city of lake charles lake charles, louisiana

FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC.

PRE-DESIGN LEVEL GEOTECHNICAL STUDY NORTH BEACH INVESTIGATION (OLD HARRAH’S SITE) CITY OF LAKE CHARLES LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA

D. W. JESSEN & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA

FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC.

916 Sampson Street Suite E Westlake, Louisiana 70669 Tel: (337) 439 1731 Fax: (337) 433 3313

Project No. 04.50150019 July 1, 2015

D. W. JESSEN & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. CIVIL & CONSULTING ENGINEERS

440 Kirby Street Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601

Attention:

Mr. D. W. Jessen, Jr., C.E.

Pre-Design Level Geotechnical Study North Beach Investigation (Old Harrah’s Site) City of Lake Charles Lake Charles, Louisiana Introduction Fugro Consultants, Inc. (Fugro) is pleased to submit this report of our pre-design level geotechnical study for the above referenced project. Mr. D. W. Jessen, Jr., C.E. of D. W. Jessen & Associates, L.L.C. authorized this study by signing and returning our Proposal No. 04.50150019 on March 12, 2015. We performed this study in general accordance with our Proposal No. 04.50150019, dated March 6, 2015. This report contains discussions and results of our geotechnical field exploration and laboratory testing programs performed for this site along with our engineering recommendations to guide in the geotechnical aspects of site preparation and grade raise for the initial phase of the site development. Also, this submittal includes preliminary recommendations to guide in the geotechnical aspects of foundation and pavement pre-design associated with potential future development of the site. The preliminary discussions and recommendations presented herein pertaining to potential future development should be used for feasibility, conceptual, or pre-design purposes only. As such, the preliminary recommendations are subject to change pending completion of additional geotechnical field exploration, laboratory testing, and analyses for actual site features and locations. Project Description We understand that the City of Lake Charles is interested in developing the North Beach of Lake Charles at the previously demolished Harrah’s facility site. A Site Vicinity Map, showing the approximate location of the project site, is provided on Plate 1 of this report. Reportedly, the initial plans for the project include preparing the site and raising grade to an elevation better suited for A member of the Fugro group of companies with offices throughout the world.

Project No. 04.50150019

future development that may include 3- to 4-story buildings and site pavements. Based on existing topographic information provided for this project site, we understand that about 1-ft to 5-ft of grade raise from existing grade will be needed across the site to achieve the desired elevation of about EL +8 ft. Purposes and Scope The purposes of this pre-design level geotechnical study were to: 1) explore subsurface conditions at the project site; 2) evaluate field and laboratory data; 3) develop engineering recommendations to guide in the geotechnical aspects of site preparation and grade raise for the initial development phase; and 4) develop preliminary recommendations to guide in the geotechnical aspects of foundation and pavement pre-design associated with potential future development of the site. We accomplished these purposes by: 

drilling 2 exploratory soil borings to a depth of about 60 ft each below existing grade and 4 exploratory soil borings to a depth of about 80 ft each below existing grade to explore subsurface conditions and to obtain soil samples for field and laboratory testing;



performing field and laboratory tests on recovered soil samples to assess pertinent geotechnical engineering properties; and



analyzing the field and laboratory data and preparing this report.

Environmental assessment, compliance with State and Federal Regulatory requirements, assessment of potential migration, and/or environmental analyses were beyond the scope of this geotechnical study. A geological fault study was also beyond the scope of our services. Applicability of Report The explorations and deliverables for this project were selected or developed based on our understanding of the project as described above and in later sections of this report. If pertinent details of the project differ from the descriptions provided in this report, we should be authorized to review the discrepancies and, if necessary, modify our submittal. Fugro's scope of work does not include the investigation, detection, or design related to the presence of any biological pollutants. The term 'biological pollutants' includes, but is not limited to, mold, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and the byproducts of any such biological organisms. We have prepared this report exclusively for D. W. Jessen & Associates, L.L.C. We have conducted our services using the standard level of care and diligence normally practiced by recognized engineering firms performing similar services under similar circumstances. We intend for this report, including all illustrations, to be used in its entirety. The observations, conclusions,

-2-

Project No. 04.50150019

and recommendations provided in this report may not be applicable at locations not explored by borings or in areas outside the project boundaries. This report should be made available for information only and not as a warranty of subsurface conditions. Field Exploration Our field activities are discussed in this section. We have included a general discussion as well as discussions on drilling methods, sampling methods, short-term depth-to-water observations, and borehole completion. General. Fugro explored subsurface conditions at the project site from March 18, 2015 to March 20, 2015 by drilling 2 exploratory soil borings (Borings B-1 and B-3) to a depth of about 60 ft each below existing grade and 4 exploratory soil borings (Borings B-2, B-4, B-5, and B-6) to a depth of about 80 ft each below existing grade. The approximate layout of the boring locations overlaying a previously obtained aerial photograph of the site is shown on the Plan of Borings provided on Plate 2 of this report. Representatives of D. W. Jessen & Associates, L.L.C. selected and identified the boring locations in the field prior to the arrival of our drill crew. The boring depths were also selected by representatives of D. W. Jessen & Associates, L.L.C. Also, it should be noted that boring locations were offset from the initial marked locations as noted on the applicable boring logs due to unidentified obstructions. Our field crew obtained the coordinates of the boring locations using a hand-held GPS unit. The coordinates obtained at the boring locations, which are approximate and should not be construed to represent final surveyed locations, are presented on the boring logs on Plates 3 thru 8 of this report. Drilling Methods. For this project, we utilized rubber-tired buggy-mounted drilling equipment. We initially drilled the borings using dry-auger drilling methods in an effort to determine short-term depth-to-water levels at the project site. Wet-rotary drilling techniques were then used to efficiently remove cuttings, clean out the borings, and prevent the boreholes from caving. A discussion on short-term depth-to-water observations is provided later in this section. Sampling Methods. Soil sampling was conducted at 2-ft intervals within the borings to a depth of 10 ft below existing grade and at 5-ft intervals thereafter to the completion depths of the borings. Detailed descriptions of the soils encountered in the borings drilled for this project are presented on the boring logs on Plates 3 thru 8 of this report. A key identifying the terms and symbols used on the boring logs is presented on Plates 9a and 9b herein. Undisturbed samples of cohesive soils were obtained by hydraulically pushing a 3-inch-diameter, thin-walled tube sampler a distance of about 24 inches. Our field procedure for cohesive soil sampling was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D1587, “Standard Practice for ThinWalled Tube Sampling of Soils.” The samples were extruded in the field and visually classified by our field professional. We obtained field estimates of the undrained shear strength of the

-3-

Project No. 04.50150019

recovered samples using a hand penetrometer. Where applicable, our penetrometer readings were modified for overconsolidated, natural, cohesive soils as described on Plate 9b. Portions of each recovered soil sample were placed into appropriate containers for transportation to our laboratory. Cohesionless and cohesive soil samples were obtained using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), as described on Plate 9b. Our field professional recorded the hammer blows for each sample interval. The SPT N-values, as described on Plate 9b, are recorded on the boring logs. The soil samples obtained from the split-barrel sampler were then visually classified and placed into appropriate containers for transportation to our laboratory. Our field procedure for split-barrel soil sampling was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D1586, “Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soil.” Short-Term Depth-to-Water Observations. As stated previously, we initially drilled the borings using dry-auger techniques in an effort to determine short-term depth-to-water levels at the project site. Once water was encountered, drilling was temporarily stopped and water level readings were obtained. The interpreted short-term depth-to-water conditions are discussed in the General Site Conditions section of this report. Borehole Completion. The borings for this project were backfilled with cement-bentonite grout from the bottom up using a tremie pipe upon completion of soil sampling. When the grout returned to the surface, we removed the tremie pipe and topped off the boreholes by pouring grout from the surface. Laboratory Testing The laboratory-testing program for this study was directed primarily toward evaluating the classification properties of the subsurface soils and the undrained shear strength of the cohesive soils. The laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with applicable American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards as tabulated at the end of this section. Classification Tests. The classification tests included tests for moisture content, liquid and plastic limits (collectively termed Atterberg Limits), material finer than the No. 200 sieve, and unit weight. These tests aid in classifying the soils and are used to correlate the results of other tests performed on samples taken from different borings and/or depths. The results of the classification tests are presented on the boring logs on Plates 3 thru 8 of this report. Undrained Shear Strength Tests. We measured the undrained shear strength of selected undisturbed samples of cohesive soils by performing unconfined compression tests and unconsolidated-undrained triaxial compression tests. Moisture contents and unit weights were determined as routine portions of the compression tests. The results of the undrained shear strength tests are presented on the boring logs on Plates 3 thru 8 herein. -4-

Project No. 04.50150019

Summary of Laboratory Testing. The laboratory-testing program performed for this study and the applicable ASTM standards are summarized in the following table: Type of Test

Number of Tests

Test Designation

Moisture Content

24

ASTM D2216

Atterberg Limits

24

ASTM D4318

Percent Finer than a No. 200 sieve

15

ASTM D1140

Unit Weight

24

ASTM D2937

Unconfined Compression

6

ASTM D2166

UU-Triaxial Compression

18

ASTM D2850

General Site Conditions The interpreted site and subsurface soil conditions are discussed in this section. Our interpretations of the general site and subsurface conditions are based on the results of our field exploration and laboratory testing programs and our experience. This section also includes a discussion on the interpreted short-term depth-to-water conditions at the time of our field exploration. Site Location and Description. The project site is situated on the north shore of Lake Charles and on the south side of North Lakeshore Drive at the location of the previous Harrah’s facility in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Since this facility has closed, demolition activities have taken place to clear the site of surface features. The site was also recently graded to elevations ranging from EL +2.2 ft toward the southern boundary to EL +7.7 ft toward the northern boundary. The Site Vicinity Map, provided on Plate 1 of this report, shows the approximate location of the project site. The Plan of Borings, provided on Plate 2 of this report, shows the approximate boring locations performed for this project. The surface conditions at the time of our exploration consisted of cohesive fill materials and recently planted winter grass. Subsurface Conditions. Significant variations were observed in the subsurface profiles encountered between the Northern Site Portion (Borings B-1, B-2, and B-3) and the Southern Site Portion (Borings B-4, B-5, and B-6) associated with this project. Subsurface conditions encountered within the exploratory borings performed toward the Northern Site Portion generally consisted of firm to very stiff cohesive fill materials inclusive of some organics and debris to depths about 4 ft below existing grade underlain by firm to very stiff, natural cohesive soils to a depth at least 80 ft below existing grade. The natural cohesive soils were of moderate to high plasticity. Also, it should be noted that significant concrete rubble/debris was encountered from a depth of about 2 ft to 4 ft below existing grade within Boring B-2.

-5-

Project No. 04.50150019

Subsurface conditions encountered within the exploratory borings performed toward the Southern Site Portion generally consisted of stiff to very stiff cohesive fill materials inclusive of some organics and debris to a depth of about 4 ft below existing grade. The surficial cohesive fill materials were underlain by highly organic materials intermixed with some cohesionless and/or cohesive materials, granular fill with a high organic presence, and soft organic clay soils to depths ranging from about 10 ft to 15 ft below existing grade. Below the fill materials, we primarily encountered medium-dense to very dense cohesionless/granular soils to depths ranging from about 22 ft to 41 ft below existing grade. These cohesionless/granular soils were underlain primarily by stiff to very stiff natural, cohesive soils of low to high plasticity to at least 80 ft below existing grade. Material descriptions, approximate strata interfaces, and laboratory test results are presented on the boring logs provided on Plates 3 thru 8 of this report. Interpreted Short-Term Depth-to-Water Conditions. The following table provides the short-term depth-to-water observations encountered within the borings performed at the project site during our drilling operations. The depth-to-water level readings obtained are referenced from below existing site grade of the individual boring locations at the time of drilling operations.

Short-Term Depth-to-Water Levels Boring Identification

Initial Reading, ft

15-minute Reading, ft

B-1

10.0

9.0

B-2

10.0

9.0

B-3

10.0

9.3

B-4

8.0

6.8

B-5

8.0

7.0

B-6

8.0

6.5

Short-term water levels recorded in the open boreholes should not be considered to represent a long-term condition because the water levels may not have had enough time to approach equilibrium. More accurate determinations of groundwater levels are usually made from long-term standpipe piezometer readings. It should be stated that depth-to-water levels will fluctuate with seasonal variations in rainfall and surface runoff, especially during extended periods of inclement weather. Depth-to-water levels will also be affected by the water level in the adjacent lake. For long-term design purposes and for construction, we recommend assuming the groundwater level can approach grade at this project site.

-6-

Project No. 04.50150019

Variations in Subsurface Conditions. Our interpretations of soil and depth-to-water conditions, as described in this report, are based on data obtained from our visual observations, the sample borings, laboratory tests, and our experience. Although we have allowed for minor and/or apparent variations in the subsurface conditions, our recommendations may not be appropriate for subsurface conditions other than those reported herein. It is likely that some variations in soil and/or groundwater conditions may occur away from and between the boring locations, especially with respect to the depth, consistency, and lateral extent of the surficial materials. We recommend careful observations during construction to verify our interpretations. If variations in soil or groundwater conditions are encountered during construction of the initial phase of development, we should be notified and authorized to evaluate what, if any, revisions should be made to our recommendations. Geotechnical Site Considerations and Feasibility As previously discussed in the General Site Conditions section of this report, we observed significant variations in the subsurface profiles encountered between the Northern Site Portion (Borings B-1, B-2, and B-3) and the Southern Site Portion (Borings B-4, B-5, and B-6). The primary difference between the subsurface profiles of the Northern Site Portion and Southern Site Portion was observed within the about the upper 40 ft below existing site grade. Within the upper 40 ft of Borings B-1 thru B-3 (Northern Site Portion), the overall subsurface profile generally included stiff to very stiff cohesive soils; whereas, the subsurface profile within Borings B-4 thru B-6 (Southern Site Portion) included weak, deleterious/organic materials to depths ranging from about 10 ft to about 15 ft below existing site grade underlain primarily by medium-dense to very dense cohesionless/granular soils to depths ranging from about 22 ft to about 40 ft. Below a depth of about 40 ft, the subsurface profiles for the Northern Site Portion and the Southern Site Portion are relatively consistent and generally include stiff to very stiff cohesive soils to a depth of at least 80 ft below existing site grade (the maximum depth explored for this study). The following provide geotechnical site considerations and feasibility discussions for the Northern Site Portion and Southern Site Portion based on the subsurface conditions encountered within the borings performed for this study. Northern Site Portion (Borings B-1 thru B-3) - From an overall geotechnical perspective, the subsurface conditions encountered within Borings B-1 thru B-3 performed toward the northern portion of the site are considered to be of suitable quality for potential site developments. The near surface soil conditions encountered with the borings performed for this portion of the site are such that establishing a competent subgrade for subsequent backfill placement could be performed without the need for extensive over-excavation and replacement of weak or deleterious materials. Based solely on the overall subsurface conditions encountered within these borings, it would likely be feasible to support lightly to moderately loaded structures (and any ancillary equipment) on

-7-

Project No. 04.50150019

shallow foundation systems and heavily-loaded structures/equipment or settlement sensitive structures/equipment on deep foundation systems. Southern Site Portion (Borings B-4 thru B-6) - Due to the weak, deleterious/organic materials encountered to depths ranging from about 10 ft to about 15 ft below existing site grade within Borings B-4 thru B-6, the subsurface profile toward the southern portion of the site is considered to be of relatively poor quality for potential site developments. These materials are generally unsuitable for supporting structures and equipment on grade-supported slabs and shallow foundations since the support capacity and settlement behavior is somewhat unpredictable for such variable and organic materials. Also, such materials are not conducive for the installation or support of below grade structures (e.g., drainage systems and swimming pools) and/or utilities. Based on the extensive depth that these materials are present and the subsurface water levels onsite, it will also likely not be feasible to over-excavate and replace the unsuitable materials. As such, any potential structures/equipment planned for this portion of the site will require deep foundation support. Additionally, unless subsurface improvement techniques (as discussed later in this report) are utilized, the performance of pavements or other surface features constructed over such materials will likely experience distress or failure at an increased rate as a result of settlement or loss of support. In conclusion, geotechnical considerations that would affect the feasibility or decisions to focus certain types of development on specific areas of the site are heavily subjective to the delineation of the variable subsurface profiles encountered between the Northern Site Portion (B-1 thru B-3) and the Southern Site Portion (B-4 thru B-6). As such, prior to selecting the final layout of any developments, additional subsurface explorations onsite are likely warranted to assist with defining additional variations and the lateral extent and depth of the surficial deleterious materials currently identified towards the Southern Site Portion. Also, the feasibility to develop specific areas of the site and the applicability and performance of foundation types and other site features will be contingent on existing deep foundations from previously demolished structures that remain in a dense concentration toward the central (northern and southern) portion and western portion of the site. Structures or other site features constructed with portions of the footprint overlaying these existing deep foundations will likely experience increased differential settlements and possibly distress. Also, the presence of the existing deep foundations could be onerous to the construction/installation of new shallow or deep foundations as well as to the installation of new underground utilities. The remaining sections of this report include Site Preparation and Grade Raise Recommendations for the initial development phase of the project and Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations to guide in the geotechnical aspects of the feasibility or conceptual design purposes of foundations and pavements associated with potential future development of the site.

-8-

Project No. 04.50150019

Site Preparation and Grade Raise Recommendations This section of the report presents discussions and recommendations on site preparation and grade raise for the initial phase of site development to achieve an elevation better suited for future development. Based on existing topographic information provided for this project site, grade raise on the order of 1-ft to 5-ft from existing grade will be needed across the site to achieve the desired elevation of about EL +8 ft. It should be noted that at the time of this submittal, a layout of potential developments (such as structures and pavements) was not available for the site. As such, the discussions and recommendations presented herein are primarily directed toward the development of the site for potential structures and pavements. Therefore, the recommendations presented herein may not be warranted for areas outside of the limits of potential structure and pavement developments. The following present discussions on Subsurface Improvement Techniques, Existing Underground Utilities and Obstructions, Site Drainage, Subgrade Preparation, Fill Materials, Area Settlements, and Construction Monitoring. Subsurface Improvement Techniques. If it is desired to develop the Southern Site Portion for possible use of grade-supported slabs or shallow foundations and reduce the amount of area settlement and resulting distress experienced by potential surface features (such as pavements), consideration should be given to utilizing subsurface improvement techniques to provide stability within the surficial profile. There are several subsurface improvement techniques including aggregate piers and soil chemical admixture blending or injection that are generally effective for improving support conditions. It will be imperative to address the high organic and debris content if these techniques are considered for this project. Many of the subsurface improvement techniques and products are registered trademarks of the various manufacturers and installers, which typically select and design the method appropriate for each specific project. If subsurface improvement techniques are being considered for this project we would be pleased to provide contact information for manufacturers and installers of subsurface improvement techniques and products. Existing Underground Utilities and Obstructions. We understand that a dense concentration of existing deep foundations from demolished structures associated with the previous Harrah’s facility remain in-place toward the central (northern and southern) portion and western portion of the site. However, we are not aware of the deep foundation types or foundation penetrations below grade. There may also be existing shallow foundations within the planned limits of construction. If shallow foundations less than about 5 ft below existing grade are identified, the existing foundations may be removed (if necessary) to facilitate design and construction activities. However, if foundations deeper than about 5 ft below existing grade are identified, the existing foundations should be left in-place and cut off (as necessary) to facilitate design and construction activities. Total removal of existing foundations or obstructions deeper than about 5 ft below grade may significantly disturb

-9-

Project No. 04.50150019

the soil at potential development locations and will require the placement of significant amounts of fill material. We should be allowed to observe and evaluate the condition of the exposed subgrade and existing foundations during site preparation activities and make any revisions to the recommendations contained herein, if necessary, based on our observations. We also recommend that all underground obstructions and any existing utilities be located and identified prior to construction. Upon identification, consideration should be given to determine the potential adverse effects of such obstructions/anomalies, and removal may be warranted. Removal activities should be performed in such a manner as to reduce possible disturbance to the underlying soils. Trenches or excavations resulting from removal of existing obstructions or utilities that extend below locations of potential developments should be over-excavated to expose competent soils and replaced with structural clay fill, lime-stabilized clay fill, or flowable fill as discussed later herein. Site Drainage. A majority of subgrade problems are attributable, at least in part, to poor site drainage. We recommend that an effective “site drainage plan” be devised by others prior to commencement of construction to provide positive drainage away from the planned limits of construction and off the site, both during and after construction. This drainage plan should consist of sloping the subgrade and structural fill in conjunction with the use of lateral ditches and/or drainage inlets to transmit water away from the site. Subgrade Preparation. Subgrade preparation for areas of potential developments should consist of stripping and discarding all surficial vegetation/organic materials, weak topsoils, debris or organic laden soils, and concrete rubble/debris to expose competent, natural stiff cohesive soils (primarily Northern Site Portion) or competent, existing cohesive fill materials (primarily Southern Site Portion) capable of supporting subsequent construction activities and backfill placement. For the Northern Site Portion, we anticipate removal depths on the order of 3 ft to 4 ft below existing site grade may be required to expose competent, natural stiff cohesive soils. For the Southern Site Portion, we anticipate removal depths on the order of 1 ft to 2 ft below existing site grade may be required to expose competent, existing cohesive fill materials. We recommended limiting the overexcavation depth for the Southern Site Portion to reduce the potential to expose the weak deleterious/organic fill materials. If a competent subgrade capable of supporting construction equipment or backfill activities is not exposed for the Southern Site Portion after over-excavating to a depth of 2 ft, it may be necessary to utilize a bridging option inclusive of geo-textiles and/or crushed stone and we should be contacted to provide additional recommendations at the time of construction based on actual onsite observations of the subgrade. Also, we understand that a swimming pool was previously situated toward the central portion of the site and we are unaware of the materials and methods utilized to backfill the swimming pool excavation of unknown depth. However, it is possible that uncontrolled methods and unsuitable materials were utilized. Therefore, it may be necessary to over-excavate these materials to expose a competent cohesive subgrade and replace them with structural clay fill or lime-stabilized clay fill. Site preparation and - 10 -

Project No. 04.50150019

subgrade preparation should extend at least 5 ft beyond the planned limits of potential developments or a distance equal to the excavation depth, whichever is greater. The Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record, or their qualified representative, should observe the exposed subgrade during site preparation. Onsite observation should include proofrolling the exposed subgrade with a heavy (20-ton), rubber-tired vehicle (e.g. fully loaded dump truck) to evaluate the condition of the subgrade. Areas of the subgrade that are observed to be soft, wet, weak, or contain deleterious materials or debris should be over-excavated to expose competent, cohesive soils as previously discussed and replaced using properly placed and compacted structural clay fill or lime-stabilized clay fill. For grade raise at areas outside of potential development, subgrade preparation may generally consist of stripping any organic or debris laden materials and weak topsoils as needed to expose a subgrade capable of supporting backfill operations. Backfill activities in over-excavated weak areas and grade raise may then commence over the competent subgrade with general clay fill, structural clay fill, or lime-stabilized clay fill as discussed subsequently herein. Fill Materials. This subsection presents recommendations on general clay fill, structural clay fill, lime-stabilized clay fill, and flowable fill for restoring and/or raising site grade over a prepared subgrade as previously discussed. General Clay Fill - General clay fill may be used to restore and/or raise site grade at areas outside of potential development. General clay fill should have a liquid limit of less than 60 and a plasticity index between 10 and 40. General clay fill should be free of deleterious material and should have an effective clod diameter less than 5 inches. General clay fill should be placed in loose lifts not more than 6- to 10-inches thick and uniformly compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698 (Standard Proctor). Compaction should be at a moisture content +/-2 percent of optimum. Prior to the start of fill placement, representative samples of each proposed fill material should be collected and classified. The compaction properties of each fill soil should be determined during this testing. General clay fill should be compacted to provide a “kneading” compaction equivalent to the sheepsfoot or pad foot roller. Structural Clay Fill - Structural clay fill may be used to restore and/or raise site grade at areas of potential development. Structural clay fill should have a liquid limit of less than 40 and a plasticity index between 10 and 20. The effective diameter of clay clods should not be larger than 3 inches. Structural clay fill should be free of deleterious matter. Structural clay fill should be placed in loose lifts not more than 6- to 8-inches thick and uniformly compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698 (Standard Proctor). In confined areas, structural clay fill should be placed in 4-inch thick loose lifts

- 11 -

Project No. 04.50150019

and compacted using hand-operated compaction equipment. Compaction should be at a moisture content +/-2 percent of optimum. Prior to the start of fill placement, representative samples of each proposed fill material should be collected and classified. The compaction properties of the proposed fill soil should be determined during this testing. Structural clay fill should be compacted to provide a “kneading” compaction equivalent to the sheepsfoot or pad foot roller. Lime-Stabilized Clay Fill - Lime-stabilization may be utilized to modify potential clay fill materials to be used in the same manner as general clay fill or structural clay fill. Laboratory tests should be conducted on pertinent samples from onsite or from an offsite borrow source at the time of construction to determine the optimum lime content. The optimum lime content is the amount of lime necessary to achieve a pH of 12.4 (which represents lime fixation), while trying to achieve the plasticity index (PI) requirements. For estimation purposes, about 4 to 6 percent lime, by dry weight, may be required to stabilize low to moderate plasticity cohesive soils and about 7 to 9 percent lime, by dry weight, may be required to stabilized moderate to high plasticity cohesive soils. Organics, chemical fertilizers, and some clay minerals can modify the amount of lime necessary for lime fixation. We recommend that a lime series be performed using the specific soil samples and proposed lime additive. Key items for lime-stabilizing clay soils include placing the proper percentage of lime, thoroughly mixing the lime into the clay soils, bringing the stabilized soil to the proper moisture content, allowing the stabilized soil to cure or “mellow” for at least 48 hours, adjusting the moisture content to +/-2 percent of optimum, pulverizing the soils again until the lime is thoroughly blended, then placing and compacting the stabilized soil in accordance with the previous recommendations provided for general clay fill and structural clay fill. Flowable Fill - Flowable fill or lean concrete may be used to replace over-excavated deleterious soils or to backfill excavations from obstruction/utility removal as previously discussed. In general, sandy soils containing less than about 30 percent fines are suitable for use as flowable fill. Flowable fill to be used for backfill should meet the following criteria: 

sandy soils used for flowable fill should contain no more than 30% fines,



soil and cement for flowable fill should be thoroughly mixed,



proportioning of the sandy soil and cement should be sufficient to produce an unconfined compressive strength of at least 100 psi at 7 days while remaining workable for placement,



flowable fill should not be placed when ambient air temperature is below 40 degrees Fahrenheit,



placement of the flowable fill should completely fill the space to be backfilled, - 12 -

Project No. 04.50150019



flowable fill should be properly compacted using standard ASTM procedures for soil-cement materials; if a fluid consistency is used for the flowable fill, an “elephant trunk” vibrator may be used to consolidate and remove air voids from the mixture,



backfill or foundation concrete over the flowable fill should not be placed until after initial set (4 to 24 hours) has been achieved for the flowable fill.

Area Settlements. Subsequent to over-excavating any deleterious materials as previously discussed in the Subgrade Preparation subsection, we anticipate ranges of newly placed fill material thickness on the order of 2-ft to 5-ft for the Northern Site Portion and 5-ft to 7-ft for the Southern Site Portion will be required to achieve the desired site elevation of about EL +8 ft. Area settlements due to grade raise will include settlement of fill under its own weight and settlement of subsurface soils due to the additional overburden pressure resulting from an increase to the site grade elevations. Self-weight settlement of the cohesive fill and the settlement of the subsurface soils due to the weight of the fill will need to be reviewed relative to its effect on the site development. The following provide discussions on Self-Weight Settlement of Fill Materials, Settlement of Subsurface Soils due to Grade Raise, and Potential Mitigation of Area Settlements. Self-Weight Settlement of Fill Materials - We expect that the newly placed cohesive fill materials used to restore and raise site grade after over-excavating deleterious soils for site preparation will settle under their own weight. Cohesive fill material placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report is expected to settle about 1 to 3 percent of its height under its own weight. The following table provides estimated self-weight settlements for the anticipated various fill thicknesses to achieve final grade across the site. Fill Thickness

Estimated Self-Weight Settlement of Fill Material

2-ft

0.25- to 0.75-inches

4-ft

0.5- to 1.5-inches

6-ft

0.75- to 2-inches

8-ft

1- to 3-inches

We estimate that the majority of the self-weight settlement (greater than 50-percent) of the cohesive fill materials will occur during placement up to a period of time varying from about 1 to 2 years. The settlement of final site grade and the time rate of settlement will vary depending on the thickness of the fill and the actual compactive effort used to place the fill. The estimated settlement of the fill material under its own weight should be added to the estimated settlement of

- 13 -

Project No. 04.50150019

the subsurface soils, if applicable, due to the additional overburden pressure resulting from an increase to the site grade elevations to compute the total area settlement. Settlement of Subsurface Soils Due to Grade Raise - For the Northern Site Portion, we expect net grade changes ranging from about +1-ft to +2-ft resulting from the existing ground surface elevations provided for this project and the desired site elevation of about EL +8 ft. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered within Borings B-1 thru B-3 performed toward the Northern Site Portion, we do not anticipate significant additional area settlement (likely less than 0.25- ~ 0.5-inches) as a result of the additional overburden pressure from the net grade changes discussed. For the Southern Site Portion, we expect net grade changes ranging from about +3-ft to +5-ft resulting from the existing ground surface elevations provided for this project and the desired site elevation of about EL +8 ft. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered within Borings B-4 thru B-6 performed toward the Southern Site Portion, we estimate that the settlement of the subsurface soils due to the additional overburden pressure from positive net grade changes ranging from about +3-ft to +5-ft could be on the order of 3- to 6-inches, respectively, or more depending on the organic content of the deleterious fill materials and the materials’ actual response to loading conditions. We estimate that about 20- to 50-percent of the settlement from the additional overburden pressure / positive net grade change may occur almost immediately once the desired final grade elevation is achieved to within a period of about 1 year. The majority of the remaining estimated settlements will likely occur within 1 to 5 years after placement or longer, particularly for the Southern Site Portion. The estimated settlement of the subsurface soils resulting from positive net grade change should be added to the settlement of the fill material under its own weight to compute the total area settlement. Potential Mitigation of Area Settlements - In order to reduce the area settlements as a result of the positive net grade changes at the project site (particularly the Southern Site Portion), subsurface improvement techniques (as previously discussed) could be utilized before grade raise activities to provide a strengthened/stabilized subsurface profile within the upper 10 ft to 15 ft of deletirious conditions and decrease the rate of settlement or to transfer loads beyond the deleterious layer. We recommend that the design and construction of subsurface improvement techniques and/or specialty foundations considered for this project should be performed by a qualified representative (and registered professional engineer) of the manufacturer and installer using specific subsurface information obtained at the project site. In addition, it may be possible to dissipate a significant portion of the expected area settlement for the site or specific portions of the site prior to development of features by surcharging (with or without a wick-drain system). Surcharging and time-rate of settlement analyses are detailed

- 14 -

Project No. 04.50150019

analyses, and we should be contacted if additional discussions on surcharging are desired or if analyses are warranted. Construction Monitoring. We recommend that the Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record, or their qualified representative, be present onsite during construction to observe and monitor construction activities. Construction monitoring is recommended because the subgrade and fill materials will be directly related to the recommendations presented in this report and to the specifications prepared by the Designer. Additionally, unanticipated subsurface conditions may be encountered during construction. Qualified geotechnical personnel observing construction onsite can monitor construction activities and may aid in recognizing unanticipated subsurface conditions and reconciling these conditions with design recommendations. Construction monitoring should be performed during excavation activities, subgrade preparation, and fill placement to: (1) observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations; (2) observe subsurface conditions during construction; and (3) perform quality control tests. Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations This section of the report provides preliminary recommendations to guide in the geotechnical aspects of the feasibility, conceptual, or pre-design of foundations and pavements associated with potential future development of the site. We have included discussions on Preliminary Seismic Site Classification, Preliminary Foundation Recommendations, and Preliminary Pavement Recommendations. As previously mentioned in the Geotechnical Site Considerations and Feasibility section, the delineation of the variable subsurface profiles encountered between the Northern Site Portion (B-1 thru B-3) and the Southern Site Portion (B-4 thru B-6) will have a significant impact to the site layout and the feasibility or decisions to focus development on any specific portion of the site. As such, additional subsurface explorations onsite are likely warranted to assist with defining the lateral extent and depth of the surficial deleterious materials currently identified towards the Southern Site Portion prior to selecting the final layout of any developments. Preliminary Seismic Site Classification. We consulted Section 1613 of the 2012 Edition of the International Building Code (IBC) in conjunction with the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-10 to determine the Preliminary Site Class Definition for this site. Based on the IBC and ASCE guidelines and the classification and strength properties encountered within Borings B-1 thru B-3, the Northern Site Portion appears to have a classification of Site Class E (governed by the PI>20 criteria, ASCE 20.3.2). Based on the IBC and ASCE guidelines and the classification and strength properties encountered within Borings B-4 thru B-6, the Southern Site Portion appears to have a classification of Site Class F (governed by the highly organic criteria, ASCE 20.3.1).

- 15 -

Project No. 04.50150019

It should be noted that site specific soil properties within the upper 100-ft are usually required to properly determine the site classification. Preliminary Foundation Recommendations. Structure/equipment details and locations were not available at the time of this submittal. However, we understand that potential structures will likely include 3- to 4-story buildings and primarily deep foundation support is anticipated. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered within Borings B-1 thru B-3 performed toward the Northern Site Portion, it would likely be feasible to support lightly to moderately loaded structures (and any ancillary equipment) on shallow foundation systems and heavily-loaded structures/equipment or settlement sensitive structures/equipment on deep foundation systems. Any potential structures/equipment planned for the Southern Site Portion will likely require deep foundation support based on the surficial conditions encountered within Borings B-4 thru B-6. However, shallow foundation systems may be possible for the Southern Site Portion if subsurface improvement techniques are utilized. This subsection of the report includes discussions and preliminary recommendations on shallow foundations, deep foundations, floor slabs, and estimated settlements. Preliminary Shallow Foundation Recommendations - For the Northern Site Portion (Borings B-1 thru B-3), it would likely be feasible to support lightly to moderately loaded structures (and any ancillary equipment) on shallow foundation systems provided the structures/equipment can tolerate some total and differential movements/settlements as discussed later herein. As previously mentioned, shallow foundations are not suitable for the Southern Site Portion without the use of subsurface improvement techniques. Shallow spread and strip footings and mat foundations could bear on natural, firm to stiff cohesive soils as encountered at depths of about 3 ft to 4 ft below existing site grade within Borings B-1 thru B-3. Shallow foundations could also bear on properly placed and compacted structural clay fill or flowable fill over natural, firm to stiff cohesive soils. An embedment depth of at least 2-ft below final grade should be considered for shallow foundations associated with this project. Shallow foundations should not bear on the existing fill materials encountered onsite. The following table provides preliminary allowable net bearing capacities for shallow foundations associated with the Northern Site Portion.

- 16 -

Project No. 04.50150019

PRELIMINARY - Allowable Net Bearing Capacity - PRELIMINARY Northern Site Portion Loading Conditions (Note 4)

Foundation Foundation Type(Note 1)

Embedment (Note 2)

Sustained (F.S. (Note 3) = 3.0)

Total (F.S. = 2.0)

Transient (F.S. = 1.5)

Square or Circular Spread Footings

2-ft

1,500 psf

2,250 psf

3,000 psf

Rectangular Spread Footings, Strip Footings (Grade Beams), and Mats

2-ft

1,250 psf

1,875 psf

2,500 psf

Notes: (Note 1)

The preliminary allowable net bearing capacities presented are for square and rectangular spread footings (widths/diameters and lengths less than 15 ft), strip footings (widths of at least 1.5 ft), and mat foundations (widths/diameters and lengths greater than 15 ft).

(Note 2)

Foundation embedment referenced from final site grade.

(Note 3)

F.S. refers to factor of safety.

(Note 4)

See text below for additional information relating to loading conditions.

Sustained loading conditions, as presented herein, refer to the combination of properly factored dead and, in some cases, a portion of the sustained live loads. Total loading conditions, as presented herein, refer to the combination of properly factored dead and live loads. Transient loading conditions refer to the combination of properly factored dead, live, and infrequent transient (e.g., wind) loads. With respect to failure of the foundation soils, the preliminary allowable net bearing capacities in the previous table include a factor of safety of at least 3.0 for sustained loading, 2.0 for total loading, and 1.5 for transient loading. Foundations should be proportioned so that the maximum contact pressure under various load combinations does not exceed the allowable net bearing capacity given previously. Net bearing pressure and gross bearing pressure are defined on Plate 10 of this report. To calculate values of We, Ws, and Wf from Plate 10, buoyant unit weights of 60 pcf for soil and 90 pcf for reinforced concrete should be used. For foundations bearing on recently placed and properly compacted structural clay fill the We term on Plate 10 should be neglected. Preliminary Deep Foundation Recommendations - We understand that primarily deep foundations are anticipated for support of structures/equipment associated with potential site development. It has been reported that straight-sided drilled concrete shafts, augered cast-in-place piles, and

- 17 -

Project No. 04.50150019

driven square precast concrete piles are being considered. As previously discussed, deep foundation systems should be utilized for this project site for heavily loaded structures/equipment and/or structures/equipment sensitive to movements/settlements. Also, deep foundations will likely be required for all structures/equipment planned toward the Southern Site Portion unless subsurface improvement techniques are utilized. We anticipate ranges of newly placed fill material thickness on the order of 2-ft to 5-ft for the Northern Site Portion and 5-ft to 7-ft for the Southern Site Portion will be required to achieve the desired site elevation of about EL +8 ft. Based on the estimated fill thickness for the Northern Site Portion and the subsurface conditions encountered within Borings B-1 thru B-3, we do not anticipate significant downdrag (negative skin friction) forces will be induced on deep foundations toward this portion of the site. However, based on the estimated fill thickness for the Southern Site Portion and the deleterious surficial conditions encountered within Borings B-4 thru B-6, we estimate a preliminary downdrag force of at least 20 kips for the various deep foundations considered. To account for negative skin friction for deep foundations situated toward the Southern Site Portion, the preliminary ultimate axial capacities presented on Plates 11 thru 19 of this report should be reduced by the downdrag force. In any case a detailed analyses of the downdrag should be performed based on when the deep foundations are installed relative to site grade raise activities, actual site grade raise, foundation penetration, and the capacity of the upper soils to apply load to each foundation element. It is also suggested that any grade raising activities be completed as soon as practical and that all deep foundations be installed as long after the placement of new fill material as practical to reduce the potential for downdrag. We computed the preliminary ultimate axial capacity of 12-, 24-, and 36-inch diameter straightsided drilled shafts, 12-, 18-, and 24-inch diameter augered cast-in-place piles, and 12-, 18-, and 24-inch wide driven square precast concrete piles to a penetration of 80 ft below existing grade. To account for the variability in the subsurface conditions encountered between the Northern Site Portion and the Southern Site Portion, we based our preliminary computations on a single generalized subsurface profile and we also neglected the strength in about the upper 10 ft. The preliminary ultimate axial capacities were computed using the static method of analysis. We neglected end bearing in our analysis of straight-sided drilled shaft capacity and augered cast-inplace pile capacity because of the inability to ensure that the soils at the shaft/pile tip have not been disturbed, construction techniques will render the base of the shaft/pile excavation impossible to visually observe, and because the movement associated with mobilizing the end bearing resistance is normally beyond tolerable structural limits. The weight of the foundations was neglected in our computations. Due to the presence of relatively shallow subsurface water levels, cohesionless/granular soils, and slickensided cohesive soils at the site, the use of temporary casing and/or slurry techniques will be required to properly perform drilled shaft excavations for this project. Due to the method of construction for augered cast-in-place piles, casing and slurry

- 18 -

Project No. 04.50150019

techniques are not required for installation; however, surface casing is typically utilized to inhibit sloughing of the surficial materials into the fresh grout. The preliminary ultimate axial capacity curves are presented on Plates 11 thru 19 of this report. We recommend a factor of safety of 2.0 be applied to the ultimate axial capacity of shafts/piles loaded in compression (transient and sustained) and transient tension to obtain allowable capacity. For shafts/piles subjected to sustained tension, we recommend a factor of safety of at least 3.0. The tensile capacity should be based on the reinforced portion only. The overall allowable axial load carrying capacity of a group of shafts/piles may, in some cases, be less than the sum of the individual allowable capacities. A reduction in the individual capacity, to allow for group effects, is usually not necessary for shafts/piles having a center-to-center spacing of 3 or more diameters. The reduction in individual capacity depends on many factors including the configuration of the group, number of shafts/piles in the group, shaft/pile size, the depth of installation, and the shaft/pile spacing. We recommend shafts/piles be spaced at least 3 diameters/widths (center-to-center) to reduce substantial axial group effects. If shafts/piles are spaced closer than 3 diameters/widths or if groups larger than about 5 by 5 are planned, the group effects should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Preliminary Floor Slab Recommendations - The following provide discussions and preliminary recommendations for the design and construction of conventional slabs-on-grade and suspended structural floor slabs for the Northern Site Portion and Southern Site Portion. For the Northern Site Portion only, we anticipate that conventional slab-on-grade foundation systems, utilized in conjunction with shallow or deep foundations, could perform satisfactorily provided the site is properly prepared and about a 3-ft to 4-ft thick building pad consisting of structural clay fill is provided. A perimeter grade beam extending at least 4 ft below final site grade would also be required to act as a moisture barrier thereby reducing moisture fluctuations beneath the slab, which would contribute to shrink/swell behavior. Interior grade beams should be used to transfer loads between foundation elements and/or to stiffen the slab. Exterior and interior grade beams could be designed as previously presented for strip footings in the Preliminary Shallow Foundation Recommendations section of this report. However, interior grade beams may have an embedment of at least 18-inches below final grade. The width of exterior and interior grade beams should be at least 18-inches to facilitate placement of reinforcing steel and cleaning and observing the excavation bottom prior to placement of seal slabs or foundation concrete. Some minor cracking may occur if conventional slab-on-grade foundations are used for this project; however, the cracking should not be structurally detrimental to the performance of the structure. The owner should be willing to accept some risk if a conventional slab-on-grade system is used; otherwise, a suspended structural slab and deep foundation system should be considered.

- 19 -

Project No. 04.50150019

For the Southern Site Portion, suspended structural floor slabs should be used in conjunction with deep foundation systems. Suspended structural floor slabs in conjunction with deep foundations may also be utilized for the Northern Site Portion. Suspended structural slabs should not be utilized in conjunction with shallow foundation systems because of the potential to collect free water within the void space. A suspended structural slab is structurally designed to transmit all floor loads to the foundation elements. Suspended structural slabs should be constructed with a clearance of at least 6-inches between the slab and the underlying ground surface. Grade beams constructed for suspended structural slabs should also be constructed with a 6-inch or greater void box clearance. The separation of the foundation from the soil significantly reduces the potential for foundation movements resulting from shrinking and swelling and settlements. Preliminary Foundation Settlement Estimates - For preliminary design purposes of shallow foundations, we estimate that long-term, consolidation settlements for shallow square spread footings and mat foundations as previously presented for the Northern Site Portion only could be on the order of 1- to 2-inches and 2- to 4-inches, respectively. These estimates are based on uniformly loaded foundations with sustained bearing pressures that are on the order of the allowable net bearing capacity under sustained loading. In addition, these estimates assume the foundations act as isolated foundations, that is, the clear spacing between adjacent foundations is equal to at least the width of the largest foundation. Also, these estimates do not consider the presence of existing deep foundations that remain onsite. Structures/equipment or connected structures/equipment supported on shallow foundations with portions over the site inclusive of remaining existing deep foundations could experience increased differential settlements and distress. As such, we do not suggest using shallow foundations for structures/equipment or connecting structures/equipment that will span over areas with and without existing deep foundations. Finally, area settlements should be considered to contribute to the total settlement of shallow foundations. For preliminary design purposes of deep foundations, we expect that long-term consolidation settlements for individual deep foundations as previously presented could be on the order of ½-inch. Groups of shafts/piles will likely settle more than individual shafts/piles subjected to the same load per shaft/pile. The increase in settlement between individual shafts/piles and groups is generally negligible for small sized groups, less than about 5 by 5. The settlement of shaft/pile groups is dependent on several variables including dimensions of the group, the shaft/pile length, the sustained structural load, and the compressibility characteristics of the foundation soils. If large groups of shafts/piles are being considered (greater than about a 5 by 5 group), a detailed group settlement analysis should be performed on a case-by-case basis. All things equal, differential settlements should be expected and may be on the order of one-half to two-thirds of the total settlements between similar foundation types and may be equivalent to the

- 20 -

Project No. 04.50150019

total settlement between different types of foundations or for foundations spanning variable site conditions. Preliminary Pavement Recommendations. We understand that site pavements consisting of Portland Cement Concrete and Hot-Mix Asphaltic Concrete may be considered for potential development of the site. We do not recommend asphaltic concrete pavements in heavy-duty truck traffic areas because of the potential for shoving and rutting, particularly during hot summer weather conditions. The following present discussions and preliminary recommendations on subgrade preparation as well as pavement sections for this project. Subgrade Preparation - The performance of pavements depends on the subgrade properties. Subgrade preparation for pavements should be as previously discussed in the Site Preparation and Grade Raise section of this report. As previously discussed in the Geotechnical Considerations and Feasibility section of this report, pavements for the Southern Site Portion will likely experience distress or failure at an increased rate as a result of settlement or loss of support unless subsurface improvement techniques are utilized. Pavement Sections - The following table provides preliminary pavement sections based on our experience with similar projects and subsurface conditions as those encountered within the borings performed for this project. These sections are not based on a specific loading condition (e.g. equivalent single axle load) or pavement life expectancy. Pavement Type and Recommended Use

Rigid Pavement (truck/heavy traffic areas)

Rigid Pavement (light-duty parking and traffic)

Flexible Pavement (light-duty parking and traffic)

Reference or

Material

Thickness

Portland Cement Concrete (Flexural strength > 550 psi) over

8 inches

LADOTD Section 601

Lime-Stabilized Subgrade

8 inches

See Text Below

Portland Cement Concrete (Flexural strength > 550 psi) over

5 inches

LADOTD Section 601


8 inches

See Text Below

Hot-Mix Asphaltic Concrete over

3 inches

LADOTD Section 502

Crushed Limestone Base over

8 inches

LADOTD Section 1003.03, Item “b”


8 inches

See Text Below

- 21 -

Specification

Project No. 04.50150019

Portland Cement Concrete pavement should be in accordance with Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD) Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges1 Section 601. The concrete should have a compressive strength of 4,000 psi or greater at 28 days and be placed in accordance with American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. Reinforcement and joint spacing for the concrete section should be evaluated by the Structural Engineer of record for the project. We recommend that the Portland Cement Concrete pavement be steel reinforced and that the concrete slabs have sufficient joints to allow for contraction and expansion of the concrete. Hot mix asphaltic concrete (HMAC) should be placed in accordance with Section 502 of the LADOTD Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 92 percent of the theoretical maximum specific gravity as determined by LADOTD TR327. The crushed stone base for HMAC pavement sections should be in accordance with Section 1003.03, Item “b” of the LADOTD Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges. The stone should be placed in 6- to 8-inch thick loose lifts and uniformly compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698 (Standard Proctor) within +/2 percent of optimum moisture. Prior to the start of fill placement, representative samples of the stone fill material should be collected and classified. The compaction properties of the stone fill should be determined during this testing. Lime-stabilized structural clay fill or “in place” lime-stabilization of at least the final 8-inch lift of structural clay fill should be used to provide a stabilized subgrade below pavement sections. Additional discussions on lime-stabilization of cohesive soils are provided in the previous Site Preparation and Grade Raise section of this report.

*

1

*

*

Louisiana Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (2006).

- 22 -

Project No. 04.50150019

The following illustrations are attached and complete this report: ILLUSTRATIONS Plate Site Vicinity Map ..........................................................................................

1

Plan of Borings ............................................................................................

2

Logs of Borings............................................................................................

3 thru 8

Terms and Symbols Used on Boring Logs ..................................................

9

Computation of Bearing Pressures..............................................................

10

Preliminary Ultimate Axial Capacity Curves: 12-Inch Diameter Drilled Shaft...............................................................

11

24-Inch Diameter Drilled Shaft...............................................................

12

36-Inch Diameter Drilled Shaft...............................................................

13

12-Inch Diameter Augered Cast-In-Place Pile .......................................

14


15


16

12-Inch Driven Square Precast Concrete Pile .......................................

17


18


19

- 23 -

Project No. 04.50150019

ILLUSTRATIONS

Project No. 04.50150019

Project Location (See Plate 2)

SITE VICINITY MAP NORTH BEACH INVESTIGATION (OLD HARRAH’S SITE) CITY OF LAKE CHARLES LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA PLATE 1

Project No. 04.50150019

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

Image obtained from Google Earth. Not-to-scale. Boring locations are approximate.

PLAN OF BORINGS NORTH BEACH INVESTIGATION (OLD HARRAH’S SITE) CITY OF LAKE CHARLES LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA PLATE 2

FILL: SILTY CLAY, very stiff, gray, dark brown, and tan with organics FILL: CLAY, stiff, gray with organics, glass fragments, and debris CLAY, firm to very stiff, black - dark brown and tan from 4' to 6'

SHEAR STRENGTH PLASTICITY INDEX (PI)

PLASTIC LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

WATER CONTENT, %

PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE, %

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

UNIT DRY WT, PCF

COORDINATES: N 30° 14' 10.20" W 93° 13' 26.04" SURFACE EL.: Not Available

STRATUM DEPTH, FT

BLOWS PER FOOT

WATER LEVEL SYMBOL SAMPLES

DEPTH, FT 5

CLASSIFICATION

LOCATION: See Plate 2

Penetrometer Torvane Field Vane

Unconfined Triaxial Miniature Vane

KIPS PER SQ FT 0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5 3.3 3.3

2.0 3.0

75 105

27

112

20

47

19

28

43

15

28

- tan and gray from 6' to 8' - brown, gray, and tan from 8' to 13' 10

15

- tan and gray from 13' to 23' - slickensided from 13' to 45'

- with silt pockets from 18' to 20' 20

- gray and tan from 23' to 38'

FCLC_LOG (FINAL) REV01 04.50150019 - DWJ -NORTH BEACH INVESTIGATION.GPJ FUGRO DATA TEMPLATE 042610.GDT 4/14/15

25

30

35

- tan and gray from 38' to 43' 40

- gray and tan from 43' to 48' NOTES: 1. : Water First Noticed. : Depth To Water after 15 minutes. 2. Terms and symbols defined on Plates 9a and 9b.

CITY OF LAKE CHARLES

DATE: March 20, 2015 TOTAL DEPTH: 60' CAVED DEPTH: Not Applicable DRY AUGER: 0' to 10' WET ROTARY: 10' to 60' BACKFILL: Cement-Bentonite Grout LOGGER: T. Whitley

LOG OF BORING NO. B-1

NORTH BEACH INVESTIGATION (OLD HARRAH'S SITE) Fugro Consultants, Inc.

LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA

Project No.

04.50150019

PLATE 3a


PLASTIC LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

WATER CONTENT, %


STRATUM DESCRIPTION

UNIT DRY WT, PCF


STRATUM DEPTH, FT

BLOWS PER FOOT


DEPTH, FT

CLASSIFICATION




KIPS PER SQ FT 0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

CLAY, stiff, gray and tan

50

- dark gray from 48' to 58' - with wood fragments from 48' to 55'

45 104

55

17

28

24

- gray with calcareous nodules below 58' 60.0

60

65


70

75

80

85

NOTES: 1. : Water First Noticed. : Depth To Water after 15 minutes. 2. Terms and symbols defined on Plates 9a and 9b.






Project No.

04.50150019

PLATE 3b

CLAY, stiff to very stiff, black - with organics to 5' - gray, reddish-brown, and tan at 5' - reddish-brown and gray from 6' to 13'

20


PLASTIC LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

WATER CONTENT, %


UNIT DRY WT, PCF

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

10

15

STRATUM DEPTH, FT

BLOWS PER FOOT


DEPTH, FT


FILL: SILTY CLAY, stiff, dark brown and gray with organics FILL: CONCRETE RUBBLE/DEBRIS, gray 5

CLASSIFICATION




KIPS PER SQ FT 0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2.0 4.0

94

32

95

30

69

24

45

76

26

50

- tan and gray from 13' to 18' - slickensided from 13' to 30'

- gray and tan below 18' - with calcareous nodules from 18' to 20'


25

- with calcareous nodules from 28' to 30' 30

- with sand pockets from 33' to 40' 35

- slickensided below 38' 40

NOTES: 1. : Water First Noticed. : Depth To Water after 15 minutes. 2. Terms and symbols defined on Plates 9a and 9b. 3. An obsruction was encountered within the initial location of Boring B-2 at about 2 ft below the ground surface that prevented further advancement of the borehole. As such, the location was offset approximately 5 ft eastward, and drilling and sampling was continued.






Project No.

04.50150019

PLATE 4a


PLASTIC LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

WATER CONTENT, %


STRATUM DESCRIPTION

UNIT DRY WT, PCF


STRATUM DEPTH, FT

BLOWS PER FOOT


DEPTH, FT

CLASSIFICATION




KIPS PER SQ FT 0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

CLAY, very stiff, gray and tan, slickensided SANDY CLAY, stiff to very stiff, dark gray and gray

47.0

68 50

- gray from 49' to 53'

- gray and tan from 53' to 68' 55

106

23

104

24

34

16

18

35

19

16

60

65


70

- light brown and gray below 68' - slickensided from 68' to 75'

75

- with silt pockets below 78' 80

80.0

85

NOTES: 1. : Water First Noticed. : Depth To Water after 15 minutes. 2. Terms and symbols defined on Plates 9a and 9b. 3. An obsruction was encountered within the initial location of Boring B-2 at about 2 ft below the ground surface that prevented further advancement of the borehole. As such, the location was offset approximately 5 ft eastward, and drilling and sampling was continued.






Project No.

04.50150019

PLATE 4b

FILL: SILTY CLAY, stiff, brown, gray, and tan with organics and sand pockets FILL: CLAY, firm to stiff, light brown and gray SANDY CLAY, soft to stiff, light brown, tan, and gray - with silt pockets to 6' - dark gray and tan with organics from 6' to 8'

5


PLASTIC LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

WATER CONTENT, %


STRATUM DESCRIPTION

UNIT DRY WT, PCF


STRATUM DEPTH, FT

BLOWS PER FOOT


DEPTH, FT

CLASSIFICATION




KIPS PER SQ FT 0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2.0 4.0

96

35

17

18

67

20

47

87

31

56

30

- tan and gray below 8' 10

15

20

82

N=10 CLAY, stiff to very stiff, gray and tan

21.0

- slickensided from 23' to 45'


25

30

94

32

78

44


40

- tan and gray with calcareous nodules from 43' to 48' NOTES: 1. : Water First Noticed. : Depth To Water after 15 minutes. 2. Terms and symbols defined on Plates 9a and 9b.






Project No.

04.50150019

PLATE 5a


PLASTIC LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

WATER CONTENT, %


STRATUM DESCRIPTION

UNIT DRY WT, PCF


STRATUM DEPTH, FT

BLOWS PER FOOT


DEPTH, FT

CLASSIFICATION




KIPS PER SQ FT 0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

CLAY, stiff to very stiff, tan and gray

- gray from 48' to 53' 50

55

- gray and tan from 53' to 58' - slickensided below 53'

- light brown and gray below 58' 60.0

60

65


70

75

80

85







Project No.

04.50150019

PLATE 5b

FILL: SILTY CLAY, very stiff, brown and gray with crushed stone and organics FILL: SANDY CLAY, stiff to very stiff, dark gray and reddish-brown FILL: SILTY SAND with high content of wood fragments, shell fragments, glass fragments, and debris, black

5


PLASTIC LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

WATER CONTENT, %


STRATUM DESCRIPTION

UNIT DRY WT, PCF


STRATUM DEPTH, FT

BLOWS PER FOOT


DEPTH, FT

CLASSIFICATION



KIPS PER SQ FT 0.5

2.0 4.0

115

34

15

19

58

21

37


1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

16

31 10

15

CLAYEY SAND, medium-dense to very dense, gray

15.0

33 20


25

30

35

40

N=50/10"

45

N=37

N=17

21

N=21 CLAY, stiff to very stiff, reddish-brown

41.0

91 NOTES: 1. : Water First Noticed. : Depth To Water after 15 minutes. 2. Terms and symbols defined on Plates 9a and 9b. 3. An obsruction was encountered within the initial location of Boring B-4 at about 4 ft below the ground surface that prevented further advancement of the borehole. As such, the location was offset approximately 10 ft westward, and the obstruction again prevented advancement of the borehole. The location was then offset approximately 10 ft northward, and drilling and sampling was continued.


32 DATE: March 20, 2015 TOTAL DEPTH: 80' CAVED DEPTH: Not Applicable DRY AUGER: 0' to 10' WET ROTARY: 10' to 80' BACKFILL: Cement-Bentonite Grout LOGGER: T. Whitley




Project No.

04.50150019

PLATE 6a


PLASTIC LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

WATER CONTENT, %


STRATUM DESCRIPTION

UNIT DRY WT, PCF


STRATUM DEPTH, FT

BLOWS PER FOOT


DEPTH, FT

CLASSIFICATION




KIPS PER SQ FT 0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

CLAY, stiff to very stiff, reddish-brown

50

- dark gray and black from 48' to 53' - with wood fragments from 48' to 50'

- gray with sand seams below 53' 55 CLAYEY SAND, gray 60

SANDY CLAY, very stiff, gray

57.0 59.0

108

22

107

23

32

20

12

52

20

32

3.3

- with sand partings from 63' to 65' 65 CLAY, very stiff, brown and gray - slickensided from 68' to 70'

67.0


70 SANDY CLAY, stiff, gray and tan, slickensided

72.0

75

80

CLAY, stiff to very stiff, light brown and gray, slickensided

78.0 80.0

3.1

85

NOTES: 1. : Water First Noticed. : Depth To Water after 15 minutes. 2. Terms and symbols defined on Plates 9a and 9b. 3. An obsruction was encountered within the initial location of Boring B-4 at about 4 ft below the ground surface that prevented further advancement of the borehole. As such, the location was offset approximately 10 ft westward, and the obstruction again prevented advancement of the borehole. The location was then offset approximately 10 ft northward, and drilling and sampling was continued.






Project No.

04.50150019

PLATE 6b

FILL: SILTY CLAY, stiff, dark brown and tan with crushed stone and organics FILL: CLAY, stiff to very stiff, dark brown and gray FILL: ORGANICS/WOOD FRAGMENTS intermixed with some cohesionless soils with clay pockets, dark brown and black - black below 5'

5


PLASTIC LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

WATER CONTENT, %


STRATUM DESCRIPTION

UNIT DRY WT, PCF


STRATUM DEPTH, FT

BLOWS PER FOOT


DEPTH, FT

CLASSIFICATION



KIPS PER SQ FT 0.5

2.0 4.0

107

44

17

NP

NP NP

20

19

1

37

19

18


1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

27

22

10 CLAYEY SAND with silt, gray

12.0

51 15

59 116

20 CLAYEY SAND, medium-dense, gray


25

30

35

40

19

21.0

N=30

47

N=16

N=17

37

N=20 SILTY CLAY, stiff to very stiff, gray and tan

41.0

- with sand pockets from 43' to 45' 91 NOTES: 1. : Water First Noticed. : Depth To Water after 15 minutes. 2. Terms and symbols defined on Plates 9a and 9b. 3. NP = Non-Plastic.






Project No.

04.50150019

PLATE 7a


PLASTIC LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

WATER CONTENT, %


STRATUM DESCRIPTION

UNIT DRY WT, PCF


STRATUM DEPTH, FT

BLOWS PER FOOT


DEPTH, FT

CLASSIFICATION




KIPS PER SQ FT 0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

SILTY CLAY, stiff, gray and tan

- black and brown with wood fragments below 48' 50 CLAY, stiff, gray and tan, slickensided with calcareous nodules

52.0

55 SANDY CLAY, stiff to very stiff, gray with sand pockets

57.0

60

65

CLAY, very stiff, gray and tan with sand pockets and calcareous nodules

102

26

111

21

32

19

13

34

14

20

63.0

- brown and gray, slickensided below 68'


70 SANDY CLAY, stiff to very stiff, tan and gray with silt pockets

72.0

75

80

80.0

85

NOTES: 1. : Water First Noticed. : Depth To Water after 15 minutes. 2. Terms and symbols defined on Plates 9a and 9b. 3. NP = Non-Plastic.






Project No.

04.50150019

PLATE 7b


PLASTIC LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

WATER CONTENT, %


STRATUM DESCRIPTION

UNIT DRY WT, PCF


STRATUM DEPTH, FT

BLOWS PER FOOT


DEPTH, FT

CLASSIFICATION




KIPS PER SQ FT 0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

FILL: SILTY CLAY, stiff to very stiff, reddish-brown, tan, and gray - with sand from 1' to 3' - gray and tan below 2' FILL: ORGANICS/WOOD FRAGMENTS intermixed with some cohesionless soils with clay pockets, dark brown and black ORGANIC CLAY, soft, black with wood fragments

5

10

CLAY, firm to stiff, black

3.3

4.0 6.0

10.0

77

47

113

20

- gray and tan with wood fragments below 13' 15

CLAYEY SAND, gray

15.0

62

27

35

41

16

25

96

31

65

39

20 SANDY CLAY, stiff to very stiff, gray

22.0

74 116


25

30

18

79

N=50/9" - gray and tan below 31' CLAY, stiff to very stiff, gray and tan

33.0

96

35

40

- slickensided with silt pockets from 38' to 40' - tan and gray from 38' to 48'

75 NOTES: 1. : Water First Noticed. : Depth To Water after 15 minutes. 2. Terms and symbols defined on Plates 9a and 9b.






Project No.

04.50150019

PLATE 8a


PLASTIC LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

WATER CONTENT, %


STRATUM DESCRIPTION

UNIT DRY WT, PCF


STRATUM DEPTH, FT

BLOWS PER FOOT


DEPTH, FT

CLASSIFICATION




KIPS PER SQ FT 0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

CLAY, stiff, tan and gray

- black and brown below 48' 50 SANDY CLAY, stiff, gray and light brown

52.0

55


65

CLAY, stiff to very stiff, gray and brown with silt pockets - with sand pockets from 63' to 65'

62.0

- brown with calcareous nodules below 68'


70 SANDY CLAY, stiff to very stiff, brown and gray

72.0

75

80

- reddish-brown and gray with sand seams and pockets below 78'

28 80.0

106

17

11

3.2

20

85







Project No.

04.50150019

PLATE 8b

SOIL TYPES Fat clay, high plasticity

Lean clay, low to moderate plasticity

High plasticity, organic soil

Clayey sand

SAMPLER TYPES

Sandy, lean clay, low to moderate plasticity

Fill (made ground)

Thinwalled Tube

Partial Recovery w/ Tube

Auger

Splitbarrel

No Recovery

Pitcher

Piston

Geoprobe

Liner

SOIL GRAIN SIZE U.S. Standard Sieve 6"

Boulders

3"

Gravel Coarse Fine

Cobbles

152

4

3/4"

75.0

10

40

19.0

Sand Coarse Medium 4.75

2.00

200

Silt

Fine

0.425

0.075

Clay 0.005

(mm)

PLASTICITY CHART 60

PLASTICITY INDEX

50

U-

40

N LI

E LIN A-

E

S AY

CL

30

A CL

20 10 0

SANDY OR SILTY CLAYS TO CLAYEY SILTS

A

N SA

DY

CL

YS

YS

Y LT SI

ORGANIC CLAYS

S AY CL

ORGANIC SILTS OR CLAYEY SILTS SILTS

0

10

20

30

60 40 50 LIQUID LIMIT

70

80

90

100

SOIL STRUCTURE Slickensided Fissured Pocket Parting Seam Layer Laminated Interlayered Intermixed Calcareous Carbonate

Having planes of weakness that appear slick and glossy. Containing shrinkage or relief cracks, often filled with fine sand or silt; usually more or less vertical. Inclusion of material of different texture that is smaller than the diameter of the sample. Inclusion less than 1/8 inch thick extending through the sample. Inclusion 1/8 inch to 3 inches thick extending through the sample. Inclusion greater than 3 inches thick extending through the sample. Soil sample composed of alternating partings or seams of different soil type. Soil sample composed of alternating layers of different soil type. Soil sample composed of pockets of different soil type and layered or laminated structure is not evident. Having appreciable quantities of carbonate. Having more than 50% carbonate content.

TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON BORING LOGS SOIL CLASSIFICATION Fugro Consultants, Inc.

Project No.

04.50150019

(1 of 2)

PLATE 9a

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) A 2-in.-OD, 1-3/8-ID split spoon sampler is driven 1.5 ft into undisturbed soil with a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 in. After the sampler is seated 6 in. into undisturbed soil, the number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 in. is the Standard Penetration Resistance or "N" value, which is recorded as blows per foot as described below.

SPLIT-BARREL SAMPLER DRIVING RECORD Blows Per Foot

Description

25 50/7" Ref/3"

25 blows drove sampler 12 inches, after initial 6 inches of seating. 50 blows drove sampler 7 inches, after initial 6 inches of seating. 50 blows drove sampler 3 inches during initial 6-inch seating interval.

NOTE: To avoid damage to sampling tools, driving is limited to 50 blows during or after seating interval.

DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS

STRENGTH OF COHESIVE SOILS

Descriptive Term

*Relative Density, %

**Blows Per Foot (SPT)

Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense

< 15 15 to 35 35 to 65 65 to 85 > 85

0 to 4 5 to 10 11 to 30 31 to 50 > 50

*Estimated from sampler driving record. **Requires correction for depth, groundwater level, and grain size.

Term Very Soft Soft Firm Stiff Very Stiff Hard

Undrained Shear Strength, ksf

Blows Per Foot (SPT) (approximate)

< 0.25 0.25 to 0.50 0.50 to 1.00 1.00 to 2.00 2.00 to 4.00 > 4.00

0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32 > 32

SHEAR STRENGTH TEST METHOD U = Unconfined P = Pocket Penetrometer

Q = Unconsolidated - Undrained Triaxial T = Torvane

V = Miniature Vane

F = Field Vane

HAND PENETROMETER CORRECTION Our experience has shown that the hand penetrometer generally overestimates the in-situ undrained shear strength of over consolidated Pleistocene Gulf Coast clays. These strengths are partially controlled by the presence of macroscopic soil defects such as slickensides, which generally do not influence smaller scale tests like the hand penetrometer. Based on our experience, we have adjusted these field estimates of the undrained shear strength of natural, overconsolidated Pleistocene Gulf Coast soils by multiplying the measured penetrometer reading by a factor of 0.6. These adjusted strength estimates are recorded in the "Shear Strength" column on the boring logs. Except as described in the text, we have not adjusted estimates of the undrained shear strength for projects located outside of the Pleistocene Gulf Coast formations.

Information on each boring log is a compilation of subsurface conditions and soil or rock classifications obtained from the field as well as from laboratory testing of samples. Strata have been interpreted by commonly accepted procedures. The stratum lines on the logs may be transitional and approximate in nature. Water level measurements refer only to those observed at the time and places indicated, and can vary with time, geologic condition, or construction activity.

TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON BORING LOGS SOIL CLASSIFICATION Fugro Consultants, Inc.

Project No.

04.50150019

(2 of 2)

PLATE 9b

Project No. 04.50150019

PLATE 10

Project No. 04.50150019

PRELIMINARY - Ultimate Axial Shaft Capacity, kips - PRELIMINARY 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

0

10

Penetration Below Existing Site Grade, ft

20

30

40

50

60 Compression and Tension

70

80

NOTES: 1. The curve represents ultimate values of axial capacity for both compression and tension. A safety factor of at least 2 should be applied for compressive loads or transient tensile loads. A safety factor of at least 3 should be applied for shafts in sustained tension. 2. The curve should be used for PRELIMINARY design of individual, isolated shafts as discussed in the report text. These values assume a spacing of at least 3 shaft diameters, center-to-center. 4. Casing and/or Slurry will be required to properly construct drilled shafts for this project. 5. See report text for other discussions on the use of this curve. 6. Penetration refers to depth below existing grade at the time of our geotechnical field exploration activities.

PRELIMINARY - ULTIMATE AXIAL SHAFT CAPACITY- PRELIMINARY 12-INCH DIAMETER DRILLED SHAFT NORTH BEACH INVESTIGATION (OLD HARRAH'S SITE) CITY OF LAKE CHARLES LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA

PLATE 11

Project No. 04.50150019

PRELIMINARY - Ultimate Axial Shaft Capacity, kips - PRELIMINARY

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0

10


20

30

40

50


70

80


PRELIMINARY - ULTIMATE AXIAL SHAFT CAPACITY - PRELIMINARY 24-INCH DIAMETER DRILLED SHAFT NORTH BEACH INVESTIGATION (OLD HARRAH'S SITE) CITY OF LAKE CHARLES LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA

PLATE 12

Project No. 04.50150019

PRELIMINARY - Ultimate Axial Shaft Capacity, kips - PRELIMINARY

0

70

140

210

280

350

420

490

560

0

10


20

30

40

50


70

80


PRELIMINARY - ULTIMATE AXIAL SHAFT CAPACITY - PRELIMINARY 36-INCH DIAMETER DRILLED SHAFT NORTH BEACH INVESTIGATION (OLD HARRAH'S SITE) CITY OF LAKE CHARLES LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA

PLATE 13

Project No. 04.50150019

PRELIMINARY - Ultimate Axial Pile Capacity, kips - PRELIMINARY

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

0

10


20

30

40

50


70

80

NOTES: 1. The curve represents ultimate values of axial capacity for both compression and tension. A safety factor of at least 2 should be applied for compressive loads or transient tensile loads. A safety factor of at least 3 should be applied for piles in sustained tension. 2. The curve should be used for PRELIMINARY design of individual, isolated piles as discussed in the report text. These values assume a spacing of at least 3 pile diameters, center-to-center. 3. See report text for other discussions on the use of this curve. 4. Penetration refers to depth below existing grade at the time of our geotechnical field exploration activities.

PRELIMINARY - ULTIMATE AXIAL PILE CAPACITY - PRELIMINARY 12-INCH DIAMETER AUGERED CAST-IN-PLACE PILE NORTH BEACH INVESTIGATION (OLD HARRAH'S SITE) CITY OF LAKE CHARLES LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA

PLATE 14

Project No. 04.50150019

PRELIMINARY - Ultimate Axial Pile Capacity, kips - PRELIMINARY

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0

10


20

30

40

50


70

80

NOTES: 1. The curve represents ultimate values of axial capacity for both compression and tension. A safety factor of at least 2 should be applied for compressive loads or transient tensile loads. A safety factor of at least 3 should be applied for piles in sustained tension. 2. The curve should be used for PRELIMINARY design individual, isolated piles as discussed in the report text. These values assume a spacing of at least 3 pile diameters, center-to-center. 3. See report text for other discussions on the use of this curve. 4. Penetration refers to depth below existing grade at the time of our geotechnical field exploration activities.


PLATE 15

Project No. 04.50150019

PRELIMINARY - Ultimate Axial Pile Capacity, kips - PRELIMINARY 0

60

120

180

240

300

360

420

480

0

10


20

30

40

50


70

80

NOTES: 1. The curve represents ultimate values of axial capacity for both compression and tension. A safety factor of at least 2 should be applied for compressive loads or transient tensile loads. A safety factor of at least 3 should be applied for piles in sustained tension. 2. The curve should be used for PRELIMINARY design of individual, isolated piles as discussed in the report text. These values assume a spacing of at least 3 pile diameters, center-to-center. 3. See report text for other discussions on the use of this curve. 4. Penetration refers to depth below existing grade at the time of our geotechnical field exploration activities.


PLATE 16

Project No. 04.50150019

PRELIMINARY - Ultimate Axial Pile Capacity (kips) - PRELIMINARY

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0

10

Penetration Below Existing Grade (ft)

20

30

40

50

60 Tension Compression

70

80

NOTES: 1. The curves represent ultimate values for both compression with end bearing and tension (without end bearing). A safety factor of at least 2 should be applied for compressive loads or transient tensile loads. A safety factor of at least 3 should be applied for piles in sustained tension. 2. The curves should be for PRELIMINARY design of single, isolated piles as discussed in the report text. These values assume a spacing of at least 3 widths, center-to-center. 3. See report text for other discussions on the use of these curves. 4. Penetration refers to depth below existing site grade at the time of our geotechnical field exploration activities.

PRELIMINARY - ULTIMATE AXIAL PILE CAPACITY - PRELIMINARY DRIVEN SQUARE PRECAST CONCRETE PILE (12-INCH WIDTH) NORTH BEACH INVESTIGATION (OLD HARRAH'S SITE) CITY OF LAKE CHARLES LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA

PLATE 17

Project No. 04.50150019


0

70

140

210

280

350

420

490

560

0

10


20

30

40

50


70

80

NOTES: 1. The curves represent ultimate values for both compression with end bearing and tension (without end bearing). A safety factor of at least 2 should be applied for compressive loads or transient tensile loads. A safety factor of at least 3 should be applied for piles in sustained tension. 2. The curves should be used for PRELIMINARY design of single, isolated piles as discussed in the report text. These values assume a spacing of at least 3 widths, center-to-center. 3. See report text for other discussions on the use of these curves. 4. Penetration refers to depth below existing site grade at the time of our geotechnical field exploration activities.

PRELIMINARY - ULTIMATE AXIAL PILE CAPACITY - PRELIMINARY DRIVEN SQUARE PRECAST CONCRETE PILE (18-INCH WIDTH) NORTH BEACH INVESTIGATION (OLD HARRAH'S SITE) CITY OF LAKE CHARLES LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA

PLATE 18

Project No. 04.50150019


0

90

180

270

360

450

540

630

720

0

10


20

30

40

50


70

80

NOTES: 1. The curves represent ultimate values for both compression with end bearing and tension (without end bearing). A safety factor of at least 2 should be applied for compressive loads or transient tensile loads. A safety factor of at least 3 should be applied for piles in sustained tension. 2. The curves should be used for PRELIMINARY design of single, isolated piles as discussed in the report text. These values assume a spacing of at least 3 widths, center-to-center. 3. See report text for other discussions on the use of these curves. 4. Penetration refers to depth below existing site grade at the time of our geotechnical field exploration activities.

PRELIMINARY - ULTIMATE AXIAL PILE CAPACITY - PRELIMINARY DRIVEN SQUARE PRECAST CONCRETE PILE (24-INCH WIDTH) NORTH BEACH INVESTIGATION ( OLD HARRAH'S SITE) CITY OF LAKE CHARLES LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA

PLATE 19