire engine bays reconstruction at Fire Stations 3 and 22. The existing driveway pavements consists of Portland cement concrete, which is the material is commonly used for heavy-duty sections for projects similar to the proposed bay rehabilitation. 5.2 PAVEMENT THICKNESS FOR BAY DRIVEWAYS The pavement section thickness recommendations presented in this section are based on the encountered subsurface conditions, our project understanding, and our previous experience with similar projects. It should be noted that a detailed pavement analysis was beyond our scope for this project. As such, the following table presents our recommended typical heavy-duty section for the proposed bays driveways. This section is not based on specific traffic loading information or pavement life expectancy. TABLE 5.3: PAVEMENT THICKNESS RECOMMENDATIONS Traffic Pavement Section Heavy Duty Pavement for Fire Engine Bay Driveways 8" Portland Cement Concrete Pavement over 8” Crushed Limestone Base 5.3 PAVEMENTS ON EXPANSIVE SOILS At FS #3, we anticipate potential vertical movement of approximately 1 ½ to 3 inches. At FS #22, we anticipate potential vertical movement of approximately 2 to 3 inches. The sub base should extend a minimum of 12 inches outside the curb line. This will improve the support for the edge of the pavement and also lessen the "edge effect" associated with shrinkage during dry periods. The use of sand as a leveling course below pavement in expansive clay areas should be prevented as these porous soils can allow water inflow between the pavement and subgrade, facilitating heave and strength loss within the subgrade soil. 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 15 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 To reduce the potential vertical movement, we recommend excavating 1 foot of the in-situ fat clays and replacing with select fill. Prior to fill placement, the exposed subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to +2 to 5% of optimum water content and compacted to 95% compaction. It is important to reduce moisture changes in the pavement subgrade and sub base. The pavement and adjacent areas should be well drained. The pavement and surrounding grades must have positive drainage that quickly removes surface water and inhibits the absorption of surface water into the subgrade soils. Regular maintenance should be performed on cracks in the pavement surface to reduce water passing through to the base or sub base material. Even with these precautions, some distress may still occur, which will require periodic maintenance. Consideration should be given to the location of existing and proposed trees, as they have been documented to desiccate surrounding subgrade soil and result in soil shrinkage and settlement. The zone of the desiccation varies by tree, but it is generally recommended that trees are set back so that the drip-line of the mature tree will not extend over or near the pavement structure. If existing mature trees are allowed to remain adjacent to the roadway, we recommend the installation of root barriers to keep these trees from causing differential movement of the new roadway. 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 16 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 6 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 DEMOLITION Initial site preparation for the proposed project should commence with demolition of the existing pavements, fences, sidewalks, buildings, and other structures within the proposed construction areas. Demolition should also include removal of all utilities lines within the project site that will be abandoned as part of the construction. All broken asphaltic concrete and Portland cement concrete and other debris from demolition should be removed from the site. Areas disturbed during demolition should be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of structural fill. All disturbed soils should be undercut to expose competent, undisturbed, medium dense to dense or firm to stiff native soils prior to placement of structural fill. We understand that the project consists of demolition and reconstruction of the existing fire engine bays. During demolition of the existing structures, any foundation element within 3 feet of slab level should be excavated and removed. Existing piers should have a minimum clearance of 3 feet from the slab level if it does not impede new construction. If the existing foundation impedes new construction then the foundation system should be removed, or new construction should be adjusted accordingly. Voids created due to the removal of existing foundation elements should be backfilled using on-site soil or structural fill material and compaction criteria provided in this report should be followed. Flowable backfill should be used to fill voids due to the removal of deep foundation elements. 6.2 EXISTING UTILITIES Relocation/demolition of any existing utility lines within the zone of influence of proposed construction areas should also be completed as part of the site preparation. The lines should be relocated to areas outside of the proposed construction. Excavations created by removal/demolition of the existing lines should be cut wide enough to allow for use of heavy construction equipment to compact the backfill. In addition, the base of the excavations should be approved by the geotechnical engineer or approved representative prior to placement of backfill. 6.3 SITE PREPARATION Before construction, care should be taken to see that any deleterious material present is removed from the site. Care should also be exercised during the grading operations at the site. The traffic 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 17 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 of heavy equipment, including heavy compaction equipment, may create a general deterioration of the surficial clay soils. Therefore, it should be anticipated that some construction difficulties could be encountered during periods when these soils are saturated and that it may be necessary to improve, remove or avoid the saturated soils. Proper drainage should be established so that ponding of surface runoff does not occur and cause construction delays. Where water seepage is encountered during construction, sloping excavation bottoms to a sump or a low point and use of conventional de-watering equipment may be necessary. Control of site surface drainage should be maintained at all times during construction so that drainage is directed away from open excavated areas. 6.3 EXCAVATION 6.3.1 General Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, it appears that the overburden materials can be excavated using conventional soil excavation equipment. All excavations must comply with applicable local, state and federal safety regulations. The responsibility for excavation safety and stability of temporary construction slopes lies solely with the contractor. We are providing this information below solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should this information provided be interpreted to mean that Kleinfelder is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor’s activities, such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. 6.4 MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS Table 6.1 provides material, moisture, and density requirements for a variety of materials and applications. Compaction of each lift should be continuous over its entire area. Fill should be placed in loose horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches, with the intent of providing a compacted lift thickness of 6 inches. When crushed limestone is used, the maximum allowable size is 1.5 inches and the maximum loose lift thickness should be reduced to 6 inches (or less if there is difficulty achieving compaction). Fill placed along slopes should be placed in horizontal lifts that are benched into the slope. The slopes should be overbuilt and cut back to final grades to ensure compaction along the face of the slopes. 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 18 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 Material Use Moisture Site CH Soils TABLE 6.1: MATERIAL AND COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS Material Proctor Test (1)Density (1)Moisture Requirements Method Requirement Requirement Conditioned On- Organics < 2 % ASTM D 698 95% minimum +2 to +5 % PI: 7 to 15, LL≤35 “Non-expansive” Passing #200 Sieve: Select Fill ≤70% Organics < 2 % Flexible Base: TxDOT Item 247, Type Pavement A, Grade 1 or 2 ASTM D 698 98 % minimum -1 to +3 % ASTM D 698 98 % minimum -3 to +3 % The placement and compaction of fill material must be observed, monitored, and tested by Kleinfelder on a full-time basis. Prior to placing any fill material above existing materials, the exposed subgrade should be proofrolled. The exposed subgrade materials must be firm and able to support the construction equipment without displacement. Soft or yielding subgrade must be corrected and made stable before construction proceeds. Proof-rolling should be used to detect soft spots or pumping subgrade areas. Proof-rolling should be performed using a heavy pneumatic tired roller, loaded dump truck, or similar piece of equipment weighing at least 25 tons. Proof-rolling is intended to achieve additional compaction and to locate unstable areas and must be observed by Kleinfelder. Soft spots or areas of pumping subgrade must be undercut and reworked. Where fill placement is planned, the proof-rolling must occur once the exiting soils have been excavated and before the fill placement begins. Proof-rolling is intended not only for the foundation area, but also within all areas of pavements, sidewalks, walls, and other locations that will support surface loads. Each lift of select fill material should be tested to confirm it has the specified moisture and compaction. One moisture/density test should be performed for every 5,000 square-feet of compacted area, or for every 150-linear foot of utility backfill. For smaller areas, a minimum of three tests should be provided for every lift. Subsequent lifts should not be placed until the exposed lift has the specified moisture and density. Lifts failing to meet the moisture and density requirements should be reworked to meet the required specifications. 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 19 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 The specified moisture content must be maintained until compaction of the overlying lift, or construction of overlying flatwork. Failure to maintain the moisture content could result in excessive soil movement, and can also have a detrimental effect on overlying plastic concrete. The contractor must provide some means of controlling the moisture content (such as water hoses, water trucks, etc.). Maintaining subgrade moisture is always critical, but will require the most effort during warm, windy, and/or sunny conditions. Density and moisture testing is recommended to provide some indication that adequate earthwork is being provided. However, the quality of the fill is the sole responsibility of the contractor. Satisfactory verification testing is not a guarantee of the quality of the contractor's earthwork operations. 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 20 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 7 LIMITATIONS This work was performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of Kleinfelder’s profession practicing in the same locality, under similar conditions and at the date the services are provided. Our preliminary conclusions, opinions and recommendations are based on a limited number of observations and data. It is possible that conditions could vary between or beyond the data evaluated. Kleinfelder makes no other representation, guarantee or warranty, express or implied, regarding the services, communication (oral or written), report, opinion, or instrument of service provided. This report may be used only by the Client and the registered design professional in responsible charge and only for the purposes stated for this specific engagement within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than two (2) years from the date of the report. The scope of services for this subsurface exploration and preliminary geotechnical report did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous substances in the soil, surface water, or groundwater at this site. 20190836.001A / AUS18R86178 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 21 of 21 October 24, 2018 www.kleinfelder.com KLEINFELDER 1826 Kramer Lane, Suite M, Austin, TX. 78758 p | 512.926.6650 f | 512.833.5058 A p p e n d i x A LEGEND % SOIL BORING £ SITE !* NOTE: BASE MAPPING AND VICINITY MAP CREATED FROM LAYERS COMPILED BY ESRI PRODUCTS AND 2018 MICROSOFT CORPORATION. COORDINATE SYSTEM: GCS WGS 1984 N VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE PROJECT NO. 20190836 DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: MAP BB DATE: 09-25-2018 REVISED: - EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN FIGURE AND VICINITY MAP 2 l r e m a P M : Y B M P 2 3 : 8 4 : 1 8 1 0 2 / 5 2 / 9 0 : D E T T O L P l l s n a P n o i t a r o p x E _ d e t a m o t u A _ \ s t n e i l i c _ \ g n k r o W \ 1 0 p r o t s s g r z a \ \ : i H T A P E L F S G I I h g u a B B : Y B M A 1 0 : 1 1 / 8 1 0 2 4 2 0 1 / : D E T T O L P I N T S U A : I R E T L F E C F F O I . A 1 0 0 6 3 8 0 9 1 0 2 : R E B M U N T C E J O R P 7 1 0 2 _ r e t s a m _ n g _ t i f l K : I E L F T N g I ] S A X E T _ S C S U ) Y E K S C H P A R G I ( 1 D N E G E L [ . I B L G 7 1 0 2 _ Y R A R B L _ T N G _ D R A D N A T S _ F L K E : I : E T A L P M E T T N g I SAMPLE/SAMPLER TYPE GRAPHICS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2487) BULK / GRAB / BAG SAMPLE CALIFORNIA SAMPLER (3 in. (76.2 mm.) outer diameter) STANDARD PENETRATION SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER (2 in. (50.8 mm.) outer diameter and 1-3/8 in. (34.9 mm.) inner diameter) PUSH TUBE SAMPLER HOLLOW STEM AUGER SOLID STEM AUGER WASH BORING AIR ROTARY MUD ROTARY TEXAS CONE PENETRATION CORE SAMPLER GROUND WATER GRAPHICS WATER LEVEL (level where first observed) WATER LEVEL (level after exploration completion) WATER LEVEL (additional levels after exploration) OBSERVED SEEPAGE NOTES The report and graphics key are an integral part of these logs. All data and interpretations in this log are subject to the explanations and limitations stated in the report. Lines separating strata on the logs represent approximate boundaries only. Actual transitions may be gradual or differ from those shown. No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil or rock conditions between individual sample locations. Logs represent general soil or rock conditions observed at the point of exploration on the date indicated. In general, Unified Soil Classification System designations presented on the logs were based on visual classification in the field and were modified where appropriate based on gradation and index property testing. Fine grained soils that plot within the hatched area on the Plasticity Chart, and coarse grained soils with between 5% and 12% passing the No. 200 sieve require dual USCS symbols, ie., GW-GM, GP-GM, GW-GC, GP-GC, GC-GM, SW-SM, SP-SM, SW-SC, SP-SC, SC-SM. If sampler is not able to be driven at least 6 inches then 50/X indicates number of blows required to drive the identified sampler X inches with a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. ABBREVIATIONS WOH - Weight of Hammer WOR - Weight of Rod CLEAN GRAVEL WITH <5% FINES _ Cu 4 and > _ 1 Cc 3 < _ < Cu 4 and/ < or 1 Cc 3> > GRAVELS WITH 5% TO 12% FINES _ Cu 4 and > _ 1 Cc 3 < _ < Cu 4 and/ < or 1 Cc 3 > > GRAVELS WITH > 12% FINES CLEAN SANDS WITH <5% FINES _ Cu 6 and > _< 1 Cc 3 _ < Cu 6 and/ < or 1 Cc 3 > > SANDS WITH 5% TO 12% FINES _ Cu 6 and > _ 1 Cc 3 < _ < Cu 6 and/ < or 1 Cc 3 > > SANDS WITH > 12% FINES i ) e v e s 4 # e h t n a h t r e g r a l s i n o i t c a r f e s r a o c f o f l a h n a h t e r o M ( S L E V A R G i ) e v e s 4 # e h t n a h t r e l l a m s s i n o i t c a r f e s r a o c f o f l a h n a h t e r o M ( S D N A S i ) e v e s 0 0 2 # e h t n a h t r e g r a l s i l a i r e a m t f o f l a h n a h t e r o M I I ( S L O S D E N A R G E S R A O C GW GP GW-GM GW-GC GP-GM GP-GC WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH LITTLE FINES WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH LITTLE CLAY FINES POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH LITTLE FINES POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH LITTLE CLAY FINES GM GC SW SP SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SILT-SAND MIXTURES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES GC-GM CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY-SILT MIXTURES WELL-GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES SW-SM WELL-GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH LITTLE FINES SW-SC WELL-GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH LITTLE CLAY FINES SP-SM SP-SC SM SC POORLY GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH LITTLE FINES POORLY GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH LITTLE CLAY FINES SILTY SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL-SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL-CLAY MIXTURES SC-SM CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-SILT-CLAY MIXTURES SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid Limit less than 50) CL-ML I S L O S D E N A R G E N F I I l a i r e a m t f o f l a h n a h t e r o M ( n a h t r e l l a m s s i i ) e v e s 0 0 2 # e h t SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid Limit greater than 50) INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS, SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS INORGANIC CLAYS-SILTS OF LOW PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS & ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILT INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS ORGANIC CLAYS & ORGANIC SILTS OF MEDIUM-TO-HIGH PLASTICITY PROJECT NO.: 20190836 DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: MAP BB DATE: 9/25/2018 REVISED: - GRAPHICS KEY FIGURE A-1 ML CL OL MH CH OH l r e m a P M : Y B M P 2 5 : 1 0 / 8 1 0 2 5 2 9 0 / : D E T T O L P GRAIN SIZE Boulders Cobbles Gravel DESCRIPTION SIEVE SIZE GRAIN SIZE APPROXIMATE SIZE >12 in. (304.8 mm.) >12 in. (304.8 mm.) Larger than basketball-sized 3 - 12 in. (76.2 - 304.8 mm.) 3 - 12 in. (76.2 - 304.8 mm.) Fist-sized to basketball-sized coarse 3/4 -3 in. (19 - 76.2 mm.) 3/4 -3 in. (19 - 76.2 mm.) Thumb-sized to fist-sized fine #4 - 3/4 in. (#4 - 19 mm.) 0.19 - 0.75 in. (4.8 - 19 mm.) Pea-sized to thumb-sized coarse Sand medium #10 - #4 #40 - #10 0.079 - 0.19 in. (2 - 4.9 mm.) Rock salt-sized to pea-sized 0.017 - 0.079 in. (0.43 - 2 mm.) Sugar-sized to rock salt-sized fine #200 - #40 0.0029 - 0.017 in. (0.07 - 0.43 mm.) Flour-sized to sugar-sized Fines Passing #200 <0.0029 in. (<0.07 mm.) Flour-sized and smaller SECONDARY CONSTITUENT MOISTURE CONTENT CEMENTATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION FIELD TEST DESCRIPTION FIELD TEST Term of Use Trace With Secondary Constituent is Fine Grained Secondary Constituent is Coarse Grained <5% <15% 5 to <15% 15 to <30% Modifier 15% 30% Dry Moist Wet Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Damp but no visible water Visible free water, usually soil is below water table Weakly Moderately Strongly Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure Will not crumble or break with finger pressure CONSISTENCY - FINE-GRAINED SOIL CONSISTENCY SPT - N60 (# blows / ft) Pocket Pen (tsf) UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (Qu)(psf) VISUAL / MANUAL CRITERIA REACTION WITH HYDROCHLORIC ACID DESCRIPTION FIELD TEST Very Soft <2 PP < 0.25 <500 Thumb will penetrate more than 1 inch (25 mm). Extrudes between fingers when squeezed. None No visible reaction Soft 2 - 4 0.25 PP <0.5 500 - 1000 Medium Stiff 4 - 8 0.5 PP <1 1000 - 2000 Thumb will penetrate soil about 1 inch (25 mm). Remolded by light finger pressure. Thumb will penetrate soil about 1/4 inch (6 mm). Remolded by strong finger pressure. Stiff 8 - 15 1 PP <2 2000 - 4000 Can be imprinted with considerable pressure from thumb. Very Stiff 15 - 30 2 PP <4 4000 - 8000 Thumb will not indent soil but readily indented with thumbnail. Hard >30 4 PP >8000 Thumbnail will not indent soil. Weak Strong Some reaction, with bubbles forming slowly Violent reaction, with bubbles forming immediately FROM TERZAGHI AND PECK, 1948; LAMBE AND WHITMAN, 1969; FHWA, 2002; AND ASTM D2488 APPARENT / RELATIVE DENSITY - COARSE-GRAINED SOIL APPARENT DENSITY SPT-N60 (# blows/ft) MODIFIED CA SAMPLER (# blows/ft) CALIFORNIA SAMPLER (# blows/ft) RELATIVE DENSITY (%) Very Loose Loose <4 4 - 10 Medium Dense 10 - 30 Dense 30 - 50 Very Dense >50 <4 5 - 12 12 - 35 35 - 60 >60 FROM TERZAGHI AND PECK, 1948 STRUCTURE <5 5 - 15 15 - 40 40 - 70 >70 0 - 15 15 - 35 35 - 65 65 - 85 85 - 100 DESCRIPTION CRITERIA Stratified Laminated Fissured Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 1/4-in. thick, note thickness. Alternating layers of varying material or color with the layer less than 1/4-in. thick, note thickness. Breaks along definite planes of fracture with little resistance to fracturing. Slickensided Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, sometimes striated. Blocky Lensed Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps which resist further breakdown. Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses of sand scattered through a mass of clay; note thickness. PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION Non-plastic LL NP Low (L) < 30 Medium (M) 30 - 50 High (H) > 50 ANGULARITY DESCRIPTION FIELD TEST A 1/8-in. (3 mm.) thread cannot be rolled at any water content. The thread can barely be rolled and the lump or thread cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit. The thread is easy to roll and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit. The thread cannot be rerolled after reaching the plastic limit. The lump or thread crumbles when drier than the plastic limit. It takes considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit. The thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. The lump or thread can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit. CRITERIA Angular Particles have sharp edges and relatively plane sides with unpolished surfaces. Subangular Particles are similar to angular description but have rounded edges. Subrounded Particles have nearly plane sides but have well-rounded corners and edges. Rounded Particles have smoothly curved sides and no edges. PROJECT NO.: 20190836 DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: MAP BB DATE: 9/25/2018 REVISED: - SOIL DESCRIPTION KEY FIGURE A-2 I N T S U A : I R E T L F E C F F O I A 1 0 0 . 6 3 8 0 9 1 0 2 : R E B M U N T C E J O R P 7 1 0 2 _ r e t s a m _ n g _ t i f l K : I E L F T N g I I ] ) Y E K C S E D L O S ( 2 D N E G E L [ . I B L G 7 1 0 2 _ Y R A R B L _ T N G _ D R A D N A T S _ F L K E I : : E T A L P M E T T N g I l r e m a P M : Y B M P 2 5 : 1 0 / 8 1 0 2 5 2 9 0 / : D E T T O L P I N T S U A : I R E T L F E C F F O I A 1 0 0 . 6 3 8 0 9 1 0 2 : R E B M U N T C E J O R P 7 1 0 2 _ r e t s a m _ n g _ t i f l K : I E L F T N g I ] ) Y E K C S E D K C O R ( 3 D N E G E L [ . I B L G 7 1 0 2 _ Y R A R B L _ T N G _ D R A D N A T S _ F L K E I : : E T A L P M E T T N g I INFILLING TYPE RELATIVE HARDNESS / STRENGTH DESCRIPTIONS NAME Albite Apatite Biotite Clay Calcite Chlorite Epidote Iron Oxide Manganese Al Ap Bi Cl Ca Ch Ep Fe Mn ABBR NAME ABBR GRADE UCS (Mpa) FIELD TEST Muscovite Mus Extremely Weak 0.25 - 1.0 Indented by thumbnail None Pyrite Quartz Sand Sericite Silt Talc Unknown No Py Qz Sd Ser Si Ta Uk R0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 Very Weak 1.0 - 5.0 Weak 5.0 - 25 Medium Strong 25 - 50 Strong 50 - 100 Very Strong 100 - 250 Crumbles under firm blows of geological hammer, can be peeled by a pocket knife. Can be peeled by a pocket knife with difficulty, shallow indentations made by firm blow with point of geological hammer. Cannot be scraped or peeled with a pocket knife, specimen can be fractured with a single firm blow of a geological hammer. Specimen requires more than one blow of geological hammer to fracture it. Specimen requires many blows of geological hammer to fracture it. Extremely Strong > 250 Specimen can only be chipped with a geological hammer. ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD) JOINT ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT (JRC) DESCRIPTION RQD (%) DENSITY/SPACING OF DISCONTINUITIES Very Poor DESCRIPTION SPACING CRITERIA Unfractured >6 ft. (>1.83 meters) Slightly Fractured 2 - 6 ft. (0.061 - 1.83 meters) Moderately Fractured 8 in - 2 ft. (203.20 - 609.60 mm) Excellent 90 - 100 Highly Fractured 2 - 8 in (50.80 - 203.30 mm) APERTURE Intensely Fractured <2 in (<50.80 mm) DESCRIPTION CRITERIA [in (mm)] Poor Fair Good Tight Open Wide 0 - 25 25 - 50 50 - 75 75 - 90 <0.04 (<1) 0.04 - 0.20 (1 - 5) >0.20 (>5) 0 - 2 2 - 4 4 - 6 6 - 8 8 - 10 10 - 12 12 - 14 14 - 16 16 - 18 18 - 20 5 cm ADDITIONAL TEXTURAL ADJECTIVES DESCRIPTION RECOGNITION Pit (Pitted) Vug (Vuggy) Cavity Honeycombed Vesicle (Vesicular) Pinhole to 0.03 ft. (3/8 in.) (>1 to 10 mm.) openings Small openings (usually lined with crystals) ranging in diameter from 0.03 ft. (3/8 in.) to 0.33 ft. (4 in.) (10 to 100 mm.) An opening larger than 0.33 ft. (4 in.) (100 mm.), size descriptions are required, and adjectives such as small, large, etc., may be used If numerous enough that only thin walls separate individual pits or vugs, this term further describes the preceding nomenclature to indicate cell-like form. Small openings in volcanic rocks of variable shape and size formed by entrapped gas bubbles during solidification. ADDITIONAL TEXTURAL ADJECTIVES DESCRIPTION CRITERIA Unweathered Slightly Weathered Moderately Weathered Highly Weathered Decomposed No evidence of chemical / mechanical alternation; rings with hammer blow. Slight discoloration on surface; slight alteration along discontinuities; <10% rock volume altered. Discoloring evident; surface pitted and alteration penetration well below surface; Weathering "halos" evident; 10-50% rock altered. Entire mass discolored; Alteration pervading most rock, some slight weathering pockets; some minerals may be leached out. Rock reduced to soil with relic rock texture/structure; Generally molded and crumbled by hand. BEDDING CHARACTERISTICS DESCRIPTION Thickness [in (mm)] Very Thick Bedded >36 (>915) 0 10 cm Thick Bedded 12 - 36 (305 - 915) From Barton and Choubey, 1977 Moderately Bedded 4 - 12 (102 - 305) RQD Rock-quality designation (RQD) Rough measure of the degree of jointing or fracture in a rock mass, measured as a percentage of the drill core in lengths of 10 cm. or more. Thin Bedded 1 - 4 (25 - 102) Very Thin Bedded 0.4 - 1 (10 - 25) Laminated 0.1 - 0.4 (2.5 - 10) Thinly Laminated <0.1 (<2.5) Bedding Planes Joint Seam Planes dividing the individual layers, beds, or stratigraphy of rocks. Fracture in rock, generally more or less vertical or traverse to bedding. Applies to bedding plane with unspecified degree of weather. CORE SAMPLER TYPE GRAPHICS CORE SAMPLER AQ CORE BARREL (1.067 in. (27.1 mm.) core diameter) AX CORE BARREL (1.185 in. (30.1 mm.) core diameter) BQ CORE BARREL (1.433 in. (36.4 mm.) core diameter) CONTINUOUS CORE SAMPLE (2.000 in. (50.8 mm.) core diameter) EX CORE BARREL (0.846 in. (21.5 mm.) core diameter) HQ CORE SAMPLE (2.500 in. (63.5 mm.) core diameter) NQ CORE SAMPLE (1.874 in. (47.6 mm.) core diameter) NO RECOVERY CORE SAMPLE NX CORE SAMPLE (2.154 in. (54.7 mm.) core diameter) PROJECT NO.: 20190836 DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: MAP BB DATE: 9/25/2018 REVISED: - ROCK DESCRIPTION KEY FIGURE A-3 h g u a B B : Y B M P 5 5 : 2 1 / 8 1 0 2 4 2 0 1 / : D E T T O L P I N T S U A : I R E T L F E C F F O I . A 1 0 0 6 3 8 0 9 1 0 2 : R E B M U N T C E J O R P 7 1 0 2 _ r e t s a m _ n g _ t i f l K : I E L F T N g I ] I I G O L L O S T P T S E T G N R O B _ F L K _ _ I / [ . I B L G 7 1 0 2 _ Y R A R B L _ T N G _ D R A D N A T S _ F L K E : I : E T A L P M E T T N g I Date Begin - End: 8/27/2018 Drilling Company: Texas Geo Bore BORING LOG SB-1 Logged By: J. Miller Drill Crew: Chris, Joey, Dauntez Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drilling Equipment: Mobile B-57 Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in. Plunge: Weather: -90 degrees Sunny, 99° F Drilling Method: Solid Stem Auger Exploration Diameter: 6 in. O.D. FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS ) t e e f ( n o i t a v e E l i t e a m x o r p p A ) t e e f ( h p e D t g o L l i a c h p a r G Latitude: 30.29471° Longitude: -97.73864° Surface Condition: Concrete Lithologic Description CONCRETE: 9" Base: Crushed Limestone: light brown, loose (14") Fill: Lean CLAY with Sand and Gravel: brown and light brown, stiff, trace calcareous nodules, Fill: Fat CLAY: with sand pockets, dark brown, light brown, stiff to hard, with calcium calcareous nodules -5 5 Fat CLAY (CH): dark brown, very stilff to hard, with calareous nodules, trace iron nodules e p y T e p m a S l = ) C B ( s t n u o C w o B l . n i 6 / s w o B l . r r o c n U f s t = ) P P ( n e P t e k c o P % = D Q R ) y r e v o c e R o N = R N ( y r e v o c e R ) % ( t t n e n o C t r e a W l o b m y S S C S U ) f c p ( . t W t i n U y r D ) % ( 4 # g n s s a P i ) % ( 0 0 2 # g n s s a P i l ) c i t s a P n o N = P N ( x e d n I y t i c i t s a P l t i m L i i d u q L i / s t s e T l a n o i t i d d A s k r a m e R 9.0 67 49 32 - with fine-grained gravel below 8 feet PP=4.5+ 8.8 130.3 - light gray from 8 to 13.5 feet -10 10 Unc. Comp. Str.= qu: 4.2 tsf Strain at Failure: 3.7% BC=13 8 5 BC=6 5 5 BC=4 6 6 PP=4.5 BC=7 5 7 - trace sand, calcareous nodules below 13.5 feet -15 15 - light gray and light brown from 13.5 to 18 feet - olive brown to dark brown, few calcareous nodules from 18 to 23 feet PP=2.75 -20 20 - laminated below 20 feet - dark gray below 23 feet PP=4.5+ 21.4 107.7 -25 25 LIMESTONE: light gray, very weak to weak rock, highly fractured -30 30 - few shale seams below 30 feet RQD=66 100% 5.6 140.9 BC=50/2" Unc. Comp. Str.= qu: 2 tsf Strain at Failure: 3.2% Unc. Comp. Str.= qu: 222.3 tsf Strain at Failure: 3.9% PROJECT NO.: 20190836 DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: MAP OB DATE: 9/25/2018 REVISED: - BORING LOG SB-1 City of Austin Fire Stations Fire Station #3 201 West 30th Street Austin, Texas FIGURE SB-1 PAGE: 1 of 2 h g u a B B : Y B M P 5 5 : 2 1 / 8 1 0 2 4 2 0 1 / : D E T T O L P I N T S U A : I R E T L F E C F F O I . A 1 0 0 6 3 8 0 9 1 0 2 : R E B M U N T C E J O R P 7 1 0 2 _ r e t s a m _ n g _ t i f l K : I E L F T N g I ] I I G O L L O S T P T S E T G N R O B _ F L K _ _ / I [ I . B L G 7 1 0 2 _ Y R A R B L _ T N G _ D R A D N A T S _ F L K E : I : E T A L P M E T T N g I -40 40 -45 45 -50 50 -55 55 -60 60 -65 65 Date Begin - End: 8/27/2018 Drilling Company: Texas Geo Bore BORING LOG SB-1 Logged By: J. Miller Drill Crew: Chris, Joey, Dauntez Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drilling Equipment: Mobile B-57 Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in. Plunge: Weather: -90 degrees Sunny, 99° F Drilling Method: Solid Stem Auger Exploration Diameter: 6 in. O.D. FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS ) t e e f ( n o i t a v e E l i t e a m x o r p p A ) t e e f ( h p e D t g o L l i a c h p a r G Latitude: 30.29471° Longitude: -97.73864° Surface Condition: Concrete Lithologic Description LIMESTONE: light gray, very weak to weak rock, highly fractured e p y T e p m a S l = ) C B ( s t n u o C w o B l . n i 6 / s w o B l . r r o c n U f s t = ) P P ( n e P t e k c o P % = D Q R ) y r e v o c e R o N = R N ( y r e v o c e R RQD=17 90% ) f c p ( . t W t i n U y r D ) % ( 4 # g n s s a P i ) % ( 0 0 2 # g n s s a P i l ) c i t s a P n o N = P N ( x e d n I y t i c i t s a P l t i m L i i d u q L i ) % ( t t n e n o C t r e a W l o b m y S S C S U / s t s e T l a n o i t i d d A s k r a m e R RQD=25 89% RQD=55 81% 4.8 145.0 Unc. Comp. Str.= qu: 144.9 tsf Strain at Failure: 2.0% The boring was terminated at approximately 50 ft. below ground surface. The boring was backfilled with hydrated bentonite chips and patched with concrete at the surface on August 27, 2018. GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION: Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after completion. GENERAL NOTES: The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder. PROJECT NO.: 20190836 DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: MAP OB DATE: 9/25/2018 REVISED: - BORING LOG SB-1 City of Austin Fire Stations Fire Station #3 201 West 30th Street Austin, Texas FIGURE SB-1 PAGE: 2 of 2 h g u a B B : Y B M P 6 5 : 2 1 / 8 1 0 2 4 2 0 1 / : D E T T O L P I N T S U A : I R E T L F E C F F O I . A 1 0 0 6 3 8 0 9 1 0 2 : R E B M U N T C E J O R P 7 1 0 2 _ r e t s a m _ n g _ t i f l K : I E L F T N g I ] I I G O L L O S T P T S E T G N R O B _ F L K _ _ I / [ . I B L G 7 1 0 2 _ Y R A R B L _ T N G _ D R A D N A T S _ F L K E : I : E T A L P M E T T N g I -5 5 -10 10 -15 15 -20 20 -25 25 -30 30 Date Begin - End: 8/27/2018 Drilling Company: Texas Geo Bore BORING LOG SB-2 Logged By: J. Miller Drill Crew: Chris, Joey, Jamel Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drilling Equipment: Mobile B-57 Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in. Plunge: Weather: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Solid Stem Auger Hot, Humid, 99° F Exploration Diameter: 6 in. O.D. FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS ) t e e f ( n o i t a v e E l i t e a m x o r p p A ) t e e f ( h p e D t g o L l i a c h p a r G Latitude: 30.29469° Longitude: -97.73857° Surface Condition: Concrete e p y T e p m a S l = ) C B ( s t n u o C w o B l . n i 6 / s w o B l . r r o c n U f s t = ) P P ( n e P t e k c o P % = D Q R ) y r e v o c e R o N = R N ( y r e v o c e R ) % ( t t n e n o C t r e a W l o b m y S S C S U ) f c p ( . t W t i n U y r D ) % ( 4 # g n s s a P i ) % ( 0 0 2 # g n s s a P i l ) c i t s a P n o N = P N ( x e d n I y t i c i t s a P l t i m L i i d u q L i / s t s e T l a n o i t i d d A s k r a m e R Lithologic Description CONCRETE: 6" Base: Crushed Limestone: light brown (14") Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): dark brown, stiff, trace calcium carbonate nodules Fat CLAY (CH): trace fine to coarse-grained gravel, dark brown, stiff to hard, trace calcareous nodules and pockets - with ferrous stains below 6 feet - light brown and dark brown, 6 to 13 feet - hard, 6 to 23 feet BC=3 4 4 BC=3 8 8 BC=4 6 6 PP=4.5+ PP=4.5+ light gray and brown mottled, 13 to 18 feet PP=4.5+ CH 19.2 77 60 41 - dark brown, below 18 feet - laminated, 19 to 20 feet PP=4.5+ LIMESTONE: light gray, weak rock, few shale seams - vertical fracture/weathering from 31 to 32 feet RQD=0 42% RQD=50 100% PP=4.5+ 21.9 100.7 Unc. Comp. Str.= qu: 2.7 tsf Strain at Failure: 6.3% PROJECT NO.: 20190836 DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: MAP OB DATE: 9/25/2018 REVISED: - BORING LOG SB-2 City of Austin Fire Stations Fire Station #3 201 West 30th Street Austin, Texas FIGURE SB-2 PAGE: 1 of 2 h g u a B B : Y B M P 6 5 : 2 1 / 8 1 0 2 4 2 0 1 / : D E T T O L P I N T S U A : I R E T L F E C F F O I . A 1 0 0 6 3 8 0 9 1 0 2 : R E B M U N T C E J O R P 7 1 0 2 _ r e t s a m _ n g _ t i f l K : I E L F T N g I ] I I G O L L O S T P T S E T G N R O B _ F L K _ _ I / [ I . B L G 7 1 0 2 _ Y R A R B L _ T N G _ D R A D N A T S _ F L K E : I : E T A L P M E T T N g I -40 40 -45 45 -50 50 -55 55 -60 60 -65 65 Date Begin - End: 8/27/2018 Drilling Company: Texas Geo Bore BORING LOG SB-2 Logged By: J. Miller Drill Crew: Chris, Joey, Jamel Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drilling Equipment: Mobile B-57 Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in. Plunge: Weather: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Solid Stem Auger Hot, Humid, 99° F Exploration Diameter: 6 in. O.D. FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS ) t e e f ( n o i t a v e E l i t e a m x o r p p A ) t e e f ( h p e D t g o L l i a c h p a r G Latitude: 30.29469° Longitude: -97.73857° Surface Condition: Concrete Lithologic Description e p y T e p m a S l = ) C B ( s t n u o C w o B l . n i 6 / s w o B l . r r o c n U f s t = ) P P ( n e P t e k c o P % = D Q R ) y r e v o c e R o N = R N ( y r e v o c e R ) % ( t t n e n o C t r e a W l o b m y S S C S U ) f c p ( . t W t i n U y r D ) % ( 4 # g n s s a P i ) % ( 0 0 2 # g n s s a P i l ) c i t s a P n o N = P N ( x e d n I y t i c i t s a P l t i m L i i d u q L i / s t s e T l a n o i t i d d A s k r a m e R LIMESTONE: light gray, weak rock, few shale seams RQD=0 40% RQD=18 100% 4.7 147.6 Unc. Comp. Str.= qu: 186.2 tsf Strain at Failure: 2.0% The boring was terminated at approximately 45 ft. below ground surface. The boring was backfilled with hydrated bentonite chips and patched with concrete at the surface on August 27, 2018. GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION: Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after completion. GENERAL NOTES: The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder. PROJECT NO.: 20190836 DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: MAP OB DATE: 9/25/2018 REVISED: - BORING LOG SB-2 City of Austin Fire Stations Fire Station #3 201 West 30th Street Austin, Texas FIGURE SB-2 PAGE: 2 of 2 h g u a B B : Y B M P 6 5 : 2 1 / 8 1 0 2 4 2 0 1 / : D E T T O L P I N T S U A : I R E T L F E C F F O I . A 1 0 0 6 3 8 0 9 1 0 2 : R E B M U N T C E J O R P 7 1 0 2 _ r e t s a m _ n g _ t i f l K : I E L F T N g I ] I I G O L L O S T P T S E T G N R O B _ F L K _ _ / I [ I . B L G 7 1 0 2 _ Y R A R B L _ T N G _ D R A D N A T S _ F L K E : I : E T A L P M E T T N g I -5 5 -10 10 -15 15 -20 20 -25 25 -30 30 Date Begin - End: 8/28/2018 Drilling Company: Texas Geo Bore BORING LOG SB-3 Logged By: J. Miller Drill Crew: Chris, Joey, Jamel Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drilling Equipment: Mobile B-57 Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in. Plunge: Weather: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Solid Stem Auger Sunny, Humid, 99° F Exploration Diameter: 6 in. O.D. FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS ) t e e f ( n o i t a v e E l i t e a m x o r p p A ) t e e f ( h p e D t g o L l i a c h p a r G Latitude: 30.29462° Longitude: -97.73857° Surface Condition: Concrete Lithologic Description CONCRETE: 7" Base: Crushed Limestone: light brown (14") Fat CLAY (CH): trace sand, dark brown, hard, trace calcareous nodules BC=4 5 5 PP=4.5+ PP=4.5+ e p y T e p m a S l = ) C B ( s t n u o C w o B l . n i 6 / s w o B l . r r o c n U f s t = ) P P ( n e P t e k c o P % = D Q R ) y r e v o c e R o N = R N ( y r e v o c e R ) % ( t t n e n o C t r e a W l o b m y S S C S U ) f c p ( . t W t i n U y r D ) % ( 4 # g n s s a P i ) % ( 0 0 2 # g n s s a P i l ) c i t s a P n o N = P N ( x e d n I y t i c i t s a P l t i m L i i d u q L i / s t s e T l a n o i t i d d A s k r a m e R Clayey SAND (SC): trace fine-grained gravel, few calcareous nodules, brown PP=4.5+ SC 6.6 47 47 31 Fat CLAY (CH): trace sand, trace gravel, light brown and gray, very stiff to hard PP=3.5 - yellowish brown below 18 feet PP=3.5 CH 24.4 97 64 45 LIMESTONE: light gray, few shale seams, very weak to weak rock RQD=31 66% PP=4.5+ RQD=78 100% PROJECT NO.: 20190836 DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: MAP OB DATE: 9/25/2018 REVISED: - BORING LOG SB-3 City of Austin Fire Stations Fire Station #3 201 West 30th Street Austin, Texas FIGURE SB-3 PAGE: 1 of 2 h g u a B B : Y B M P 7 5 : 2 1 / 8 1 0 2 4 2 0 1 / : D E T T O L P I N T S U A : I R E T L F E C F F O I . A 1 0 0 6 3 8 0 9 1 0 2 : R E B M U N T C E J O R P 7 1 0 2 _ r e t s a m _ n g _ t i f l K : I E L F T N g I ] I I G O L L O S T P T S E T G N R O B _ F L K _ _ I / [ I . B L G 7 1 0 2 _ Y R A R B L _ T N G _ D R A D N A T S _ F L K E : I : E T A L P M E T T N g I -40 40 -45 45 -50 50 -55 55 -60 60 -65 65 Date Begin - End: 8/28/2018 Drilling Company: Texas Geo Bore BORING LOG SB-3 Logged By: J. Miller Drill Crew: Chris, Joey, Jamel Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drilling Equipment: Mobile B-57 Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in. Plunge: Weather: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Solid Stem Auger Sunny, Humid, 99° F Exploration Diameter: 6 in. O.D. FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS ) t e e f ( n o i t a v e E l i t e a m x o r p p A ) t e e f ( h p e D t g o L l i a c h p a r G Latitude: 30.29462° Longitude: -97.73857° Surface Condition: Concrete Lithologic Description LIMESTONE: light gray, few shale seams, very weak to weak rock e p y T e p m a S l = ) C B ( s t n u o C w o B l . n i 6 / s w o B l . r r o c n U f s t = ) P P ( n e P t e k c o P % = D Q R ) y r e v o c e R o N = R N ( y r e v o c e R ) % ( t t n e n o C t r e a W l o b m y S S C S U ) f c p ( . t W t i n U y r D ) % ( 4 # g n s s a P i ) % ( 0 0 2 # g n s s a P i l ) c i t s a P n o N = P N ( x e d n I y t i c i t s a P l t i m L i i d u q L i RQD=18 92% 6.6 141.0 / s t s e T l a n o i t i d d A s k r a m e R Unc. Comp. Str.= qu: 61.3 tsf Strain at Failure: 2.3% RQD=36 78% The boring was terminated at approximately 45 ft. below ground surface. The boring was backfilled with hydrated bentonite chips and patched with concrete at the surface on August 28, 2018. GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION: Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after completion. GENERAL NOTES: The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder. PROJECT NO.: 20190836 DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: MAP OB DATE: 9/25/2018 REVISED: - BORING LOG SB-3 City of Austin Fire Stations Fire Station #3 201 West 30th Street Austin, Texas FIGURE SB-3 PAGE: 2 of 2 h g u a B B : Y B M P 7 5 : 2 1 / 8 1 0 2 4 2 0 1 / : D E T T O L P I N T S U A : I R E T L F E C F F O I . A 1 0 0 6 3 8 0 9 1 0 2 : R E B M U N T C E J O R P 7 1 0 2 _ r e t s a m _ n g _ t i f l K : I E L F T N g I ] I I G O L L O S T P T S E T G N R O B _ F L K _ _ / I [ I . B L G 7 1 0 2 _ Y R A R B L _ T N G _ D R A D N A T S _ F L K E : I : E T A L P M E T T N g I -5 5 -10 10 -15 15 -20 20 -25 25 -30 30 Date Begin - End: 9/11/2018 Drilling Company: Kleinfelder Logged By: B. Baugh Drill Crew: B. Baugh Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drilling Equipment: Hand Auger Plunge: Weather: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Hand Auger Overcast, Light Rain Exploration Diameter: 6 in. O.D. BORING LOG SB-4 FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS e p y T e p m a S l = ) C B ( s t n u o C w o B l . n i 6 / s w o B l . r r o c n U f s t = ) P P ( n e P t e k c o P % = D Q R ) y r e v o c e R o N = R N ( y r e v o c e R l o b m y S S C S U ) f c p ( . t W t i n U y r D ) % ( 4 # g n s s a P i ) % ( 0 0 2 # g n s s a P i l ) c i t s a P n o N = P N ( x e d n I y t i c i t s a P l t i m L i i d u q L i / s t s e T l a n o i t i d d A s k r a m e R ) % ( t t n e n o C t r e a W 17.8 ) t e e f ( n o i t a v e E l i t e a m x o r p p A ) t e e f ( h p e D t g o L l i a c h p a r G Latitude: 30.29456° Longitude: -97.73882° Surface Condition: Bare Earth Lithologic Description Fat CLAY (CH): dark brown, moist, with roots - with gravel below 2 feet Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): trace gravel, light brown, moist The boring was terminated at approximately 5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was backfilled with hydrated bentonite chips and patched with concrete at the surface on September 11, 2018. GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION: Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after completion. GENERAL NOTES: The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder. CL 6.4 68 42 29 PROJECT NO.: 20190836 DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: MAP OB DATE: 9/25/2018 REVISED: - BORING LOG SB-4 City of Austin Fire Stations Fire Station #3 201 West 30th Street Austin, Texas FIGURE SB-4 PAGE: 1 of 1 A p p e n d i x B Analytical Report 600445 for Kleinfelder - Austin Project Manager: Orlando Boscan Fire Station 3 & 22 Reconstruction 20190836.001A 05-OCT-18 Collected By: Client 9701 Harry Hines Blvd Dallas, TX 75220 Xenco-Houston (EPA Lab Code: TX00122): Texas (T104704215-18-27), Arizona (AZ0765), Florida (E871002-24), Louisiana (03054) Oklahoma (2017-142) Xenco-Dallas (EPA Lab Code: TX01468): Texas (T104704295-18-17), Arizona (AZ0809), Arkansas (17-063-0) Xenco-El Paso (EPA Lab Code: TX00127): Texas (T104704221-18-13) Xenco-Lubbock (EPA Lab Code: TX00139): Texas (T104704219-18-17) Xenco-Midland (EPA Lab Code: TX00158): Texas (T104704400-18-18) Xenco-San Antonio (EPA Lab Code: TNI02385): Texas (T104704534-18-4) Xenco Phoenix (EPA Lab Code: AZ00901): Arizona (AZ0757) Xenco-Phoenix Mobile (EPA Lab Code: AZ00901): Arizona (AZM757) Xenco-Atlanta (LELAP Lab ID #04176) Xenco-Tampa: Florida (E87429) Xenco-Lakeland: Florida (E84098) Page 1 of 17 Final 1.000  Table of Contents Cover Page Cover Letter Sample ID Cross Reference Case Narrative Certificate of Analysis (Detailed Report) Explanation of Qualifiers (Flags) LCS / LCSD Recoveries MS / MSD Recoveries Method Duplicate Chain of Custody IOS_COC_114730 IOS_Check_List_114730 Sample Receipt Conformance Report 1 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 Page 2 of 17 Final 1.000 05-OCT-18 Project Manager: Orlando Boscan Kleinfelder - Austin 1826 Kramer Ln, Suite M Austin, TX 78758 Reference: XENCO Report No(s): 600445 Fire Station 3 & 22 Reconstruction Project Address: --- Orlando Boscan: We are reporting to you the results of the analyses performed on the samples received under the project name referenced above and identified with the XENCO Report Number(s) 600445. All results being reported under this Report Number apply to the samples analyzed and properly identified with a Laboratory ID number. Subcontracted analyses are identified in this report with either the NELAC certification number of the subcontract lab in the analyst ID field, or the complete subcontracted report attached to this report. Unless otherwise noted in a Case Narrative, all data reported in this Analytical Report are in compliance with NELAC standards. The uncertainty of measurement associated with the results of analysis reported is available upon request. Should insufficient sample be provided to the laboratory to meet the method and NELAC Matrix Duplicate and Matrix Spike requirements, then the data will be analyzed, evaluated and reported using all other available quality control measures. The validity and integrity of this report will remain intact as long as it is accompanied by this letter and reproduced in full, unless written approval is granted by XENCO Laboratories. This report will be filed for at least 5 years in our archives after which time it will be destroyed without further notice, unless otherwise arranged with you. The samples received, and described as recorded in Report No. 600445 will be filed for 45 days, and after that time they will be properly disposed without further notice, unless otherwise arranged with you. We reserve the right to return to you any unused samples, extracts or solutions related to them if we consider so necessary (e.g., samples identified as hazardous waste, sample sizes exceeding analytical standard practices, controlled substances under regulated protocols, etc). We thank you for selecting XENCO Laboratories to serve your analytical needs. If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact us at any time. Respectfully, Kalei Stout Laboratory Manager Recipient of the Prestigious Small Business Administration Award of Excellence in 1994. Certified and approved by numerous States and Agencies. A Small Business and Minority Status Company that delivers SERVICE and QUALITY Houston - Dallas - Midland - San Antonio - Phoenix - Oklahoma - Latin America Page 3 of 17 Final 1.000 Sample Cross Reference 600445 Kleinfelder - Austin, Austin, TX Fire Station 3 & 22 Reconstruction Sample Id SB-2 B-3 Matrix Date Collected Sample Depth Lab Sample Id S S 08-27-18 00:00 08-27-18 00:00 .5 - 4 ft 2 - 4 ft 600445-001 600445-002 Page 4 of 17 Final 1.000 CASE NARRATIVE Client Name: Kleinfelder - Austin Project Name: Fire Station 3 & 22 Reconstruction Project ID: Work Order Number(s): 20190836.001A 600445 Report Date: Date Received: 05-OCT-18 09/27/2018 This laboratory is NELAC accredited under the Texas Laboratory Accreditation Program for all the methods, analytes, and matrices reported in this data package except as noted. The data have been reviewed and are technically compliant with the requirements of the methods used, except where noted by the laboratory. Sample receipt non conformances and comments: Sample receipt non conformances and comments per sample: None None Page 5 of 17 Final 1.000 Certificate of Analytical Results 600445 Kleinfelder - Austin, Austin, TX Fire Station 3 & 22 Reconstruction % Moist: Date Prep: Prep seq: % Moist: Date Prep: Prep seq: % Moist: Date Prep: Prep seq: Sample Id: SB-2 Lab Sample Id: 600445-001 Matrix: Soil Sample Depth: .5 - 4 ft Date Collected: 08.27.18 00.00 Date Received: 09.27.18 08.20 Analytical Method: Soil pH by EPA 9045C Analyst: CHD Seq Number: 3065144 Prep Method: Tech: CHD Parameter pH Temperature + CAS Number 12408-02-5 TEMP Result MQL SDL Units Analysis Date Dil Factor Flag 10.8 21.9 SU Deg C 10.03.18 09:55 10.03.18 09:55 K K 1 Analytical Method: Chloride, Mercuric Nitrate Method by SM4500 Cl-C Analyst: SDK Seq Number: 3065358 Prep Method: Tech: SDK CAS Number Result MQL SDL Units Analysis Date Dil Factor Flag 16887-00-6 4.94 4.94 1.26 mg/kg 10.03.18 16:00 JK 1 Analytical Method: Sulfate by SW-846 9038 Analyst: SHT Seq Number: 3065021 Parameter Chloride Parameter Sulfate Prep Method: Tech: SHT Prep Method: Tech: TRS CAS Number Result MQL SDL Units Analysis Date Dil Factor Flag 14808-79-8 331 49.4 16.5 mg/kg 10.02.18 10:30 K 10 Analytical Method: Soil Resistivity (Saturated) by ASTM G57 Analyst: TRS Seq Number: 3065227 Subcontractor: SUB: TX104704215-18-27 % Moist: Date Prep: Prep seq: Parameter Result MQL SDL Units CAS Number Analysis Date Dil Factor Flag Resistivity (as saturated) RESISTIVITY 1445 Ohm-cm 10.03.18 14:00 U 1 Page 6 of 17 Final 1.000 Certificate of Analytical Results 600445 Kleinfelder - Austin, Austin, TX Fire Station 3 & 22 Reconstruction % Moist: Date Prep: Prep seq: % Moist: Date Prep: Prep seq: % Moist: Date Prep: Prep seq: Sample Id: B-3 Lab Sample Id: 600445-002 Matrix: Soil Sample Depth: 2 - 4 ft Date Collected: 08.27.18 00.00 Date Received: 09.27.18 08.20 Analytical Method: Soil pH by EPA 9045C Analyst: CHD Seq Number: 3065144 Prep Method: Tech: CHD Parameter pH Temperature + CAS Number 12408-02-5 TEMP Result MQL SDL Units Analysis Date Dil Factor Flag 8.47 22.2 SU Deg C 10.03.18 09:55 10.03.18 09:55 K K 1 Analytical Method: Chloride, Mercuric Nitrate Method by SM4500 Cl-C Analyst: SDK Seq Number: 3065358 Prep Method: Tech: SDK CAS Number Result MQL SDL Units Analysis Date Dil Factor Flag 16887-00-6 2430 497 127 mg/kg 10.03.18 16:00 K 99 Analytical Method: Sulfate by SW-846 9038 Analyst: SHT Seq Number: 3065021 Parameter Chloride Parameter Sulfate Prep Method: Tech: SHT Prep Method: Tech: TRS CAS Number Result MQL SDL Units Analysis Date Dil Factor Flag 14808-79-8 20.9 49.4 16.4 mg/kg 10.02.18 10:30 JK 10 Analytical Method: Soil Resistivity (Saturated) by ASTM G57 Analyst: TRS Seq Number: 3065227 Subcontractor: SUB: TX104704215-18-27 % Moist: Date Prep: Prep seq: Parameter Result MQL SDL Units CAS Number Analysis Date Dil Factor Flag Resistivity (as saturated) RESISTIVITY 1022 Ohm-cm 10.03.18 14:00 U 1 Page 7 of 17 Final 1.000 Certificate of Analytical Results 600445 Kleinfelder - Austin, Austin, TX Fire Station 3 & 22 Reconstruction Sample Id: 3065021-1-BLK Lab Sample Id: 3065021-1-BLK Matrix: Solid Date Collected: Analytical Method: Sulfate by SW-846 9038 Analyst: SHT Seq Number: 3065021 % Moist: Date Prep: Prep seq: % Moist: Date Prep: Prep seq: Sample Id: 3065358-1-BLK Lab Sample Id: 3065358-1-BLK Matrix: Solid Date Collected: Analytical Method: Chloride, Mercuric Nitrate Method by SM4500 Cl-C Analyst: SDK Seq Number: 3065358 Sample Depth: Date Received: Prep Method: Tech: SHT Sample Depth: Date Received: Prep Method: Tech: SDK Parameter Sulfate CAS Number Result MQL SDL Units Analysis Date Dil Factor Flag 14808-79-8 <16.4 49.2 16.4 mg/kg 10.02.18 10:30 U 10 Parameter Chloride CAS Number Result MQL SDL Units Analysis Date Dil Factor Flag 16887-00-6 <1.26 4.95 1.26 mg/kg 10.03.18 16:00 U 1 Page 8 of 17 Final 1.000 Flagging Criteria X In our quality control review of the data a QC deficiency was observed and flagged as noted. MS/MSD recoveries were found to be outside of the laboratory control limits due to possible matrix /chemical interference, or a concentration of target analyte high enough to affect the recovery of the spike concentration. This condition could also affect the relative percent difference in the MS/MSD. B A target analyte or common laboratory contaminant was identified in the method blank. Its presence indicates possible field or laboratory contamination. D The sample(s) were diluted due to targets detected over the highest point of the calibration curve, or due to matrix interference. Dilution factors are included in the final results. The result is from a diluted sample. E The data exceeds the upper calibration limit; therefore, the concentration is reported as estimated. F RPD exceeded lab control limits. U Analyte was not detected. J The target analyte was positively identified below the quantitation limit and above the detection limit. L The LCS data for this analytical batch was reported below the laboratory control limits for this analyte. The department supervisor and QA Director reviewed data. The samples were either reanalyzed or flagged as estimated concentrations. H The LCS data for this analytical batch was reported above the laboratory control limits. Supporting QC Data were reviewed by the Department Supervisor and QA Director. Data were determined to be valid for reporting. K Sample analyzed outside of recommended hold time. JN A combination of the "N" and the "J" qualifier. The analysis indicates that the analyte is "tentatively identified" and the associated numerical value may not be consistent with the amount actually present in the environmental sample. ** Surrogate recovered outside laboratory control limit. BRL Below Reporting Limit. RL Reporting Limit MDL Method Detection Limit SDL Sample Detection Limit LOD Limit of Detection PQL Practical Quantitation Limit MQL Method Quantitation Limit LOQ Limit of Quantitation DL Method Detection Limit NC Non-Calculable SMP Client Sample BLK Method Blank BKS/LCS Blank Spike/Laboratory Control Sample BKSD/LCSD Blank Spike Duplicate/Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate MD/SD Method Duplicate/Sample Duplicate MS Matrix Spike MSD: Matrix Spike Duplicate + NELAC certification not offered for this compound. * (Next to analyte name or method description) = Outside XENCO's scope of NELAC accreditation Page 9 of 17 Final 1.000  s e i r e v o c e R D S B / S B n o i t c u r t s n o c e R 2 2 & 3 n o i t a t S e r i F : e m a N t c e j o r P Y D U T S Y R E V O C E R E T A C I L P U D E K I P S K N A L B / E K I P S K N A L B / K N A L B g a l F l o r t n o C s t i m L i D P R % l o r t n o C s t i m L i R % D P R % 5 2 5 2 1 - 5 7 1 d i l o S : x i r t a M 8 1 0 2 / 2 0 / 0 1 : d e z y l a n A e t a D k p S . k l B . p u D R % ] G [ 5 0 1 k n a l B e k i p S e t a c i l p u D ] F [ t l u s e R 0 . 2 5 e k i p S d e d d A ] E [ 5 . 9 4 k n a l B e k i p S R % ] D [ k n a l B e k i p S t l u s e R ] C [ 5 0 1 3 . 2 5 ] B [ 8 . 9 4 ] A [ 7 2 . 1 < e k i p S d e d d A k n a l B t l u s e R e l p m a S 8 1 0 2 / 2 0 / 0 1 : d e r a p e r P e t a D Y D U T S Y R E V O C E R E T A C I L P U D E K I P S K N A L B / E K I P S K N A L B / K N A L B g a l F l o r t n o C s t i m L i D P R % l o r t n o C s t i m L i R % D P R % 0 2 0 2 1 - 0 8 0 k p S . k l B . p u D R % ] G [ 9 9 k n a l B e k i p S e t a c i l p u D ] F [ t l u s e R 2 9 1 e k i p S d e d d A ] E [ 4 9 1 k n a l B e k i p S R % ] D [ k n a l B e k i p S t l u s e R ] C [ 8 9 2 9 1 ] B [ 5 9 1 ] A [ 3 . 6 1 < e k i p S d e d d A k n a l B t l u s e R e l p m a S y b d o h t e M e t a r t i N c i r u c r e M , e d i r o l h C C - l C 0 0 5 4 M S 8 3 0 9 6 4 8 - W S y b e t a f l u S s e t y l a n A e d i r o l h C T H S : t s y l a n A g k / g m : s t i n U s e t y l a n A e t a f l u S 1 : # h c t a B S K B - 1 - 1 2 0 5 6 0 3 : e l p m a S 1 2 0 5 6 0 3 : D I h c t a B b a L A 1 0 0 . 6 3 8 0 9 1 0 2 : D I t c e j o r P 8 1 0 2 / 3 0 / 0 1 : d e z y l a n A e t a D d i l o S : x i r t a M 8 1 0 2 / 3 0 / 0 1 : d e r a p e r P e t a D 1 : # h c t a B S K B - 1 - 8 5 3 5 6 0 3 : e l p m a S 8 5 3 5 6 0 3 : D I h c t a B b a L 5 4 4 0 0 6 : # r e d r O k r o W K D S : t s y l a n A g k / g m : s t i n U 0 0 0 . 1 l a n F i 7 1 f o 0 1 e g a P s e s o p r u P C Q r o f d e t a d i l a V d n a L D M n o d e s a b e r a s t l u s e r l l A | ) F + C ( / ) F - C ( | * 0 0 2 = D P R e c n e r e f f i D t n e c r e P e v i t a l e R ] E [ / ) F ( * 0 0 1 = ] G [ y r e v o c e R e t a c i l p u D e k i p S k n a l B ] B [ / ) C ( * 0 0 1 = ] D [ y r e v o c e R e k i p S k n a l B  s e i r e v o c e R D S M / S M - 3 m r o F n o i t c u r t s n o c e R 2 2 & 3 n o i t a t S e r i F : e m a N t c e j o r P g a l F l o r t n o C s t i m L i D P R % l o r t n o C s t i m L i R % D P R % . p u D R % ] G [ d e k i p S e t a c i l p u D e l p m a S d e k i p S ] F [ t l u s e R e k i p S d e d d A ] E [ d e k i p S e l p m a S R % ] D [ e l p m a S d e k i p S t l u s e R ] C [ e k i p S d e d d A ] B [ t n e r a P e l p m a S t l u s e R ] A [ 0 0 5 4 M S y b d o h t e M e t a r t i N c i r u c r e M , e d i r o l h C C - l C g a l F l o r t n o C s t i m L i D P R % l o r t n o C s t i m L i R % D P R % . p u D R % ] G [ d e k i p S e t a c i l p u D e l p m a S d e k i p S ] F [ t l u s e R e k i p S d e d d A ] E [ d e k i p S e l p m a S R % ] D [ e l p m a S d e k i p S t l u s e R ] C [ e k i p S d e d d A ] B [ t n e r a P e l p m a S t l u s e R ] A [ 8 3 0 9 6 4 8 - W S y b e t a f l u S s e t y l a n A 0 2 5 2 1 - 5 7 2 3 9 8 5 3 5 9 1 5 9 4 6 3 8 9 1 6 7 1 e t a f l u S 5 2 5 2 1 - 5 7 4 1 5 8 1 . 7 4 6 . 9 4 0 0 1 4 . 4 5 4 . 9 4 4 9 . 4 e d i r o l h C Y D U T S Y R E V O C E R E T A C I L P U D E K I P S X I R T A M / E K I P S X I R T A M l i o S : x i r t a M 1 : # h c t a B S 1 0 0 - 7 3 3 0 0 6 : D I e l p m a S - C Q T H S : t s y l a n A 8 1 0 2 / 2 0 / 0 1 : d e r a p e r P e t a D 8 1 0 2 / 2 0 / 0 1 : d e z y l a n A e t a D 1 2 0 5 6 0 3 : D I h c t a B b a L g k / g m : s t i n U g n i t r o p e R A 1 0 0 . 6 3 8 0 9 1 0 2 : D I t c e j o r P Y D U T S Y R E V O C E R E T A C I L P U D E K I P S X I R T A M / E K I P S X I R T A M l i o S : x i r t a M 1 : # h c t a B S 1 0 0 - 5 4 4 0 0 6 : D I e l p m a S - C Q K D S : t s y l a n A 8 1 0 2 / 3 0 / 0 1 : d e r a p e r P e t a D 8 1 0 2 / 3 0 / 0 1 : d e z y l a n A e t a D 8 5 3 5 6 0 3 : D I h c t a B b a L g k / g m : s t i n U g n i t r o p e R 5 4 4 0 0 6 : # r e d r O k r o W 0 0 0 . 1 l a n F i 7 1 f o 1 1 e g a P E / ) A - F ( * 0 0 1 = ] G [ y r e v o c e R t n e c r e P e t a c i l p u D e k i p S x i r t a M B / ) - A C ( * 0 0 1 = ] D [ y r e v o c e R t n e c r e P e k i p S x i r t a M | ) F + C ( / ) F - C ( | * 0 0 2 = D P R e c n e r e f f i D t n e c r e P e v i t a l e R e l b a c i l p p A t o N = A N , e c n e r e f r e t n I = I , d e t s e u q e R t o N = R N , k n a l B n i t n e s e r P = B , t i i m L g n i t r o p e R w o l e B t n e s e r P = J , d e t c e t e D t o N = D N . d e k i p s t n u o m a e h t s e m i t 4 > s i t n u o m a e l p m a S - e l b a l u c l a C n o N = C N , t i i m L n o i t a t i t n a u Q d e t a m i t s E = L Q E , e v i t a r r a N e e S = N Sample Duplicate Recovery Project Name: Fire Station 3 & 22 Reconstruction Date Prepared: Batch #: 1 10/03/2018 20190836.001A Project ID: TRS Soil Analyst: Matrix: SAMPLE / SAMPLE DUPLICATE RECOVERY Parent Sample Result [A] Sample Duplicate Result [B] %RPD RPD Limit Flag Soil Resistivity (Saturated) by ASTM G57 Work Order #: 600445 Lab Batch #: Date Analyzed: QC- Sample ID: Reporting Units: 3065227 10/03/2018 14:00 600445-001 D Ohm-cm Analyte Lab Batch #: Date Analyzed: QC- Sample ID: Reporting Units: 3065144 600337-001 D Deg C Resistivity (as saturated) 1446 1446 0 20 U 10/03/2018 09:55 Date Prepared: 10/03/2018 Batch #: 1 Analyst: Matrix: CHD Soil SAMPLE / SAMPLE DUPLICATE RECOVERY Soil pH by EPA 9045C Analyte Parent Sample Result [A] Sample Duplicate Result [B] %RPD RPD Limit Flag Temperature 21.4 22.2 4 25 Lab Batch #: Date Analyzed: QC- Sample ID: Reporting Units: 3065144 10/03/2018 09:55 600337-001 D SU Date Prepared: Batch #: 1 10/03/2018 Analyst: Matrix: CHD Soil SAMPLE / SAMPLE DUPLICATE RECOVERY Soil pH by EPA 9045C Analyte Parent Sample Result [A] Sample Duplicate Result [B] %RPD RPD Limit Flag pH 7.53 7.93 5 20 Log Difference Log Diff. = Log(Sample Duplicate) - Log(Original Sample) Spike Relative Difference RPD 200 * | (B-A)/(B+A) | All Results are based on MDL and validated for QC purposes. BRL - Below Reporting Limit Page 12 of 17 Final 1.000 Page 13 of 17 Final 1.000 Page 14 of 17 Final 1.000 1 f o 1 e g a P t n e m p i h S e c i f f O - r e t n I e u D b a L 8 1 / 3 0 / 0 1 8 1 / 3 0 / 0 1 n g i S s e t y l a n A M P e u D T H e m a N d o h t e M d o h t e M n o i t c e l l o C e l p m a S d I e l p m a S t n e i l x i r t a M d I e l p m a S S L K S L K 9 1 / 3 2 / 2 0 9 1 / 3 2 / 2 0 5 G M T S A y b ) d e t a r u t a S ( y t i v i t s i s e R l i o S T A S 7 5 G M T S A 0 0 : 0 0 8 1 / 7 2 / 8 0 5 G M T S A y b ) d e t a r u t a S ( y t i v i t s i s e R l i o S T A S 7 5 G M T S A 0 0 : 0 0 8 1 / 7 2 / 8 0 S S 1 0 0 - 5 4 4 0 0 6 2 0 0 - 5 4 4 0 0 6 2 - B S 3 - B C d v l B s e n i H y r r a H 1 0 7 9 : s s e r d d A m o c . o c n e x @ t u o t s . i e l a k : l i a M - E 8 8 4 6 1 8 5 4 3 3 7 7 : . o N l l i B r i A x e d e F : y t i r o i r P y r e v i l e D n o t s u o H : o T # b a L s a l l a D : m o r F # b a L t u o t S i e l a K : o t t r o p e r d n e s e s a e l P z e n i t r a M a c i l e g n A : y b d e t a e r C 7 5 : 1 2 8 1 / 7 2 / 9 0 : e m i T / e t a D 0 3 7 4 1 1 r e b m u N S O I r i h s h k a h S a c i n o M : y B d e v i e c e R 5 4 : 9 0 8 1 0 2 / 8 2 / 9 0 : d e v i e c e R e t a D 5 4 . : e r u t a r e p m e T r e l o o C : s t n e m m o C e p m a S r o l t i n e m p h S e c i f f O r e t n I z e n i t r a M a c i l e g n A : y B d e h s i u q n i l e R 8 1 0 2 / 7 2 / 9 0 : d e h s i u q n i l e R e t a D 0 0 0 . 1 l a n F i 7 1 f o 5 1 e g a P XENCO Laboratories Inter Office Report- Sample Receipt Checklist Sent To: Houston IOS #: 114730 Acceptable Temperature Range: 0 - 6 degC Air and Metal samples Acceptable Range: Ambient Temperature Measuring device used : HOU-068 Sent By: Angelica Martinez Date Sent: 09/27/2018 09:57 PM Received By: Monica Shakhshir Date Received: 09/28/2018 09:45 AM Sample Receipt Checklist Comments #1 *Temperature of cooler(s)? #2 *Shipping container in good condition? #3 *Samples received with appropriate temperature? #4 *Custody Seals intact on shipping container/ cooler? #5 *Custody Seals Signed and dated for Containers/coolers #6 *IOS present? #7 Any missing/extra samples? #8 IOS agrees with sample label(s)/matrix? #9 Sample matrix/ properties agree with IOS? #10 Samples in proper container/ bottle? #11 Samples properly preserved? #12 Sample container(s) intact? #13 Sufficient sample amount for indicated test(s)? #14 All samples received within hold time? 4.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes * Must be completed for after-hours delivery of samples prior to placing in the refrigerator NonConformance: Corrective Action Taken: Contact: Contacted by : Date: Nonconformance Documentation Checklist reviewed by: Monica Shakhshir Date: 09/28/2018 Page 16 of 17 Final 1.000 XENCO Laboratories Prelogin/Nonconformance Report- Sample Log-In Client: Kleinfelder - Austin Date/ Time Received: 09/27/2018 08:20:00 AM Work Order #: 600445 Acceptable Temperature Range: 0 - 6 degC Air and Metal samples Acceptable Range: Ambient Temperature Measuring device used : XDA Sample Receipt Checklist Comments #1 *Temperature of cooler(s)? #2 *Shipping container in good condition? #3 *Samples received on ice? #4 *Custody Seals intact on shipping container/ cooler? #5 Custody Seals intact on sample bottles? #6*Custody Seals Signed and dated? #7 *Chain of Custody present? #8 Any missing/extra samples? #9 Chain of Custody signed when relinquished/ received? #10 Chain of Custody agrees with sample labels/matrix? #11 Container label(s) legible and intact? #12 Samples in proper container/ bottle? #13 Samples properly preserved? #14 Sample container(s) intact? #15 Sufficient sample amount for indicated test(s)? #16 All samples received within hold time? #17 Subcontract of sample(s)? #18 Water VOC samples have zero headspace? 20.4 Yes No No N/A N/A Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Xenco Stafford Resistivity * Must be completed for after-hours delivery of samples prior to placing in the refrigerator Analyst: PH Device/Lot#: Checklist completed by: Angelica Martinez Date: 09/27/2018 Checklist reviewed by: Kalei Stout Date: 09/28/2018 Page 17 of 17 Final 1.000