keilandllc.com · Daniel J. Holder, P.E., Inc. 2767 Scarborough Drive; Lake Charles, LA 70615 Consulting Civil / Geotechnical Engineer [email protected] (337) 274-4125 . Geotechnical

Daniel J. Holder, P.E., Inc. 2767 Scarborough Drive; Lake Charles, LA 70615 Consulting Civil / Geotechnical Engineer [email protected] (337) 274-4125

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Port Wonder Bulkhead Improvements 400 Lakeshore Drive

Lake Charles, Louisiana

for

D.W. Jessen & Associates, LLC 440 Kirby Street

Lake Charles, LA 70601

prepared by

Daniel J. Holder, P.E., Inc. Consulting Civil / Geotechnical Engineer

2767 Scarborough Drive Lake Charles, LA 70615

DJH File 19-010 19 March 2020

Daniel J. Holder, P.E., Inc. Consulting Civil / Geotechnical Engineer

2767 Scarborough Drive Lake Charles, LA 70615 [email protected]

337-274-4125

19 March 2020 D.W. Jessen & Associates, LLC 440 Kirby Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 Attn: Mr. Walt Jessen, Jr., C.E. RE: Geotechnical Engineering Report Port Wonder Bulkhead Improvements 400 Lakeshore Drive Lake Charles, Louisiana

DJH File 19-010 Dear Mr. Jessen: We have completed the Geotechnical Engineering Report for the referenced project, and are submitting the same herewith. This work was performed in general accordance with our written scope of work dated 03 December 2019, and was authorized by your email on 04 December 2019. Please advise if you have any questions regarding this information, or if I may be of any additional assistance. It has been a pleasure working with you on this project.

Report Distribution: 3 copies, 1 electronic file (.PDF)

Geotechnical Engineering Report Port Wonder Bulkhead Improvements; Lake Charles, LA

DJH File 19-010; 19 March 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Description of Project ............................................................................................ 1

RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION8 2. General ................................................................................................................ 2 3. Site Conditions .................................................................................................... 2 4. Soil and Ground Water Conditions ...................................................................... 3

GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 5. General Considerations ....................................................................................... 4 6. New Steel Sheet Pile Cantilever Bulkhead .......................................................... 5 7. Site Preparation and Earthwork Activities ............................................................ 8 8. Preliminary Recommendations for Driven Steel Pipe Piles ............................... 10

OTHER GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS 9. Drainage and Landscaping ................................................................................ 13 10. Additional Consulting Services .......................................................................... 13 11. Construction Materials Testing (CMT) Services ................................................ 13 12. Limitations ......................................................................................................... 14 13. Compliance with Applicable Standards and Regulations ................................... 14

APPENDIX

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Port Wonder Bulkhead Improvements 400 Lakeshore Drive

Lake Charles, Louisiana


PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Description of Project. According to the information provided, it is understood that this project will consist of a new, 1,000+ foot long, steel sheet pile cantilever bulkhead and concrete boardwalk, an 80 foot long fishing pier, and a 170+ foot long marina (the pier and marina extending perpendicularly from the boardwalk out into Lake Charles). The new steel sheet pile bulkhead will have a design top elevation of EL +4 (a future concrete cap will bring the final design bulkhead elevation to EL +5) and an approximate design dredge line elevation ranging from about EL -3 to -7. A new, 15 foot wide, reinforced concrete boardwalk will be placed immediately behind the sheet pile bulkhead in a future phase, along with the concrete cap. The new bulkhead will begin and terminate at the existing shoreline at either end of the alignment, with the majority of the bulkhead located an average distance of about 60 to 100 feet south of the existing shoreline (into Lake Charles). The upland area between the bulkhead and shoreline will be filled to provide recreational area. Aggregate fill will be utilized directly beneath the reinforced concrete boardwalk to help provide uniform support for this feature. The maximum height of new, net fill will be about 8 feet at a distance of about 26 feet behind the bulkhead. A portion of the new fill (on land, from the water’s edge northward, sloping upward at a 4 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (4H:1V) gradient), will be placed by others as part of the Port Wonder development. A Typical Section for the steel sheet pile bulkhead is shown in Figure 5. Details for the fishing pier and marina have not yet been fully determined (they’ll be constructed in a future phase), but it is expected that 16 inch diameter steel pipe piles will be utilized to provide support for fixed structures and/or maintain proper alignment for floating components. Axial loads are expected to be relatively light; however, lateral loads and the resulting overturning moments could be substantial. The new bulkhead will be located in the waters of Lake Charles, roughly parallel to the North Beach of Lake Charles, between the Southwest Convention and Tourist Bureau and Cypress Pond to the west and to about the east end of the former Players Parking Garage, in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Refer to the Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1), the Google Earth® Aerial Photograph (Figure 2), and the Site Plan / Boring Location Plan (Figure 3) in the Appendix.



Page 2

RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION 2. General. This investigation included the following work activities.

• a review of available geologic information, including a previous study at this site for the Port Wonder development (DJH File 19-010, Geotechnical Engineering Report dated 28 May 2019);

• a site reconnaissance by the project engineer; • five (5) soil borings to the 70 foot depth from a barge-mounted drill rig, to

supplement the two (2) similar borings previously made for the original study; • laboratory testing of selected soil samples, • engineering analyses and evaluations, and, • the preparation of this report by the Geotechnical Engineer.

The locations of the soil borings are shown on Figures 2 and 3, and the Soil Boring Logs are included in the Appendix. The results of the field and laboratory testing programs are shown on the Soil Boring Logs, and on other figures in the Appendix, where applicable. Finally, a Description of the Field and Laboratory Testing Procedures is also included in the Appendix. 3. Site Conditions. The existing shoreline runs approximately west to east, and is located on a relatively slight slope of about 4½ to 6 percent. The shoreline itself is marked by a line of vegetation, and the sandy lake bottom is evident some 20 to 30 feet or more into the lake during low tide and/or at high north winds. A grass lawn runs northward from the shoreline some 100 to 160 feet (from west to east), then a large concrete parking lot. On the east end of the proposed bulkhead alignment, an existing 6 story concrete parking garage is located some 25 to 40 feet north of the shoreline (or, some 100 feet or so from the proposed bulkhead). It is estimated that the center of the new bulkhead will be at an approximate latitude and longitude of N 30o 14.136’ and W 93o 13.578’, respectively. The appropriate U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (i.e., Figure 1) indicates that the site is at an elevation of about EL 0. Preliminary drawings indicate that the existing site grades vary from about EL +2 to +3 about 100 feet behind (i.e., landside of) the bulkhead, about EL 0 to -3 at the bulkhead, and from EL -1 to -6 about 30 feet in front (i.e., waterside) of the bulkhead. According to historic aerial photographs available on Google Earth® (e.g., Figure 2), it appears that the overall site has remained relatively unchanged since at least the March 1998 photograph, the earliest available on Google Earth®. The old Players Casino landing is evident in the photographs from March 2006 and earlier, beached against the shoreline in the March 2006 and December 2005 photographs, and in its operating location jutting out from the property to the east of the subject site prior to that. A small, over water boardwalk is also evident in these earlier photographs (i.e., prior to and



Page 3

including March 2006) running from the site to the Cypress Pond shore line to the west. The concrete remains of the boardwalk’s junction with the shore are still evident. Other historical aerial photographs available from the local office of the National Resources Conservation Service were also reviewed for this study, but lack of resolution makes these photographs somewhat indeterminate. In the 1994, 1968, and 1963 photographs, the shoreline appears to be unchanged. In the 1953 photograph, the construction of Interstate 10 to the immediate north is evident, and southeast shoreline appears to extend beyond its current location. In the 1940 photograph, the earliest available, the shoreline of Lake Charles extends far to the north and east of its present day location; it is commonly known that this portion of the lakefront was hydraulically filled with sand during the construction of Interstate 10 in the early 1950’s). According to the Geologic Map of Louisiana (Pope, et al, 1984), the site is underlain by Alluvial deposits of Holocene (Recent) Age. These soils are described as “Gray to brownish gray clay and silty clay…; some sand and gravel locally.” These deposits are often relatively weak and compressible. Underlying these soils, the Prairie Formation of Pleistocene Age is encountered. These soils are described as “Light gray to light brown clay, sandy clay, silt, sand, and some gravel.” Please note that this discussion of site conditions is necessarily general in nature, and that a comprehensive description of current or previously existing site conditions is beyond the scope of this investigation. Reference is made to Figures 1, 2 and 3 in the Appendix, and the other sources noted herein. 4. Soil and Ground Water Conditions. The borings along the new bulkhead alignment were generally made in about 2 to 4 feet of water; the borings at the end of the fishing pier and the marina were made in about 7½ and 11½ feet of water, respectively. In general, loose silty fine sands were encountered in the borings to an elevation of about EL -10, becoming medium dense to about an elevation of EL -33 to -42. Underlying the silty sands, stiff silty clays and clays were encountered to the limit of the exploration at an elevation of about EL -80. Some interbedded layers of organic clay were encountered within the silty clays and clays, particularly on the east side (i.e., Borings WB-5 and WB-6). Exceptions to the above generalization include very soft clayey silts and soft clays to an elevation of about EL -24 at Boring WB-3; and soft organic clay or silty clay to an elevation of about EL -22, then stiff to very stiff silty clay to an elevation of about EL -36 in Boring WB-6. The information contained in this section has been generalized from the data obtained from all of the soil borings made for this investigation, and is meant to provide a general overview of the soil and ground water conditions. For more specific information, refer to the Boring Logs and the Generalized Soil Profile (Figure 4) in the Appendix.



Page 4

GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 5. General Considerations. The geotechnical aspects of this project include:

1), the determination of suitable sheet pile design parameters (i.e., required depth of piling, minimum sheet pile section, and design of anchorage system, if applicable) for the bulkhead;

2), site preparation and earthwork activities for filling the upland area behind (i.e., landside of) the bulkhead; and

3), the determination of preliminary axial and lateral capacities of driven steel pipe piles for the support of the fishing pier and marina.

These aspects of the project are discussed in general terms in this section, and specific recommendations for each aspect are provided in subsequent sections of this report.

5.1 Steel Sheet Pile Bulkhead Design. In order to evaluate the forces on a sheet pile bulkhead, the design boundary conditions must be established, including top of bulkhead elevation, dredge line elevation, water levels behind and in front of the bulkhead, surcharge loading, soil conditions, and topographical information. In addition, the type of sheet pile bulkhead must be selected. There are two basic types of steel sheet pile bulkheads: cantilevered and tied-back (or anchored). As the name implies, cantilever bulkheads generally consist of sheet piling driven to a sufficient embedment depth to act as a fixed cantilever to resist the lateral earth pressure loads. This type of bulkhead is generally limited in height to about 15 feet or less, and subject to relatively large lateral deflection at the top. It also generally requires a larger section modulus (i.e., sheet pile section) than anchored bulkheads of similar height. Scour and erosion in front (i.e., waterside) of the wall must be controlled. Conversely, an anchored bulkhead generally consists of sheet piling driven to a sufficient depth to provide support at the bottom (as in cantilever sheet piling), and is resisted at the top by an anchorage system, including walers, tie rods, and deadman anchors or anchor piles some distance behind (i.e., landside) of the bulkhead. This type of bulkhead can generally resist larger design heights with more moderate section moduli and minimal lateral deflection at the top. The anchors typically must be located behind the bulkhead a minimum distance equal of the sum of the total sheet pile bulkhead length plus the total depth of the anchor. Care must be exercised to ensure the anchor system remains undisturbed and is not subjected to unintended loads or overloading can occur. For this project, the designers have indicated that a cantilever bulkhead design is to be utilized, so that an anchorage system and its additional space requirements are not needed. We agree that this is a reasonable approach to this project.



Page 5

Our analyses indicate that the soils at this site are suitable for the support of the planned steel sheet pile cantilever bulkhead. A summary of our design assumptions, engineering analyses, and recommended design parameters for the steel sheet pile cantilever bulkhead are presented in Section 6 of this report. 5.2 Site Preparation and Earthwork. Site preparation and earthwork activities for the fill behind (i.e., landside of) the new bulkhead will be substantial, and must be performed in a controlled, engineered manner for the successful performance of this project. These activities must be performed consistently for the fill placed on land by others for the Port Wonder development, and for the fill placed behind the bulkhead to establish the newly created recreational area for this phase of the project. Recommendations for site preparation and earthwork activities are provided in Section 7. 5.3 Steel Pipe Piles for the Fishing Pier and Marina. The future fishing pier and marina are expected to be supported by 16 inch diameter, driven steel pipe piles. The piles are expected to be subject to relatively light axial loads; however, lateral loads and the resulting overturning moments are expected to be substantial. Preliminary recommendations for driven steel pipe piles are provided in Section 8. 5.4 General. Establishing and maintaining good drainage will be critical for earthwork construction at this site; otherwise, significant construction difficulties and/or additional measures (e.g., additional undercutting, subgrade stabilization, etc.) can be expected to be required. The planning and sequencing of construction activities is beyond the scope of this report; however, it is expected that some basic principles will have to be observed, including driving the sheet piling first, establishing and maintaining dewatering in the area behind the bulkhead, creating a working table of crushed aggregate on the lake bed, and placing fill expeditiously while maintaining dewatering efforts.

6. New Steel Sheet Pile Cantilever Bulkhead. As noted in Sections 1 and 5, the new sheet pile bulkhead is to be a cantilever design, so that tie-back anchors are not required to “hold back” the top of the sheet piles. Specific recommendations for the steel sheet pile cantilevered bulkhead system are provided in the following paragraphs, along with a general discussion of construction considerations.

6.1 Design Boundary Conditions of Steel Sheet Pile Cantilevered Bulkhead. The planned design boundary conditions of the new steel sheet pile cantilever bulkhead are understood to be as follows:



Page 6

Boundary Conditions of New Steel Sheet Pile Cantilever Bulkhead

Top of Bulkhead:

EL +5

Waterline:

EL +1.5 (landside) EL 0 (waterside)

Dredgeline (varies):

EL -3, -5, and -7

Back Slope:

10 percent

Surcharge Loads:

100 psf (1)

Notes: (1) A Nominal Surcharge Load of 100 psf Is Intended to Include Pedestrian Traffic and Light Maintenance Equipment (e.g., Riding Mowers, Golf Carts, Light Utility Terrain Vehicles (i.e., Side-by-Sides), etc. Larger Vehicles, Cranes, Outrigger Loads, etc., are Excluded.

6.2 Geotechnical Analyses. Using the soils information determined during the investigation, and the bulkhead boundary conditions described in the preceding section, the effective vertical soil pressures were determined behind and in front of the bulkhead, and the resulting net lateral earth pressure diagram computed. Both short term (total stress) and long term (effective stress) conditions were considered in the design earth pressure diagram, and the maximum (i.e., conservative) values used for design. In accordance with general Corps of Engineers’ design practice, a factor of safety of 1.5 was used for passive soil pressures (i.e., in front of, or waterside, of the bulkhead) and 1.0 for active soil pressures (i.e., behind, or landside, of the bulkhead), respectively. Static equilibrium analyses were then performed for the cantilever and anchored wall cases. The computer code CWALSHT was used to verify and augment these analyses. Other than nominal light traffic as described above, no surcharge loads behind the wall were considered. Lastly, an analysis of the mass (slope) stability of the bank was performed to ensure that the new bulkhead system has a sufficient factor of safety against slope failure. A summary of these computations is provided as follows. (Note that these and other analyses were previously provided in our Technical Memos 2 and 3; these are considered the final recommendations for use with this report.)



Page 7

Steel Sheet Pile Cantilever Bulkhead Computations (1) Backslope Assumed Maximum Scaled

(i.e., slope Water Surcharge Bending Deflection (5)

Mudline behind Levels Load, qo Minimum Moment at Top of Pile

Elevation wall, %) (waterside / landside) (psf) Tip EL (2), (3) (ft-k/ft) (2), (4) (lb-in3)

-3 10% 0 / +1.5 100 -29 57.0 1.820 E+10

-5 10% 0 / +1.5 100 -33 76.5 3.011 E+10

-7 10% 0 / +1.5 100 -37 99.4 4.721 E+10

(1) Computations Based on D.W. Jessen & Associates Plan "A" and Cross Sections Dated

12/20/2019. (2) Minimum Tip Elevation and Maximum Bending Moment Based on Factored Loads (F.S.

passive = 1.5; F.S. active = 1.0). (3) Minimum Tip Elevations Do NOT Include Any Allowance for Scour and/or Erosion. (4) Divide Maximum Bending Moment (in-kips/ft) by Allowable Bending Stress (in ksi) to

Determine Minimum Required Section Modulus for Pile (in3/ft). (5) Scaled Deflection at Top of Pile Based on Service Loads (F.S. passive = 1.0, F.S. active =

1.0). Divide Scaled Deflection at Top of Pile (lb-in3) by Modulus of Elasticity (psi) and Moment of Inertia (in4/ft) for Selected Pile Section to Obtain Deflection at Top of Pile Measured in Inches.

6.3 Mass (Slope) Stability. The new bulkhead and lake bank slope has been evaluated for mass stability. These analyses were based on the slope geometries described in Section 3, the soils and ground water conditions described in Section 4, and the new bulkhead boundary conditions discussed in Section 6.1. Using this data, and the computer code STABL, the computed factors of safety for the short term (i.e., end of construction) and long term (after some extended period of time) conditions are about 3.6 and 2.9, respectively. These values are considered to meet or exceed normally accepted standards for this type of project.

6.4 Construction Considerations – Sheet Piles. A template or other guide system should be utilized to help maintain the alignment and plumbness of the piles during the driving operations. Sheet piles are often driven in a particular sequence in order to maintain alignment and prevent clogging of the interlocks. Typically, 2 or 3 sheets (i.e., a “panel” of sheets) are driven at a time, and adjacent panels only driven to partial penetration at a time. The ends of the wall



Page 8

should be turned back into the landside, like wingwalls, to help prevent erosion. An experienced pile driving contractor should be familiar with proper installation techniques. Corrosion of the sheet piles should be considered as part of the design for satisfactory long term performance. Typically, protective coatings are utilized, and/or the piles are oversized to allow “sacrificial” loss of pile section to corrosion while maintaining minimum dimensions. Alternately, cathodic protection can be utilized. Intimate contact of the new concrete boardwalk with the new bulkhead should be avoided, as any deflection or movement in the latter will cause distress in the former. Some means of physical separation (e.g., an expansion joint) should be considered. Alternately, some other material might be considered for the boardwalk, such as timber or composite deck, especially if the landside means of support is not completely rigid.

7. Site Preparation and Earthwork Activities. As noted in Section 5, establishing and maintaining good drainage will be critical for earthwork construction at this site; otherwise, significant construction difficulties and/or additional measures (e.g., additional undercutting, subgrade stabilization, etc.) can be expected to be required. The planning and sequencing of construction activities is beyond the scope of this report; however, it is expected that some basic principles will have to be observed, including driving the sheet piling first, establishing and maintaining dewatering in the area behind the bulkhead, creating a working table of crushed aggregate on the lake bed, and placing fill expeditiously while maintaining dewatering efforts. Once the sheet piling for the bulkhead is installed, and the area behind the bulkhead is completely dewatered, the fill operations can begin. Unless a great deal of organic matter and/or vegetation, or any other unsuitable materials are encountered, the exposed sandy lake bed should be suitable for the support of the new fill. Prior to placing fill, it is recommended that a suitable non-woven geotextile (US Fabrics US 140N, or equal) should be placed on the lakebed to provide separation. It is further recommended that a biaxial geogrid (Tensar BX-1200 or equal) be placed on top of the filter fabric to help reinforce the first lift of fill. Even with good dewatering efforts and the placement of the non-woven geotextile and geogrid, it is expected that the lakebed may pump and rut under the loads of construction equipment. Therefore, it is recommended that a 1 foot layer of 610 road base be placed directly on top of the geogrid to form a “working table” to help support the subsequent placement and compaction of fill. The 610 road base should be placed from the edge of the shoreline and pushed out over the lakebed towards the steel sheet pile bulkhead. All construction equipment should be limited to working from the shoreline outward so the equipment is always supported upon the working table of 610 road base. If possible,



Page 9

compactive effort should be applied to the top surface of the 610 road base using a self-propelled, smooth drum roller without vibration. The compaction effort should be made to the satisfaction of the engineer’s representative; it may be determined that compaction with a heavy dozer may be sufficient for compacting the 610 road base. The preliminary plans call for using AASHTO #57 stone fill directly behind the steel sheet pile bulkhead for a distance of 12 feet, sloping upward over the “upland fill” (refer to next paragraph) at a 1 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (1H:1V) slope (refer to Figure 4 in the Appendix). Ideally, the upland fill will be placed and compacted first, so that the overlying #57 stone can be placed directly on compacted upland fill. The #57 stone fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness, and compacted to 70% Relative Density (ASTM D 4253/4254), or to the satisfaction of the engineer’s representative. The #57 stone will achieve compaction most easily using vibratory compaction equipment (e.g., a self-propelled, smooth drum vibratory roller, or a walk behind, vibratory plate in tight quarters). Each lift should be tested to ensure compliance with these recommendations prior to placing subsequent lifts. A minimum testing frequency of one test per 2,500 square feet, but not less than 3 tests, per lift is recommended. Caution should be exercised when compacting fill next to the steel sheet pile bulkhead so that the sheets are not overstressed; yet good compaction must be maintained. The use of thin lifts and small compaction equipment (e.g., walk behind vibratory plate compactors) is recommended. A suitable non-woven geotextile (US Fabrics US 140N, or equal) should be placed vertically between the #57 stone fill and the steel sheet piles. Upland fill, in the context of this report, refers to typical soil fill that is to be placed behind (i.e., landside) of the #57 stone fill. This fill should meet the specifications of Section 203.06.1, Usable Soils, according to the Louisiana Standard Specification for Roads and Bridges (LSSRB). The fill should be placed in 6 to 8 inch thick loose lifts and compacted to at least 95% of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) Maximum Dry Density value at +/-2% of the Optimum Moisture Content, or to the satisfaction of the engineer’s representative. A minimum testing frequency of one test per 2,500 square feet, but not less than 3 tests, per lift is recommended. At the existing shoreline, it is understood that the upland fill will merge with new fill placed by others as part of the Port Wonder development (i.e., “Fill by Port Wonder”). It is critical that these two “fill masses” are placed and compacted in a similar manner, and that the interface (i.e., the surface of the “Fill by Port Wonder”) be in good condition prior to placing upland fill over same. Ideally, the surface of the “Fill by Port Wonder” should be scarified, cleared of all vegetation, erosional features, and soft, wet spots before placing upland fill over same. Furthermore, the fill should be “stepped in” in horizontal benches at least 2 feet wide and no more than 1 foot thick. In addition to the substantial dewatering efforts expected to place and compact fill in the lakebed area behind the steel sheet pile bulkhead, good surface drainage should be established in all areas prior to and during the earthwork activities. Standing water on



Page 10

the subgrade or in any excavations should be promptly drained or pumped off. Performing earthwork construction during wet weather conditions could be very challenging at this site. All site preparation and earthwork activities should be inspected and tested by qualified Construction Material Testing (CMT) personnel experienced in earthwork construction. This should include full-time inspection of the site preparation and testing of fill placement and compaction. These services are essential for the reliable construction of the building pad for this project. 8. Preliminary Recommendations for Driven Steel Pipe Piles. As noted in Sections 1 and 5, future plans call for a fishing pier and marina that will likely be supported by 16 inch diameter, driven steel pipe piles driven to a top elevation of EL +15. These structures are expected to be subject to relatively light axial loads; however, lateral loads and the resulting overturning moments could be substantial. Because the loading conditions are not yet available, and could vary significantly from that assumed herein, the recommendations contained in this section should be considered preliminary and subject to review once more specific design information is available.

8.1 Axial Capacities. The compressive axial capacities of driven piles will be derived from skin friction at the soil-pile interface and end bearing; the latter provides relatively little contribution for driven piles of relatively small width/diameter. The contribution of end bearing will increase with increasing width/diameter. Uplift resistance is provided by skin friction and the buoyant weight of the pile. For these computations, the soil conditions at Boring WB-6 were utilized, as these conditions are relatively conservative compared to the other borings, and represent the southern tip of the marina. We have also assumed a design mudline of EL -14 for these computations. Furthermore, these capacities assume the piles are open end, and of a wall thickness of ½ inch or less.

Ultimate Capacities (kips) of 16 Inch Diameter Driven Steel Pipe Piles

Tip Elevation

Embedment Depth (ft)

Pile Length (ft)

Compression (kips)

Tension (kips)

-25

13’ 40’ 25 20

-30

18’ 45’ 43 34

-35 23’ 50’ 61 49



Page 11

The ultimate (or nominal) pile capacities provided in the preceding table are based upon static computations using field and laboratory strength values, along with local soil strength correlations and experience. Typical factors of safety that are used with driven piles range from 2 to 3.5. The final allowable pile capacities should be determined following consultation with the Geotechnical Engineer of Record. 8.3 Settlement. In general, total settlements for driven pile foundations designed and constructed in accordance with these recommendations are estimated to be on the order of ½ inch or less. Differential settlements between adjacent piles should be about one half of the total observed settlements. 8.4 Pile Spacing and Group Effects. Piles should be spaced a minimum of 2.5 to 3 diameters center-to-center or 5% of the pile length, whichever is greater. Large groups of piles are not anticipated; however, if groups of 5 or more piles are utilized, the Geotechnical Engineer of Record should be permitted to evaluate group efficiencies. 8.5 Lateral Loads and Overturning Moments. Lateral capacities of individual driven piles depend upon, among other things, the conditions of restraint at the top of the pile. Driven piles used with a large, fairly rigid cap or grade beam system might be restrained against rotation (i.e., “fixed end”), while isolated piles used as individual supports (e.g., a flag pole) may be free to rotate about the top (i.e., “free or pinned end”). In general, a concrete pile cap or grade beam (in both directions) several feet in thickness is required to develop the “fixed end” condition. The load-deflection response of overturning moments and lateral loads is not a simple bearing capacity problem. For the purpose of design, then, the allowable capacity should be taken as that which provides a relatively small deflection at working loads, as well as provides adequate reserve capacity. It is suggested that the project designer consider an allowable deflection at the groundline of about 1 to 2 inches under the specified loads, and 3 or 6 inches under twice the design loads. We will be happy to help the project designer evaluate other design criteria, if requested. The computer code LPILE® has been used to evaluate a number of lateral loads and the corresponding deflections at the top of the pile and the maximum moments. Values for intermediate loads may be interpolated from the table. Load and deflection combinations that best satisfy the aforementioned acceptance criteria are tabulated below for the “pinned” end conditions. Note that no external overturning moment has been included in these computations. Computations for a large number of combinations of lateral loads and overturning moments can be tedious; we will be happy to evaluate other, specific combinations of lateral load and overturning moment upon request.



Page 12

The project designer must ensure that the selected pile sections can withstand the maximum moments, or the lateral loads must be re-evaluated. The deflection of a laterally loaded group of piles is significantly larger than that of a single pile loaded to the same load intensity. If groups of piles are utilized, this office should be consulted for additional analyses.

Load-Deflection Response of Driven PSC Piles – Pinned Condition

(No Overturning Moment)

@ 1 x Design Load

@ 2 x D.L.

Tip Elevation

Embedment Depth (ft)

Pile Length (ft)

Lateral Load (kips)

∆ (in)

Mmax (in-k)

∆ (in)

-25

13’ 40’ 0.75 1.1 268 5.8

1.0

1.9 360 19.2

-30

18’ 45’ 1.0 1.3 360 3.0

1.5

2.1 549 5.2

-35 23’ 50’ 1.5

2.1 550 4.8

2.0 3.0 739 6.8 8.6 Construction Considerations. The pile driving contractor should be prepared to provide and utilize a hammer with the appropriate energy to drive the piles efficiently and without risk of pile damage. A hammer that is too small will result in extremely difficult, time consuming driving, while an oversized hammer will increase the risk of pile damage. It is the responsibility of the contractor to select and properly evaluate the pile driving system, including the hammer size and type, the hammer cushion, and the pile cushion, etc. The contractor should be required to submit the proposed driving system to the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for review. This submittal should include a “Pile and Driving Equipment Data Form” (e.g., LA DOTD Standard Form) and a suitable Wave Equation Analysis (WEAP) evaluation. The piles for this project will develop much of their capacity through side friction in stiff clays; thus, driving resistance may not provide a suitable indication of the actual pile capacity. In any event, each pile should be driven to the design embedment depth without interruption. Significant delays can allow the clays to



Page 13

“set up,” and increase the required driving energy. Pile leads and a template or other suitable means of guidance should be utilized during the driving operations to maintain the proper alignment of the hammer and piles. Predrilling holes may be performed to aid in the installation of the piles and help reduce soil displacements (or “heave”). The diameter of the predrill holes should be no greater than 2 inches less than the minimum dimension of the pile, and the predrill should terminate at least 5 feet (but no less than 10 feet) above the planned bottom of the pile. Jetting of the piles should not be permitted. All pile driving operations should be observed and guided by qualified Construction Material Testing (CMT) personnel experienced in driven pile construction and familiar with the driving criteria established for this project by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record. This should include full-time inspection of all driving operations, including maintaining pile driving logs, observing that hammer settings and pile cushion recommendations are followed, and that excessive blow counts and/or pile damage does not occur. These services will require close and timely coordination between the Geotechnical Engineer of Record and the pile driving inspectors. Reference is made to the Louisiana Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges (LSSRB), Section 804, Driven Piles, for further considerations for driven piles on this project.

OTHER GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

9. Drainage and Landscaping. Proper long term drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from the completed bulkhead. Gutters and positive site grading should be utilized for this purpose as required. 10. Additional Consulting Services. The Geotechnical Engineer should be kept informed of and permitted to address all aspects of the soils-related aspects of the project. Often, concerns may arise that are not specifically addressed by the Geotechnical Engineering Report. A brief conference can often address any such concerns, and can identify any other issues not anticipated by the design team. Upon completion of design, and prior to the start of construction, the Geotechnical Engineer should be provided with the opportunity to review the design drawings and specifications to assure compliance with the Geotechnical Engineering Report. Such review is considered to be an integral part of the recommendations of this report. 11. Construction Materials Testing (CMT) Services. Construction Materials Testing (CMT) services for this project are essential to assure that the soil conditions do not



Page 14

vary from that assumed in this report and to ensure that the recommendations in this report are followed. These services should be retained by the owner to assure that unbiased reporting is provided. The Geotechnical Engineer of Record should be provided with timely copies of all test results. Otherwise, the suitability of these recommendations and/or the performance of the earthwork and bulkhead for this project cannot be assured. 12. Limitations. This report is based upon the information provided by the owner’s representative, as well as the soil and ground water conditions encountered during the field investigation. Variations may occur away from or between the borehole locations. If such variations become apparent, or if the nature of the project changes significantly, the Geotechnical Engineer should be consulted for additional recommendations. The recommendations in this report pertain only to the soils-related aspects of the project. The structural design of the bulkhead and pavements is beyond the scope of these services. Likewise, this report does not address the environmental aspects of the project. We would be pleased to assist with these additional services if requested. 13. Compliance with Applicable Standards and Regulations. All geotechnical and related civil aspects of this project should be designed and constructed in compliance with the latest editions of any and all applicable building standards and regulations. These should include but not be limited to concrete and reinforcing steel standards by the American Concrete Institute (ACI), applicable sections of the International Building Code (IBC) and ASCE/SEI 24 (Flood Resistant Design and Construction), safety standards by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other applicable local, state, or federal building standards, codes or permit requirements. Nothing contained in this report is intended to conflict with or should be construed to supersede any such applicable standards and regulations.



APPENDIX

U.S.G.S. Topographic Map / Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1)

Google Earth® Aerial Photograph (Figure 2)

Site Plan / Boring Location Plan (Figure 3)

Generalized Soil Profile (Figure 4)

Typical Section for the Steel Sheet Pile Cantilever Bulkhead (Figure 5)

Soil Boring Logs (7)

Particle Size Analyses (Figures PSA-7, 8 and 10 through 15)

Description of Field and Laboratory Testing Procedures

Daniel J. Holder, P.E., Inc. Project Engineer: DJH DJH File No. 19-010Consulting Civil / Geotechnical Engineer Drawn By: dan Date: 29 Jan 20202767 Scarborough Drive Checked By:Lake Charles, LA 70615(337) 274-4125 [email protected] U.S.G.S. Topographic MapLake Charles, Louisiana

Source: U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute Topographic Map, 1999 (3-D TopoQuads, DeLorme)

Port Wonder Bulkhead ImprovementsLake Charles, Louisiana

for Figure No. 1D.W. Jessen & Associates Site Vicinity Map /

Approximate Location of Bulkhead

Daniel J. Holder, P.E., Inc. Project Engineer: DJH DJH File No. 19-010Consulting Civil / Geotechnical Engineer Drawn By: dan Date: 29 Jan 20202767 Scarborough Drive Checked By:Lake Charles, LA 70615(337) 274-4125 [email protected] Google Earth® Aerial PhotographLake Charles, Louisiana

Source: Google Earth ® Aerial Photograph dated 12/1/2017


for Figure No. 2D.W. Jessen & Associates

PROPOSED BULKHEAD

Daniel J. Holder, P.E., Inc. Project Engineer: DJH DJH File No. 19-010Consulting Civil / Geotechnical Engineer Drawn By: dan Date: 29 Jan 20202767 Scarborough Drive Checked By:Lake Charles, LA 70615(337) 274-4125 [email protected] Boring Location PlanLake Charles, Louisiana

Source: Site Plan Provided by D.W. Jessen & Associates



WB-1

WB-2

WB-4

WB-3 WB-5WB-7

WB-6

Daniel J. Holder, P.E., Inc. Project Engineer: DJH DJH File No. 19-010Consulting Civil / Geotechnical Engineer Drawn By: dan Date: 29 Jan 20202767 Scarborough Drive Checked By:Lake Charles, LA 70615(337) 274-4125 [email protected] Generalized Soil ProfileLake Charles, Louisiana



WB-7

GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE

WB-5 WB-6

-70 -70

-40 -40

-50 -50

-60 -60

ORGANIC CLAY / MATTER (OH)

CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML)

-80 -80

-10 -10

-20 -20

-30 -30

(MSL) WB-1 WB-3 WB-4 WB-2

Stiff to hard SILTY CLAY / CLAY (CL / CH)

LEGEND

Soft to firm SILTY CLAY / CLAY (CL / CH)

SILTY fine SAND (SM-SP)

ELEVELEV(MSL)

0 0

Daniel J. Holder, P.E., Inc. Port Wonder Bulkhead Improvements Project Engineer: DJH DJH File No. 19-010Lake Charles, Louisiana Drawn By: dan Date: 19 Mar 2020

2767 Scarborough Drive for Checked By:Lake Charles, LA 70615(337) 274-4125 [email protected] Lake Charles, Louisiana Steel Sheet Pile Cantilever Bulkhead

Consulting Civil / Geotechnical EngineerFigure No. 5

D.W. Jessen & Associates

Source: Preliminary Plans Provided by D.W. Jessen & Associates per e-mail dated March 10, 2020

Typical Section for the

mailto:[email protected]

Project: Port Wonder Museum & Restaurant Buildings DJH File No: 19-010Location: 400 Lake Shore Drive Date Drilled: 3/14-15/2019

Lake Charles, Louisiana Logged By: Mike FogartyClient: CSRS, Inc. Drilled By: Masa Drilling, Inc.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana Equipment: Top Drive (Barge)

Notes /

From Handheld GPS (approximate): N 30o 14.149' W 93o 13.647'

OtherTests

Boring Data Ground Water Data Notes / Other TestsBoring Advancement: Boring Made in 2' Water εf = Failure Strain

Dry Auger: O.M. = Organic Matter (ASTM D 2974)Rotary Wash: PSA = Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D 422)

Boring Abandonment: (refer to Figure PSA 7 in Appendix)Boring Grouted w/ Bentonite ST: Shelby Tube (ASTM D 1587)Cement Upon Completion SS: Split Spoon (ASTM D 1586) Soil Stratification is Approximate

Daniel J. Holder, P.E., Inc. 2767 Scarborough Drive (337) 274-4125Consulting Civil / Geotechnical Engineer Lake Charles, LA 70615 [email protected]

57 59εf = 7.1%

O.M. = 21%0.2

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

SS 11 bpf 7-8-8 (SP), poorly graded

- ditto, loose, w/ wood pieces-5-6

-13

Very soft dark brown to black ORGANIC

Loose to medium dense dark brown togray CLAYEY to SILTY fine SAND (SM),

-10

-8-7

-9

14 bpf 4-4-10

SS 11 bpf 3-4-7

ST 1¼ tsf

SS 11 bpf 3-4-7

SS

1

-2

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Page 1 of 3

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)

Qu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt,

w

(%)

2

0

Atterberg Limits

-1

SOIL BORING LOGBoring No. WB-1

Field Tests

Description

Laboratory Tests

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)

Sample Type:

n / a to -71 MSL

-3-4

-15

-12-11

-14

-22

-16-17-18-19-20-21

Water Elevation Assumed to be +1 MSL

Very loose brown SILTY fine SAND (SM)

- ditto

w/ dark gray clay pocketsMedium dense light gray CLAYEY toSILTY fine SAND (SM) w/ clay pockets

PSA 7

6 bpf 2-2-4

Medium dense light gray fine SAND

- ditto

CLAY (OH), w/ small roots & a verylarge root

Mudline Estimated to be -1 MSL

SS 2 bpf 1-1-1

SS 2 bpf 0-1-1

SS





Notes /OtherTests


Dry Auger:Rotary Wash:

Boring Abandonment:Boring Grouted w/ Bentonite ST: Shelby Tube (ASTM D 1587)Cement Upon Completion SS: Split Spoon (ASTM D 1586) Soil Stratification is Approximate


0.9 111 18 εf = 10%

0.8 73 45 53

medium SAND (SM)

- ditto

CLAY (CL)

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %


Page 2 of 3

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)

Field Tests Laboratory Tests

Sym

bol

Gro

und

Wat

er

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt,

w

(%)

-26-27

Description

-23-24-25

Qu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)

Atterberg Limits

-30-31-32

-28-29

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

SS

-36

-45-46

-37-38

-33-34-35

n / a to -71 MSL

Sample Type:

-40-41-42

-47

-43

εf = 2.9%

23 bpf 10-10-13

SS 24 bpf 9-12-12

-444 tsf

-39ST 2½ tsf

ST

49 98

ST 2¾ tsf

2.1 103 23

Medium dense light gray SILTY fine to

Firm light gray w/ tan very SANDY

Firm medium gray CLAY (CL)

Very stiff light gray SILTY CLAY (CL)εf = 7.9%





Notes /OtherTests





39

2.3 108 20 58 26

1.9 92 25 71 32

22 33 22 11 εf = 1.1%

32 εf = 2.1%

0.9 101 22 εf = 4.3%

of slickensides

brown oxide nodules1.0 110

CLAY (CL), crumbly, w/ sand pockets

slickensides

crumbly, w/ lots of tan to reddish Stiff light gray very SILTY CLAY (CL),

Very stiff light gray CLAY (CH), w/

-72

n / a to -71 MSL

-71ST 4½ tsf εf = 2.1%

Boring Completed at Elevation of -71

-60-61-62

Sample Type:

-66-67-68-69-70

ST

-53

-63-64-65

-54-55-56-57-58-59

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

-52

Qu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)M

oist

ure

Con

tent

,

w (%

)

Atterberg Limits

0.8 107

Sym

bol

DescriptionPlas

tic L

imit,

%

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %

-48-49

ST 4 tsf-50-51

ST 4 tsf


Page 3 of 3

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)


Firm to stiff light bluish gray SANDY

- ditto

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

4½ tsf

4 tsf

(CH), w/ light gray silt pockets & lots Stiff to very stiff reddish brown CLAY

ST

17 εf = 2.1%


Project: Port Wonder Museum & Restaurant Buildings DJH File No: 19-010Location: 400 Lake Shore Drive Dated Drilled: 3/17/2019



Notes /


OtherTests





- ditto

Medium dense gray SILTY fine SAND (SM)

- ditto

Dense gray SILTY fine to medium

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

Atterberg Limits

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %

Very loose gray SILTY fine SAND (SM)


Page 1 of 3

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)


DescriptionQu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)M

oist

ure

Con

tent

,

w (%

)

210-1-2

Water Elevation Assumed to be +1 MSL

Mudline Estimated to be -1 MSL

SS 2 bpf 1-1-1

-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21-22

n / ato -71 MSL

Sample Type:

SS 3 bpf 1-1-2

0 bpf 1-0-0

SS 1 bpf 1-0-1

SS 23 bpf 5-8-15

SS 27 bpf 13-14-13

SS 16 bpf 5-8-8

- ditto, medium dense

SS 32 bpf 6-12-20

Very loose gray CLAYEY to SILTYfine SAND (SM)

- ditto

SAND (SM)

SS





Notes /OtherTests


Dry Auger: PSA = Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D 422)Rotary Wash: (refer to Figure PSA 8 in Appendix)



PSA 8

εf = 10%

SS 8 bpf 4-4-4

1.7 104 22

Laboratory Tests

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt,

w

(%)

Atterberg Limits

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %


Page 2 of 3

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)

Field Tests

DescriptionQu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

Type

-23-24-25-26-27-28

SS 12 bpf 5-6-6

-29-30-31-32-33-34-35-36-37-38-39-40-41-42-43-44-45-46-47

n / ato -71 MSL

Sample Type:

ST 4 tsf 25 54 26 εf = 3.6%1.2 101 28

SS 9 bpf 4-5-4

ST 3¼ tsf

(CH), w/ brown oxides, slickensides& light gray silt pockets

Loose to medium dense gray SILTY

- ditto, loose (SP-SM), poorly graded

- ditto, loose

Stiff light gray slightly SILTY CLAY(CL-CH)

Stiff light gray w/ tan to brown CLAY

fine SAND (SM)





Notes /OtherTests





Boring Completed at Elevation of -71

1.1 110 17

58 26 32

εf = 2.9%

εf = 3.6%

17 εf = 5.0%

1.4 103 23 εf = 1.4%

εf = 1.4% Stiff brown slightly SILTY CLAY (CL-CH)

Laboratory Tests

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

1.0 107 24

3.9

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt,

w

(%)

Atterberg Limits

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %


Page 3 of 3

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)

Field Tests

DescriptionQu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)

-48-49-50-51-52-53-54-55-56-57-58-59-60-61-62-63-64-65-66-67-68-69-70-71-72

n / ato -71 MSL

Sample Type:

ST 4½ tsf 3.5 111

113 19

ST 4½ tsf

ST 3½ tsf

ST 4 tsf

ST 4½ tsf

Very stiff brown w/ light gray CLAY (CH)

Stiff brown CLAY (CH), w/ calciumnodules & slickensides

Stiff reddish brown CLAY (CH) &light gray to tan SILT (ML)

pockets & slickensidesw/ brown oxides, light gray & tan siltStiff dark reddish brown CLAY (CH),


Project: Port Wonder Bulkhead DJH File No: 19-010Location: 400 Lake Shore Drive Dated Drilled: 1/19-20/2020

Lake Charles, Louisiana Logged By: Dan Holder/Ridge LacassinClient: D.W Jessen & Associates Drilled By: DAS

Lake Charles, Louisiana Equipment: Top Drive (Barge)

Notes /


OtherTests

Boring Data Ground Water Data Notes / Other TestsBoring Advancement: εf = Failure Strain




Laboratory Tests

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Atterberg Limits

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Very soft dark gray very SILTY CLAY (CL) to CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML),w/ organic matter

- ditto, becoming very soft black

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %

ORGANIC CLAY (OH), w/ lots of


Page 1 of 4

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)

Field Tests

Description

2Water Elevation Assumed to be EL +1

10-1

Qu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)M

oist

ure

Con

tent

,

w (%

)

-5-6-7

-2-3-4

-9-10-11

-8

-14-15-16

-12-13 <¼ tsf

No Test

Sample Type:

-18-19-20

-17

-21

0.8 104

-22

1¾ tsf23

n / ato EL -74½

w/ light gray silt pockets

SS 0 bpf 0-0-push

ST

ST ¼ tsfεf = 10%

Mudline Estimated to be EL -6½

wood pieces & organic matter

Soft to firm gray SILTY CLAY (CL),





Notes /OtherTests





matter

Firm light gray CLAY (CH)

Stiff bluish gray w/ tan CLAY (CH)

layer on bottom

Medium dense light gray SILTY fineSAND (SM)

- ditto, w/ wood pieces & organic

44 20 24 εf = 10%Firm gray SILTY CLAY (CL), w/ lightgray silt pockets; w/ light gray sandST ¾ tsf

1¼ tsf0.6 99 25


Page 2 of 4

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)


Sym

bol

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

Qu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)M

oist

ure

Con

tent

,

w (%

)

Atterberg Limits

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %

-28-29-30-31

Description

-23-24-25-26-27

-32-33-34-35-36-37

-39-40-41

-38

-42

-46-47

n / ato EL -74½

-43-44-45

PSA 10

Sample Type:

SS

SS

SS

SS

17 bpf 3-7-10

19 bpf 5-10-9

8 bpf 3-3-5

21 bpf 8-10-11





Notes /OtherTests





69 28 41

Very stiff light gray CLAY (CH)

Stiff light bluish gray CLAY (CH), w/lots of light gray silt/sand pockets

Very stiff light bluish gray w/ tanεf = 3.6%

CLAY (OH) layer

1.0 70 50 εf = 2.1%

25

εf = 9.3%

1.2 105 20 εf = 10%

3.1 112 20 60 24

ST

ST

ST 3½ tsf

3¼ tsf


Page 3 of 4

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)


Sym

bol

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

Qu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)M

oist

ure

Con

tent

,

w (%

)

Atterberg Limits

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %

-53-54

57 24 33

2¾ tsf

2.0

-55-56

Description

-48-49-50-51-52

101 28

-57-58

36CLAY (CH), w/ light gray silt pockets

Stiff bluish gray CLAY (CH)

- ditto, w/ firm black ORGANIC

-59-60-61-62

-64-65-66

-63

-68

1¾ tsfST

ST-69-70

-67

-71

3 tsf

-72

n / ato EL -74½

Sample Type:





Notes /OtherTests





Sample Type:

ST 2.8 101 21 53 23 30 εf = 10%

-95-96-97

n / ato EL -74½

-93-94

Very stiff bluish gray w/ tan CLAY(CH), w/ lots of calcium nodules

Boring Completed @ EL -74½

-89-90-91-92

-84-85-86-87-88

-82-83

-77-78-79-80-81

Description

-73-74-75-76

Gro

und

Wat

er

Qu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)M

oist

ure

Con

tent

,

w (%

)

Atterberg Limits

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %

3 tsf


Page 4 of 4

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)


Sym

bol

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)



Lake Charles, Louisiana Logged By: Ridge Lacassin/Dan HolderClient: D.W Jessen & Associates Drilled By: DAS


Notes /


OtherTests





- ditto (no roots)

- ditto (no roots)

W-O-H

W-O-H

Loose gray SILTY fine SAND (SM)

- ditto, w/ black organic matter

Medium dense light gray SILTY fineSAND (SM), w/ roots


Page 1 of 3

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)


Sym

bol

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

-2

Qu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)M

oist

ure

Con

tent

,

w (%

)

Atterberg Limits

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %

Description


10-1

-3SS-4

-5-6

-9-10-11

SS-12

-7-8

-14-15-16

-13

-18-19-20

Mudline Estimated to be EL -3

-17

-21-22

n / a W-O-H = Weight of Hammerto EL -73

Sample Type:

SS

SS

SS

24 bpf 12-12-12

24 bpf 5-10-14

20 bpf 4-8-12





Notes /OtherTests





SILTY CLAY (CL)Very stiff bluish gray CLAY (CH) to

- ditto, very dense, w/ 3" wood layer;w/ gray clay on bottom

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

Dense light gray SILTY fine SAND (SM)

Dense light gray fine SAND (SP),

- ditto, very dense

Atterberg Limits

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %


Page 2 of 3

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)


Description

-23-24-25-26

SS-27

Qu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)M

oist

ure

Con

tent

,

w (%

)

PSA 11

-28-29-30-31-32-33-34-35-36

SS-37

-39-40-41

-38

-42

-46-47

n / ato EL -73

poorly graded

-43-44-45

Sample Type:

SS

SS

SS

38 bpf 7-14-24

40 bpf 4-7-33

60 bpf 10-27-33

50+ bpf 7-17-35/5"

50+ bpf 25-25/5"





Notes /OtherTests





& slickenides

nodules & a few small black oxides- ditto, w/ silt pockets, calcium

Very stiiff reddish brown w/ light graySILTY CLAY (CL), w/ large lightgray silt/sand pockets

Stiff bluish gray SILTY CLAY (CL), w/ light gray silt pockets

Very stiff brown w/ light gray CLAY (CH), w/ light gray silt pockets & calcium nodules

18 41 19 21

- ditto, w/ silt pockets, calcium

εf = 5.0%

Boring Completed @ EL -73

98 27 70 28 42 εf = 5.0% nodules, small black oxide nodules

24 34 21 13

3.6 109 20 59 22 37


Page 3 of 3

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)


Sym

bol

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

Qu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)M

oist

ure

Con

tent

,

w (%

)

Atterberg Limits

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %

-53-54-55-56

Description

-48-49-50-51-52

-57-58

εf = 5.7%

-59-60-61-62 2.0

-64-65-66

-63

-68-69-70

-67 2.4 114

-71-72

n / ato EL -73

Sample Type:

4½ tsf

ST

ST

ST

ST

4½+ tsf

4½+ tsf

4½+ tsf

4 tsf



Lake Charles, Louisiana Logged By: Ridge LacassinClient: D.W Jessen & Associates Drilled By: DAS


Notes /


OtherTests





No recovery

Very loose dark gray SILTY fineSAND (SM)

Medium dense gray SILTY fineSAND (SM)

- ditto


Page 1 of 3

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)


Sym

bol

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

-2

Qu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)M

oist

ure

Con

tent

,

w (%

)

Atterberg Limits

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %

-3-4-5-6

Description


10-1

-7-8-9-10-11-12

-14-15-16

-13

-18-19-20

Mudline Estimated to be EL -3

-17

-21-22

n / a W-O-H = Weight of Hammerto EL -68

50+ bpf 13-29-50+

- ditto, very dense

Sample Type:

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

W-O-H

2 bpf 1-1-1

18 bpf 10-10-8

27 bpf 7-10-17





Notes /OtherTests





-30


Page 2 of 3

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)

Field Tests

-28

27 56 25 31 εf = 10%

Atterberg Limits

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

gray silt pocketsStiff bluish gray CLAY (CH), w/ light

Stiff gray to dark gray SILTY CLAY(CL), w/ large wood pieces

Medium dense light gray SILTY fine to medium SAND (SM)

- ditto

Very dense light gray SILTY fine

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)M

oist

ure

Con

tent

,

w (%

)

-31

Laboratory Tests

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

Qu

/ UU

(tsf

)

-29

Description

-23-24-25-26-27

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %

-34-35-36-37

-32-33

-39-40-41

-38

100

-43-44-45

-4218 bpf 6-7-11

-46-47

n / ato EL -68

ST 3½ tsf 1.8

PSA 12SAND (SM-SP), poorly graded

Sample Type:

SS

SS

SS

SS

13 bpf 2-3-10

21 bpf 5-8-13

60 bpf 4-10-50





Notes /OtherTests





O.M. = 51%

Stiff reddish brown & light gray SILTY CLAY (CL)

Boring Completed @ EL -68

21 39 20 19


Firm dark brown to black ORGANICCLAY (OH), w/ organic matter

Stiff light bluish gray w/ tanCLAY (CH)

Firm black ORGANIC CLAY (OH),w/ organic matter

O.M. = 59%

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

2½ tsf 170

22

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %


Page 3 of 3

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)


Sym

bol

Description

-48-49-50-51-52

Qu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)M

oist

ure

Con

tent

,

w (%

)

Atterberg Limits

-53-54-55-56

-59-60-61

-58

-62

-57

201 275 221 54

53 31

-64-65-66

-63

-68-69-70

-67

-71-72

n / a O.M. = Organic Matter (ASTM D 2974)to EL -68

Sample Type:

ST

ST

ST

ST

1 tsf

4¼ tsf

22

3½ tsf





Notes /


OtherTests





Mudline Estimated to be EL -10½

SS No Test

SS No Test

Very soft black ORGANIC SILT (OL)

- ditto, w/ organic matter, becoming dark gray

Firm light gray SILTY CLAY (CL)


Page 1 of 4

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)


Sym

bol

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

-2

Qu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)M

oist

ure

Con

tent

,

w (%

)

Atterberg Limits

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %

-3-4-5-6

Description


10-1

-7-8-9-10-11-12

SS No Test

-14-15-16

-13

to EL -79½

-18-19-20

-17

Sample Type:

-21-22

n / a





Notes /OtherTests





SAND (SM), w/ clay pockets/layers

Stiff light bluish gray CLAY (CH)56 95 39 56

Very stiff light gray w/ tan SILTYCLAY (CL)

Stiff light bluish gray SILTY CLAY (CL)

No Recovery

Loose to medium dense SILTY fine

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

SS 39 bpf 6-11-28

SS No Test

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %


Page 2 of 4

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)


Sym

bol

Description

-23-24-25-26-27

Qu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)M

oist

ure

Con

tent

,

w (%

)

Atterberg Limits

-28-29-30-31

25 46 21

-34-35-36-37

-32-33

-38

-42

-39-40-41

-46-47

n / ato EL -79½

-43-44-45

25

Sample Type:

SS

SS

SS

30 bpf 4-10-20

13 bpf 1-5-8

21 bpf 5-6-15

PSA 13





Notes /OtherTests





Stiff light bluish gray CLAY (CH), w/calcium nodules

Stiff bluish gray w/ brown CLAY (CH), w/ light gray silt pockets

Stiff brown w/ gray SILTY CLAY (CL) to CLAY (CH), w/ light gray

21 38 20 18 εf = 5.0%

silt pockets

Stiff brown w/ light gray CLAY (CH)

Stiff reddish brown SILTY CLAY

23 31 εf = 2.9%

2.2 110 20 εf = 2.9%

ST 3½ tsf 1.5 101 24 54


Page 3 of 4

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)


Sym

bol

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

Qu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)M

oist

ure

Con

tent

,

w (%

)

Atterberg Limits

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %

-53-54-55-56

Description

-48-49-50-51-52

-57-58

(CL), w/ light gray silt pockets; w/ black ORGANIC CLAY (OH) layeron bottom

-59-60-61-62

-68106

-64-65-66

-63

-69-70

4 tsf

-67

1.8

-71-72

n / ato EL -79½

Sample Type:

SS

ST

ST

ST

20 bpf 3-7-13

4½+ tsf

4½+ tsf





Notes /OtherTests





Sample Type:

ST

ST

1 tsf

1½ tsf

-96-97

n / a O.M. = Organic Matter (ASTM D 2974)to EL -79½

-91-92

-95

-89

-93-94

-90

-88

No Recovery

Firm black ORGANIC CLAY (OH)

Boring Completed @ EL -79½

CLAY (CH)Firm light bluish gray w/ green

-84-85-86-87

-80-81-82-83

-76-77-78-79

Description

-73-74-75

Qu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)


Page 4 of 4

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)


Sym

bol

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

O.M. = 74%181

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt,

w

(%)

Atterberg Limits

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %


Project: Port Wonder Bulkhead DJH File No: 19-010Location: 400 Lake Shore Drive Dated Drilled: 1/14/2020



Notes /


OtherTests





- ditto, dense

(SP), w/ trace of organic matter- ditto, medium dense, poorly graded

Waterline Estimated to be EL -2Firm brown CLAYEY SAND (SC)

Very loose gray SAND (SM), w/ organic matter & clay layer

Medium dense light gray SILTYfine SAND (SM)


Page 1 of 3

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)


Sym

bol

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

-2

Qu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)M

oist

ure

Con

tent

,

w (%

)

Atterberg Limits

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %

SS Refusal-3-4-5-6

Description


10-1

-8-9-10-11-12

-7

-14-15-16

-13

-18-19-20

-17

-21-22

n / ato EL -73

PSA 14

Sample Type:

SS

SS

SS

SS 2 bpf 1-1-1

20 bpf 4-9-11

38 bpf 8-14-24

20 bpf 4-4-16





Notes /OtherTests





SANDY SILT (ML)

Stiff gray CLAY (CH), w/ smallpieces of wood


Dense light gray SILTY fine SAND(SM), w/ a few 2" SANDY SILT layers

- ditto, medium dense, grading to SANDY SILT (ML)

- ditto, medium dense, grading to


Page 2 of 3

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)


Sym

bol

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

Qu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)M

oist

ure

Con

tent

,

w (%

)

Atterberg Limits

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %

-28-29-30-31

Description

-23-24-25-26-27

-32-33-34-35-36-37

-39-40-41

-38

-44-45

-42

-46-47

n / ato EL -73

ST 1¾ tsf

-43

PSA 15

Sample Type:

SS

SS

SS

SS

33 bpf 12-18-15

21 bpf 7-11-10

19 bpf 4-9-10

10 bpf 3-4-6





Notes /OtherTests





25 54 23 31 εf = 5.0%nodulesw/ light gray silt pockets & calcium

Stiff brown w/ light gray slightly SILTYCLAY (CL-CH), w/ silt pockets

calcium nodules, & small black oxidesCLAY (CH), w/ light gray silt pockets,Stiff reddish brown w/ light gray

42

Stiff bluish gray w/ tan CLAY (CH),

Very stiff tan & light bluish gray CLAY (CH), w/ light gray silt pockets

Stiff brown w/ light gray CLAY (CH),w/ light gray silt pockets, calciumnodules, & slickensides

εf = 2.1%

εf = 7.1%

ST 1.5 992¾ tsf4½ tsf

4 tsf

ST Boring Completed at EL -73

1.8 102 25 63


Page 3 of 3

Elev

atio

n (M

SL)


Sym

bol

Sam

ple

Type

Pene

trom

eter

(tsf

) or

SPT

(bpf

)

Gro

und

Wat

er

Qu

/ UU

(tsf

)

Dry

Den

sity

,

γd

(pcf

)M

oist

ure

Con

tent

,

w (%

)

Atterberg Limits

Liqu

id L

imit,

%

Plas

tic L

imit,

%

Plas

ticity

Inde

x, %

-53-54-55-56

Description

-48-49-50-51-52

-57-58

2.7 108 21

-59-60-61-62 25 38

-64-65-66

-63

-68-69-70

-67

-71-72

n / a

109

2.6 101

1.9

Sample Type:

ST

ST

ST

4½ tsf

3½ tsf 19 εf = 7.1%

4½+ tsf

to El -73

εf = 5.7%24 68 26


Sample Location: WB-1, -19' to -20½'

Sample Description: Medium dense light gray fine SAND (SP), poorly graded

(Sieve) (mm.)1½" 38.100

¾" 19.050

⅜" 9.525

#4 4.750

#10 2.000

#30 0.600

#50 0.300

#100 0.150

#200 0.075

Effective Diameters: D60 = mm

D30 = mm

D10 = mm

Coefficient of Uniformity, Cu = D60 / D10 = 1.6

Coefficient of Concavity, Cc = (D30)

2 / (D60 x D10) = 1.2

Liquid Limit, LL: n / a

Plastic Limit, PL: n / a

Plasticity Index, PI: n / a

n / a

Daniel J. Holder, P.E., Inc. Port Wonder Museum & Restaurant Buildings Project Engineer: DJH DJH File No. 19-010Lake Charles, Louisiana Drawn By: dan Date: 07 Mar 2019

2767 Scarborough Drive for Checked By:

Lake Charles, LA 70615 Particle Size Analysis(337) 274-4125 [email protected] Baton Rouge, Louisiana WB-1, -19' to -20½'

Atterberg Limits

Moisture Content, w:

Consulting Civil / Geotechnical EngineerFigure No. PSA-7

CSRS, Inc.

0.14

100

100

88

14

3

0.22

0.19

By Wt.

Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D 422)

Particle PercentSize Finer

SandCoarse to Medium

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

#200#100#50

U.S. Standard Sieve Size

GravelFine

Silt Clay

#30#10#4

Perc

ent F

iner

Particle Diameter (mm)


Sample Location: WB-2, -29' to -30½'

Sample Description: Loose gray SILTY fine SAND (SP-SM), poorly graded

(Sieve) (mm.)1½" 38.100

¾" 19.050

⅜" 9.525

#4 4.750

#10 2.000

#30 0.600

#50 0.300

#100 0.150

#200 0.075


D30 = mm

D10 = mm



2 / (D60 x D10) = 1.0




n / a

Daniel J. Holder, P.E., Inc. Port Wonder Museum & Restaurant Buildings Project Engineer: DJH DJH File No. 19-010Lake Charles, Louisiana Drawn By: dan Date: 07 Apr 2019


Lake Charles, LA 70615 Particle Size Analysis(337) 274-4125 [email protected] Baton Rouge, Louisiana WB-2, -29' to -30½'

By Wt.



0.14

100

99

71

13

5

0.28

0.20

Atterberg Limits



CSRS, Inc.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

#200#100#50


GravelFine

Silt Clay

#30#10#4

Perc

ent F

iner



Sample Location: WB-3, EL -27½' to -29'

Sample Description: Medium dense light gray SILTY fine SAND (SM)

(Sieve) (mm.)1½" 38.100

¾" 19.050

⅜" 9.525

#4 4.750

#10 2.000

#30 0.600

#50 0.300

#100 0.150

#200 0.075


D30 = mm

D10 = mm

Coefficient of Uniformity, Cu = D60 / D10 = n / a


2 / (D60 x D10) = n / a




n / a

Daniel J. Holder, P.E., Inc. Port Wonder Bulkhead Project Engineer: DJH DJH File No. 19-010Lake Charles, Louisiana Drawn By: dan Date: 29 Jan 2020


Lake Charles, LA 70615 Particle Size Analysis(337) 274-4125 [email protected] Lake Charles, Louisiana WB-3, EL -27½' to -29'

By Wt.



n / a

100

100

87

70

21

15

0.27

0.18

Atterberg Limits





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

#200#100#50


GravelFine

Silt Clay

#30#10#4

Perc

ent F

iner



Sample Location: WB-4, EL -31 to -32½'

Sample Description: Dense light gray fine SAND (SP), poorly graded

(Sieve) (mm.)1½" 38.100

¾" 19.050

⅜" 9.525

#4 4.750

#10 2.000

#30 0.600

#50 0.300

#100 0.150

#200 0.075


D30 = mm

D10 = mm



2 / (D60 x D10) = 1.3




n / a



Lake Charles, LA 70615 Particle Size Analysis(337) 274-4125 [email protected] Lake Charles, Louisiana WB-4, EL -31 to -32½'

Atterberg Limits




0.11

100

100

100

50

7

2

0.33

0.22

By Wt.




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

#200#100#50


GravelFine

Silt Clay

#30#10#4

Perc

ent F

iner




Sample Description: Very dense light gray SILTY fine SAND (SM-SP), poorly graded

(Sieve) (mm.)1½" 38.100

¾" 19.050

⅜" 9.525

#4 4.750

#10 2.000

#30 0.600

#50 0.300

#100 0.150

#200 0.075


D30 = mm

D10 = mm



2 / (D60 x D10) = 1.4




n / a




By Wt.



0.08

100

100

85

64

29

9

0.29

0.18

Atterberg Limits





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

#200#100#50


GravelFine

Silt Clay

#30#10#4

Perc

ent F

iner



Sample Location: WB-6, EL -37½' to -39

Sample Description: Loose to medium dense light gray SILTY fine SAND (SM-SP), poorly graded

(Sieve) (mm.)1½" 38.100

¾" 19.050

⅜" 9.525

#4 4.750

#10 2.000

#30 0.600

#50 0.300

#100 0.150

#200 0.075


D30 = mm

D10 = mm



2 / (D60 x D10) = 1.3




n / a



Lake Charles, LA 70615 Particle Size Analysis(337) 274-4125 [email protected] Lake Charles, Louisiana WB-6, EL -37½' to -39

Atterberg Limits




0.10

100

100

87

59

17

8

0.30

0.20

By Wt.




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

#200#100#50


GravelFine

Silt Clay

#30#10#4

Perc

ent F

iner




Sample Description: Medium dense light gray fine SAND (SP), poorly graded

(Sieve) (mm.)1½" 38.100

¾" 19.050

⅜" 9.525

#4 4.750

#10 2.000

#30 0.600

#50 0.300

#100 0.150

#200 0.075


D30 = mm

D10 = mm



2 / (D60 x D10) = 1.4




n / a




By Wt.



0.10

100

100

100

98

28

1

0.20

0.17

Atterberg Limits





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

#200#100#50


GravelFine

Silt Clay

#30#10#4

Perc

ent F

iner




Sample Description: Medium dense light gray SILTY fine SAND (SM)

(Sieve) (mm.)1½" 38.100

¾" 19.050

⅜" 9.525

#4 4.750

#10 2.000

#30 0.600

#50 0.300

#100 0.150

#200 0.075


D30 = mm

D10 = mm

Coefficient of Uniformity, Cu = D60 / D10 = n / a


2 / (D60 x D10) = n / a




n / a




Atterberg Limits




n / a

100

100

89

82

69

25

0.13

0.08

By Wt.




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

#200#100#50


GravelFine

Silt Clay

#30#10#4

Perc

ent F

iner





Description of Field and Laboratory Testing Procedures Field Testing Procedures. The borings were located in the field using the information provided by the client’s representative and standard GPS and/or taping procedures from relevant physical features shown on the site plan provided for our use. The borings were (initially) advanced using dry auger methods. Soil samples were obtained continuously in the upper 10 foot and on 5 foot centers thereafter. The sample depths and types are recorded on the soil boring logs. In general, relatively undisturbed “Shelby” tube samples (ASTM D 1587) were taken in clays and silty clays. Undisturbed soil samples are required for strength and density tests, and other properties that are dependent upon the soil being close to its natural state. In this procedure, the boring is advanced to the desired sampling depth, then a 3 inch diameter, thin-walled “Shelby” tube is inserted into the borehole. The tube is then pushed hydraulically about 2 feet into the undisturbed soil. The tube is withdrawn, and the sample extruded with a hydraulic piston. The sample is visually classified and tested with a spring loaded penetrometer, which provides a crude estimate of the unconfined compressive strength. The penetrometer test result is recorded on the soil boring log, and a representative portion of the sample is secured for transport to the laboratory. In sands and silts, Standard Penetration Tests (ASTM D 1586) are generally made. This test provides a measure of the in-situ density or stiffness of the soil and provides a relatively disturbed sample that may be used for classification testing. In this procedure, the boring is advanced to the desired sampling depth, and a relatively heavy walled “split spoon” sampler is inserted into the borehole. The sampler is driven into the soil using a 140 pound “drop” hammer with 30 inch strokes. The number of blows required to drive each 6 inch increment is recorded. The first increment is a seating drive; the number of blows required to drive the second and third increments are added together to determine the “N-value,” which has units of blows per foot (bpf). The N-value and the number of blows per increment are recorded on the soil boring log. The sample is visually classified, and a representative portion secured for transport to the laboratory. Laboratory Testing Procedures. Representative samples from the field investigation were selected by the project engineer for laboratory testing to determine their relevant engineering characteristics. These tests generally fall into one of the following categories.

Strength Tests. Strength tests generally consist of the Unconfined Compressive Strength, or Qu Test, (ASTM D 2166), and the Unconsolidated, Undrained Triaxial Compressive Strength, or UU Test, (ASTM D 2850). In each of these tests, a cylindrical sample of undisturbed soil is subjected to an axial load until failure occurs, yielding the compressive strength of the soil. The principal difference between the two tests is that the Qu is not confined laterally, which can lead to premature failure, and thus, lower compressive strength values. The UU test is confined laterally in a triaxial cell, typically to the lateral stress that the in-situ soil sample was subject to. The compressive strength and axial strain at failure (εf) are recorded on the soil boring log. The confining stress of UU tests is also recorded.

Classification Tests. Common classification tests include the Atterberg Limit Tests and Particle Size Analyses. Atterberg Limit Tests (ASTM D 4318) are performed to determine the consistency (or “clayeyness”) of a soil. The Atterberg limits consist of the Liquid Limit (LL) and the Plastic Limit (PL), and the Plasticity Index (PI), which is the difference between the LL and the PL. These values are recorded on the soil boring log. The Particle Size Analysis Test (ASTM D 422) is performed to determine the distribution of the individual particle sizes of a soil sample. The test is typically performed using mechanical sieves for soils containing gravel and sands, or a “hydrometer” for clayey and silty soils. The results of the Particle Size Analysis are typically plotted on a log scale. Physical Tests. Common physical tests include the Moisture Content Test (ASTM D 2216) and the Dry Density Test (ASTM D 7263). As the names indicate, these tests determine the moisture content and dry density (or dry unit weight) of a soil sample.

Documents

keilandllc.com · Daniel J. Holder, P.E., Inc. 2767 Scarborough Drive; Lake Charles, LA 70615 Consulting Civil / Geotechnical Engineer [email protected] (337) 274-4125 . Geotechnical