AXA16-002-00 Report

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
FOR
PROPOSED BUILDING EXPANSION
BELDEN ELECTRONICS (NOG001)
NOGALES, SONORA, MXICO
Project No. AXA16-002-00
April 1, 2016
RabaKistner
Consultants,Inc.
800E.Hackberry
McAllen,TX78501
www.rkci.com
P956::682::5332
F956::682::5487
TBPEFirmF3257
Mr. Rafael Martnez, LEED APBD+C

Engineer North & Northwest
MMREIT Property Administration, A.C.
Avenida Produccin 18-A
Parque Industrial Internacional Tijuana
Tijuana, Baja California, C.P. 22424
Mxico
RE:
Geotechnical Engineering Study

Proposed Building Expansion - Belden Electronics (NOG001)
Along the West Side of Avenida los Nogales
Fraccionamiento San Carlos
Nogales, Sonora, Mxico
Dear Mr. Martnez:

RABA KISTNER Consultants, Inc. (RKCI) is pleased to submit the report of our Geotechnical Engineering
Study for the above-referenced industrial building expansion. This study was performed in accordance
with RKCI Proposal No. PXA15-026-00 (Revised-4), dated March 2, 2016. It should be noted that the scope
and cost of the proposal was revised based on our e-mail communications with you on Monday,
December 21, 2015, resulting in the elimination of two borings within the proposed pavement area along
the north side of the proposed building expansion footprint area. In addition, at your request, we
performed a cursory review of the Limited Geotechnical Study performed previously at this site by OESTEC
de Mxico, S.A. de C.V., and provided to our office via electronic-mail attachment from you on Tuesday,
February 2, 2016. On the basis of this cursory review, the field exploration scope was further revised by
eliminating two borings within the proposed building expansion footprint area. Based on your request, the
proposal was also revised to include the charges of a local subcontractor to perform the drilling activities
for the field exploration scope of work of this study; however, based on the very low drilling production
achieved by the local driller, the originally proposed subcontract driller was engaged to finish the project in
a timely manner. The fourth update to our proposal reflected the costs incurred as of that time by the local
subcontract driller, as well as the cost of engaging the originally proposed driller.
Written authorization to proceed with this study was received by our firm via electronic-mail attachment
from you on Wednesday, March 2, 2016. The purpose of this study was to drill borings within the project
site, to perform laboratory testing on selected samples to classify and characterize subsurface conditions,
and to prepare an engineering report presenting subsurface conditions and foundation and pavement
recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed industrial building addition.
O:\Active Projects\McAllen\2016\AXA16\AXA16-002-00 Belden Electronics Building Expansion-Nogales\Reporting\AXA16-002-00 Report.doc
SanAntonioAustinBrownsvilleCorpusChristiDallasElPasoHoustonMcAllenMexicoSaltLakeCity
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
For
PROPOSED BUILDING EXPANSION BELDEN ELECTRONICS (NOG001)

ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA LOS NOGALES
FRACCIONAMIENTO SAN CARLOS
NOGALES, SONORA, MXICO
Prepared for
MMREIT PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION, A.C.
Tijuana, Baja California, Mxico
Prepared by
RABA KISTNER CONSULTANTS, INC.
McAllen, Texas
PROJECT NO. AXA16-002-00

April 1, 2016

April 1, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 1
BORINGS AND LABORATORY TESTS ......................................................................................................... 2
GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 3
SITE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................................................... 3
SITE GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................... 5
SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................................................. 5
Liquefaction Potential ............................................................................................................................ 6
STRATIGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................................. 7
GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................................ 7
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES ..................................................................................................................... 7
FOUNDATION ANALYSES ....................................................................................................................... 11
EXPANSIVE, SOIL-RELATED MOVEMENTS .................................................................................................. 11
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 12
SITE GRADING .............................................................................................................................................. 12
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 13
Allowable Soil-Bearing Capacity........................................................................................................... 13
Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRI) Criteria ....................................................................................... 13
AREA FLATWORK ......................................................................................................................................... 14
FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................. 14
SITE DRAINAGE ............................................................................................................................................ 14
SITE PREPARATION ...................................................................................................................................... 14
SELECT FILL .................................................................................................................................................. 15
SHALLOW FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS .................................................................................................... 16
EXCAVATION SLOPING AND BENCHING ..................................................................................................... 17
EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................................................... 17
UTILITIES ...................................................................................................................................................... 17

April 1, 2016
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 18
SUBGRADE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................. 18
DESIGN INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................... 18
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 19
Garbage Dumpsters.............................................................................................................................. 19
RIGID PAVEMENTS ...................................................................................................................................... 20
PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................... 20
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 20
SUBGRADE PREPARATION .......................................................................................................................... 21
FLEXIBLE BASE COURSE ............................................................................................................................... 21
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE .................................................................................................. 21
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE ................................................................................................................. 22
CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES ...................................................................................................... 22
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING AND TESTING SERVICES....................................................... 22
BUDGETING FOR CONSTRUCTION TESTING ............................................................................................... 23
ATTACHMENTS
Boring Location Map
Logs of Borings
Key to Terms and Symbols
Results of Soil Sample Analyses
Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report

April 1, 2016
INTRODUCTION
RABA KISTNER Consultants, Inc. (RKCI) has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and
foundation recommendations for the proposed Belden Electronics (NOG001) industrial building expansion.
The proposed expansion will be located adjacent to the west side of the existing Belden Electronics
industrial building (NOG001), which is located along the west side of Avenida los Nogales within the
Fraccionamiento San Carlos in Nogales, Sonora, Mxico. This report briefly describes the procedures
utilized during this study and presents our findings along with our recommendations for foundation and
pavement design and construction considerations for the proposed industrial building expansion. Also
included in this report are the results of the slope stability analyses performed on selected cross sections
of the existing slope along the north and west boundaries of the project site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We understand that the proposed project consists of the design and construction of a rectangle-shaped,
about 194,583 ft2 (18,077 m2) industrial building expansion, including the addition of 185 paved parking
spaces and their associated truck court and driveway areas. The building expansion is proposed to be
located adjacent to the west side of the existing, about 320,000 ft2 (29,729 m2), Belden Electronics
industrial building (NOG001), which is located along the northwest side of Avenida los Nogales within the
Fraccionamiento San Carlos in Nogales, Sonora, Mxico. The proposed paved parking lot additions will
encompass the northern and eastern portions of the property.
The proposed industrial building addition is anticipated to create relatively light to moderate loads to be
carried by the foundation system, which is anticipated to consist of a concrete, slab-on-fill, shallow
foundation system in conjunction with spread and continuous footings, to match the foundation system of
the existing building. The pavement systems are anticipated to consist of either flexible (asphalt) and/or
rigid (concrete) pavements.
On the basis of the topographical plan provided to us via electronic-mail attachment by Mr. Rafael
Martnez, LEED APBD+C, Engineer North & Northwest, with MMREIT Property Administration, A.C. (CLIENT)
on Friday, March 18, 2016, we understand that the ground surface elevations existing at the time of our
study within the proposed building addition footprint area range from about 4,137.5 ft (about 1,261.1 m)
to about 4,141.7 ft (about 1,262.4 m) above mean sea level (MSL). Further, based on the same
topographical plan, we also understand that the finished floor elevation (FFE) of the proposed industrial
building addition is planned to be 4,141.8 ft (1,262.42 m) above MSL.
LIMITATIONS
This engineering report has been prepared in accordance with accepted Geotechnical Engineering
practices for the use of MMREIT Property Administration, A.C. and its representatives for design
purposes. This report may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or other uses
and is not intended for use in determining construction means and methods.

April 1, 2016
The recommendations submitted in this report are based on the data obtained from ten borings drilled
within the subject site and our understanding of the project information provided to us by others. If the
project information described in this report is incorrect, is altered, or if new information is available, we
should be retained to review and modify our recommendations.
This report may not reflect the actual variations of the subsurface conditions across the subject site.
The nature and extent of variations across the subject site may not become evident until construction
commences. The construction process itself may also alter subsurface conditions. If variations appear
evident at the time of construction, it may be necessary to reevaluate our recommendations after
performing on-site observations and tests to establish the engineering impact of the variations.
The scope of our Geotechnical Engineering Study does not include an environmental assessment of the
air, soil, rock, or water conditions either on or adjacent to the site. No environmental opinions are
presented in this report. RKCIs scope of work does not include the investigation, detection, or design
related to the prevention of any biological pollutants. The term biological pollutants includes, but is not
limited to, mold, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and the byproduct of any such biological organisms.
If final grade elevations are significantly different from the site grading information provided to us by
the CLIENT, our office should be informed about these changes. If needed and/or if desired, we will
reexamine our analyses and make supplemental recommendations.
BORINGS AND LABORATORY TESTS
Subsurface conditions at the subject site were evaluated by ten borings drilled within the proposed
industrial building addition project site extending down to the depths shown on the following drilling
scheme:
Proposed Location
Number of Borings
Depth, ft (m) *
Boring Identification
Stability Analysis of Slope on West Side
115 (35)**
B-4
30 (9.1)
B-1, B-3, and B-8
20 (6.1)
B-2, B-5 through B-7
Ground-Supported, Water Storage Tank
25 (7.6)
B-9
Parking Lots and Driveway Areas
5 (1.5)
P-1
Building Addition
* below the existing ground surface elevation, or auger refusal, whichever occurs first.
** auger refusal was encountered in Boring B-4 at a depth of about 115 ft (35 m).
The borings (designated as B-and P-) were drilled on February 29 through March 7, 2016 at the locations
shown on the Boring Location Map, Figure 1. The boring locations are approximate and were located in
the field by an RKCI representative based on an untitled and undated site plan provided to our office via
electronic-mail attachment by the CLIENT on February 24, 2016. Please note that Boring B-4 was planned
to be drilled down to a maximum depth of about 130 ft (39.6 m). However, due to very dense subsurface
conditions, auger refusal was encountered at a depth of about 115 ft (35 m). The borings were drilled

April 1, 2016
using a truck-mounted, rotary-drilling rig, utilizing straight flight and hollow stem augers with tricone bit
drilling techniques, and were backfilled with the auger cuttings following completion of the drilling
operations. During the drilling operations, the following samples were collected:
Sample Type
Number Collected
Split-Spoon (with Standard Penetration Test, SPT)
91
The SPTs were performed in accordance with accepted standard practices and the penetration test
results are presented as blows per foot on the boring logs. Representative portions of the samples
were sealed in containers to reduce moisture loss, labeled, packaged, and transported to our laboratory
for subsequent testing and classification.
In the laboratory, each sample was evaluated and visually classified by a member of our Geotechnical
Engineering staff in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The
geotechnical engineering properties of the strata were evaluated by the laboratory tests tabulated in the
following table:
Type of Test
Number Conducted
Natural Moisture Content
91
Atterberg Limits
19
Percent Passing a No. 200 Sieve
19
The results of the field and laboratory tests are presented in graphical or numerical form on the boring
logs illustrated on Figures 2 through 11. A key to the classification of terms and symbols used on the
logs is presented on Figure 12. The results of the laboratory and field testing are also tabulated on
Figure 13 for ease of reference.
SPT results are noted as blows per ft on the boring logs and on Figure 13, where blows per ft refers
to the number of blows by a falling 140-lb (about 63.5 kg) hammer required for 1 ft (30 cm) of
penetration into the subsurface materials. Where very dense materials were encountered, the tests
were terminated at 50 blows even if 1 ft (30 cm) of penetration had not been achieved.
Samples will be retained in our laboratory for 30 days after submittal of this report. Other arrangements
may be provided at the written request of the CLIENT.
GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed industrial building expansion is located adjacent to the west side of the existing Belden
Electronics (NOG001) industrial building, which is located along the west side of Avenida los Nogales within
the Fraccionamiento San Carlos in Nogales, Sonora, Mxico. At the time of our field activities, the project

April 1, 2016
site can be described as an undeveloped tract of land that had been previously graded during the
construction of the existing building to the west. In general, the topography is relatively flat, with a
vertical relief of less than 3 ft (about 0.9 m) across the site. It should be noted that relatively steep
downward slope exists along the north and west sides of the project site. In addition, a near vertical cut
was present along the south side of the existing Belden Electronics (NOG001) building. Two drainage
canals were observed within the western and northern portions of the property. A drainage canal was
located parallel to western and northern property lines of the project site (please refer to the Figure 1).
Another drainage canal was located perpendicular to the western property line of the project site, sloping
downward towards the bottom of the slope, discharging into the Rio Nogales as illustrated on Figure 2.
Surface drainage is visually estimated to be poor-to-fair. The project site is bounded to the north by an
undeveloped tract of land; to the south by a street, followed by an existing residential subdivision; to the
east by the existing Belden Electronics (NOG001) industrial building; and to the west by an existing slope,
the toe of which is located along the Rio Nogales river bed. It should be noted that an apparent fracture
line was visually observed along the near vertical cut located along the south side of the existing Belden
Electronics (NOG001) building. Given the documented fault lines in the City of Nogales, we believe it would
be prudent to investigate the nature of the observed fracture and the potential risks that it may pose to
the structural and/or the operational performance of the existing industrial building.
Figure 1 Existing Drainage Canal

April 1, 2016
Figure 2 Existing Drainage Canal
SITE GEOLOGY
A cursory review of the geologic map titled Atlas de Peligros Naturales de Nogales, Sonora - Geologa
dated January 2006, published by the Secretara de Desarrollo Social (SEDESOL), indicates that the subject
site appears to be underlain by Alluvium deposits of the recent Quaternary Period in close proximity to a
boundary with polymictic conglomerate of the Pleistocene epoch (Quaternary Period). The Alluvium
deposits consist of surficial sediments overlying the causeways of the main rivers and streams. These
deposits comprise gravels, sands, silts, and clays resulting from the erosion of preexisting rocks that are
transported by water and deposited along the beds of rivers and floodplains. The polymictic conglomerate
consists of a unit exposed along a graben type block trending about north south. The polymicitic
conglomerate exhibits poorly defined boundaries of stratification and includes variable clasts, ranging in
size from gravel to blocks, with predominant fragments of rhyolite, andesite, and granite rocks. This unit is
characterized by the presence of faults and fractures.
SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Based on our review of the Figure Titled Regionalizacin Ssmica de la Repblica Mexicana, included in
the document titled Diseo Ssmico de Edificios by Enrique Bazn and Roberto Meli, dated 1998,
published by Limusa-Noriega Editores, the City of Nogales lies within seismic zone B, an intermediate
risk seismic zone where the ground surface accelerations are anticipated to be lower than 70 percent of
the acceleration of gravity.
A cursory review of the document titled Diagnstico de Peligros e Identificacin de Riesgos de Desastres
en Mxico, dated 2001, published by the Centro Nacional de PRevencin de Desastres (CENAPRED)
indicates that the largest recorded nearby earthquake with a magnitude, M=7.2 had an epicenter
located about 80 miles [129 km] east of Nogales on May 3, 1887.

April 1, 2016
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings conducted for this study, the
proposed site grading for the industrial facility, and based on Table 1.1 of the Manual de Diseo de
Obras Civiles Diseo por Sismo dated 2008, published by the Comisin Federal de Electricidad (CFE), it
is our judgment that the dynamic properties of the soil at this site, may be summarized as shown in the
following table.
Approximate
Depth
ft [m]
Soil Description
Soil Type
According to
Table 1.1 of the
Manual de
Diseo de Obras
Civiles Diseo
por Sismo CFE,
2008
Standard
Penetration
Resistance
(SPT N-Value)
Soil Shear Wave

Velocity According
to Table 1.1 of the
Manual de Diseo
de Obras Civiles
Diseo por Sismo
CFE, 2008 (Vs) (ft/s)
[m/s]
Estimated Soil
Density* According
to Table 1.1 of the
Manual de Diseo
de Obras Civiles
Diseo por Sismo
CFE, 2008
(s) (pcf) *metric
tons/m3]
Poorly-Graded
Medium Soil
Sands and/or Silty
15-50
600 [180]
94 [1.5]
Sands
Poorly-Graded
50 to 115
Firm and Dense
Sands and/or Silty
>50
1,200 [360]
112 [1.8]
[15 to 35]
Soil
Sands
*= It should be noted that the estimated soil density values presented on this table have not been adjusted for a buoyant
force below the groundwater table.
0 to 50
[0 to 15]
Based on the PRODISIS Program V.2.0, published by the CFE, a maximum earthquake ground
acceleration of 1.61 ft/s2 (49 cm/s2) for a rock condition is anticipated for a return period of 16,966
years at this site.
Based on a cursory review of the geologic map titled Atlas de Peligros Naturales de Nogales, Sonora Geologa dated January 2006, published by the Secretara de Desarrollo Social (SEDESOL), a possible fault
may be situated in close proximity to the southeast-east of the project site, where the current Belden
Electronics building is located. As previously mentioned, an apparent fracture line was visually observed
along the near vertical cut located along the south side of the Belden Electronics building. Limited
observations of the condition of the existing building structure exterior and pavements during the time of
our field exploration activities did not reveal the existence of cracks along the projection of the apparent
fracture line; however, we recommend that the CLIENT engage a qualified geologist to investigate the
nature of the apparent fracture and assess the potential risk of impacts to the structural and/or the
operational performance of the existing building.
Liquefaction Potential
Seismically-induced liquefaction involves the substantial loss of shear strength in saturated soil, usually
taking place within a soil matrix exhibiting loose, saturated, sandy materials, and low confining pressures,
when subjected to impact by seismic loading. In consideration that no groundwater was observed in the
borings conducted for this study down to the maximum depth of exploration and based on the dense to
very dense condition of the sand soils encountered in the borings conducted for this study, it is our

April 1, 2016
judgment that the potential for liquefaction of the subsurface strata may be on the order of 1 inch (2.5 cm)
or less at this site.
STRATIGRAPHY
On the basis of the borings, the subsurface stratigraphy at this site can be described by a single generalized
stratum with similar physical and engineering characteristics. This stratum consists of reddish-brown to
dark brown to brown to light brown, medium dense to very dense, poorly-graded sand soils with clay and
gravel; clayey, silty sand soils with gravel; and clayey sand soils with gravel and with traces of roots. This
layer was noted in the borings from the ground surface elevation existing at the time of our drilling
operations down to at least the termination depths of the borings. Moisture contents were measured to
range from about 3 to 21 percent. This stratum is classified as marginally plastic to plastic, with measured
plasticity indices ranging from 6 to 24 percent. Percent passing a No. 200 sieve tests demonstrate percent
fines ranging from 11 to 30 percent. SPT N-values ranging from 15 blows to more than 50 blows per foot
of penetration were measured for this stratum. These soils are classified as SC-SM soils and SC soils in
general accordance with the USCS.
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was not observed in the borings either during or immediately upon completion of the field
drilling activities. The boreholes were left open for the duration of the field exploration phase to allow
monitoring of water levels, and remained dry. It is possible for groundwater to exist beneath this site on a
transient basis following periods of precipitation. Fluctuations in groundwater levels occur due to
variations in rainfall and surface water run-off. The construction process itself may also cause variations in
the groundwater level.
Based on the findings in the borings and on our experience in this region, we believe that groundwater
seepage encountered during site earthwork activities and shallow foundation construction may be
controlled using temporary earthen berm and conventional sump-and-pump dewatering methods.
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
As part of our geotechnical engineering study, we were asked to conduct stability analyses for the slope
located along the north and west sides of the project site. Upon a cursory review of the 51 slope crosssections located along the north and west boundaries of the project site that were provided to us by the
CLIENT via electronic-mail attachment on Tuesday, March 15, 2016, four cross-sections were selected for
slope stability analysis, based on the height and steepness of the slopes.
The cross-sections analyzed for this study are summarized in the following table:

April 1, 2016
Station Number
Location
STA 0+140.00
(Steepest Slope)
STA 0+205.00
(Tallest Slope)
STA 0+250.00
(Tallest Slope)
STA 0+420.00
(Steepest Slope)
Along the West

Property Boundary
Along the West
Property Boundary
Along the North
Property Boundary
Along the North
Property Boundary
Approximate Total
Height, ft (m)
Approximate
Horizontal Extent,
ft (m)
Horizontal : Vertical
46.6 (14.2)
66.3 (20.2)
1.4 : 1
50.2 (15.3)
88.6 (27.0)
1.8 : 1
54.1 (16.5)
100.1 (30.5)
1.8 : 1
24.0 (7.3)
17.4 (5.3)
0.7 : 1
Based on the cross-sections provided to us by the CLIENT and the subsurface conditions obtained from our
borings, the slope stability analyses were performed using the Spencers method (both circular and noncircular failure surfaces), utilizing the SLIDE, Ver. 6.0, Slope Stability Software.
The probable minimum slope stability factors of safety were estimated to be as follows. These results are
also presented graphically on the following pages of this report.
Station Number
Probable Factor of Safety
Recommended Minimum
Factor of Safety (NonSeismic)
STA 0+140.00 (Steepest Slope)
1.5
1.5
STA 0+205.00 (Tallest Slope)
1.7
1.5
STA 0+250.00 (Tallest Slope)
1.6
1.5
STA 0+420.00 (Steepest Slope)
1.6
1.5

April 1, 2016

April 1, 2016
10

April 1, 2016
11
For typical slope designs, the required minimum factor of safety (non-seismic) is usually at least 1.5.
The calculated probable factors of safety for the four different cases analyzed meet this minimum factor
of safety.
Although our slope stability analysis revealed that the minimum recommended factor of safety would
be met for the slope on a non-seismic condition, on the basis of our site observations obtained during
our field exploration operations, we believe that surface erosion of the slope represents a greater
concern than deep-seated slope stability failure at this site, particularly during periods of heavy rain
and/or continuous precipitation. Based on limited visual observations performed by our field logger
during the field exploration activities, it appears that the materials on the surface of the slopes along
the north and west property boundaries likely consist of loose soils dumped with no placement and/or
compaction control. Thus, these materials are highly susceptible to erosion. Evidence of significant
erosion already exists along the north and west slopes, particularly along the sides of the downward
canal located on the western slope. In order to reduce the risk of significant erosion affecting the
stability of the northern and western slopes, consideration should be given to regrading the slope
surfaces and recompacting the existing loose materials to result in a more uniform, compacted slope
surface. To the extent possible, the establishment of grass along the slope surface should be
implemented to reduce erosion impacts. Large trees with significant roots are not recommended along
slopes. We also recommend replacing the existing downward canal along the western slope with a
new, properly designed and constructed canal with sufficient capacity to discharge the stormwater
flows without overflowing and eroding the adjacent soils on the surface of the slope.
During our field exploration activities, we also observed that the toe of the western slope along the
Ro Nogales is protected with gabions. While gabions are a good system to prevent scour along the
toe of the slope, we understand that the Ro Nogales can carry very significant water flows during
periods of heavy rain and/or continuous precipitation. Thus, we recommend that the CLIENT
implement a system of slope inspections following periods of significant storm events or continued
rain, to assess erosion impacts and to implement immediate corrective actions to repair eroded areas.
FOUNDATION ANALYSES
EXPANSIVE, SOIL-RELATED MOVEMENTS
The anticipated ground movements due to swelling of the underlying strata at this site were estimated
for slab-on-grade construction using the empirical procedure, Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) Tex-124-E, Method for Determining the Potential Vertical Rise (PVR). PVR values on the order
of less than 1 inch (2.5 cm) or less are estimated at this site based on the stratigraphic conditions
encountered in the borings. The PVR value was estimated using a surcharge load of 1 pound per square
inch (psi) [0.7 metric tons/m2] for the concrete slab and dry moisture conditions within the regional
zone of seasonal moisture variation.
The TxDOT method of estimating expansive, soil-related movements is based on empirical correlations
utilizing the measured plasticity indices and assuming typical seasonal fluctuations in moisture content.
If desired, other methods of estimating expansive, soil-related movements are available, such as

April 1, 2016
12
estimations based on swell tests and/or soil-suction analyses. However, the performance of these tests
and the detailed analysis of expansive, soil-related movements were beyond the scope of the current
study. It should also be noted that actual movements can exceed the estimated PVR values due to
isolated changes in moisture content (such as due to leaks, landscape watering....) or if water seeps into
the soils to greater depths than the assumed active zone depth due to deep trenching or excavations.
Drainage Considerations Considerations of surface and subsurface drainage may be crucial to
construction and adequate foundation performance of the soil-supported industrial building addition.
Several surface and subsurface drainage design features and construction precautions can be used to
limit problems associated with fill moisture. These features and precautions may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
Installing berms or swales on the uphill side of the construction area to divert
surface runoff away from the excavation/fill area during construction;
Sloping of the top of the subgrade with a minimum downward slope of 1.5
percent out to the base of a dewatering trench located beyond the building
additions perimeter;
Sloping the surface of the fill during construction to promote runoff of rain
water to drainage features until the final lift is placed;
Sloping of a final, well-maintained, impervious clay or pavement surface
(downward away from the proposed industrial building addition) over the select
fill material and any perimeter drain extending beyond the building addition
lines, with a minimum gradient of 6 in. in 5 ft;
Constructing final surface drainage patterns to prevent ponding and limit
surface water infiltration at and around the building additions perimeter; and
Locating the water-bearing utilities, roof drainage outlets, and irrigation spray
heads outside of the select fill and perimeter drain boundaries.
Details relative to the extent and implementation of these considerations must be evaluated on a
project-specific basis by all members of the project design team. Many variables that influence fill
drainage considerations may depend on factors that are not fully developed in the early stages of
design. For this reason, drainage of the fill should be given consideration at the earliest possible stages
of the project.
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
SITE GRADING
Site grading plans can result in changes in almost all aspects of foundation recommendations. We have
prepared the foundation recommendations based on the ground surface elevations, the stratigraphic
conditions encountered at the time of our study, and the site grading information provided to us by the
CLIENT. If site grading plans differ from the information provided to us by others, RKCI must be retained
to review the site grading plans prior to bidding the project for construction. This will enable RKCI to
provide input for any changes in our original recommendations that may be required as a result of site
grading operations or other considerations.

April 1, 2016
13
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
The proposed industrial building addition may be founded on a rigid-engineered beam and slab
foundation or on conventional spread and/or continuous footing foundations in combination with a fillsupported concrete floor slab, provided that the shallow foundation type(s) can be designed to
withstand the anticipated soil-related movements without impairing either the structural or the
operational performance of the proposed industrial building addition structure.
Allowable Soil-Bearing Capacity
Shallow foundations founded on undisturbed, native soils and/or on new, properly-compacted, suitable,
select fill materials may be proportioned using the design parameters tabulated on the following table.
Minimum depth below final grade:
36 in. (91 cm)
Minimum beam width:
12 in. (30 cm)
Maximum allowable soil-bearing pressure for continuous footings - grade beams:
2,300 psf (11.2 metric tons/m2)
Maximum allowable soil-bearing pressure for spread footings - widened beams:
2,700 psf (13.2 metric tons/m2)
Where psf = pounds per square foot

The above maximum allowable soil-bearing pressures will provide a factor of safety of about 3 with
respect to the measured soil shear strengths, provided that the subgrade is prepared in accordance
with the recommendations outlined in the Site Preparation subsection of the Foundation Construction
Considerations section of this report. We estimate total settlements to be on the order of about 1 inch
(about 2.5 cm) or less. Differential settlement is estimated to be about one-half of the total estimated
settlement for most subsurface conditions.
Furthermore, the design parameters presented on the previous table are contingent upon the fill materials
being selected and placed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Select Fill subsection
of the Foundation Construction Considerations for the Proposed Building Expansion section of this report.
Should select fill selection and placement differ from the recommendations presented herein, RKCI should
be informed of the deviations in order to reevaluate our recommendations and design criteria.
Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRI) Criteria
Beam and slab foundations are sometimes designed using criteria developed by the WRI. On the basis of
the subsurface stratigraphy encountered, a general effective plasticity index for the proposed building
addition of 20 percent should be utilized for the design of the proposed building expansions foundation.

April 1, 2016
14
AREA FLATWORK
It should be noted that ground-supported flatwork such as walkways, driveways, courtyards, sidewalks,
etc., will be subject to the same magnitude of potential soil-related movements as discussed previously
(see the Foundation Analyses for the Proposed Building Expansion section of the report). Thus, where
these types of elements abut rigid building foundations or isolated structures, differential movements
should be anticipated. As a minimum, we recommend that flexible joints be provided where such
elements abut the main structure to allow for differential movement at these locations. Where the
potential for differential movement is objectionable, it may be beneficial to consider methods of
reducing anticipated movements to match the adjacent building performance.
FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
SITE DRAINAGE
Drainage is an important key to the successful performance of any foundation. Good surface drainage
should be established prior to and maintained after construction to help prevent water from ponding
within or adjacent to the proposed industrial building additions foundation and to facilitate rapid
drainage away from the industrial building additions foundation. Failure to provide positive drainage
away from the structure can result in localized differential vertical movements in soil supported
foundation and floor slab.
Also to help control drainage in the vicinity of the structure addition, we recommend that roof/gutter
downspouts and landscaping irrigation systems not be located adjacent to the building additions
foundation. Where a select fill overbuild is provided outside of the floor slab/foundation footprint, the
surface should be sealed with an impermeable layer (pavement or clay cap) to reduce infiltration of
both irrigation and surface waters. Careful consideration should also be given to the location of water
bearing utilities, as well as to provisions for drainage in the event of leaks in water bearing utilities. All
leaks should be immediately repaired.
Other drainage and subsurface drainage issues are discussed in the Foundation Analyses section of this
report.
SITE PREPARATION
The industrial building addition area and all areas to support select fill should be stripped of all vegetation
and/or organic topsoil down to a minimum depth of 8 inches (20.3 cm), depending on the thickness of
topsoil and organic matter, and extending a minimum of 5 ft (1.5 m) beyond the industrial warehouse
building footprint.
Precautions should be taken not to undermine or damage the existing grade beams, footings, and/or
utility lines during excavations adjacent to the existing building structure. The earthwork operations for
the existing soils and for the placement of suitable, select fill materials should be conducted in a way
that safely retains the soils under the existing building foundations. As a minimum, we recommend that

April 1, 2016
15
any excavation activities be stopped above the existing, exterior, building foundations and that the
excavation be maintained at a 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope from the edge of the existing foundation
down to the maximum depth of excavation. Field observations will be conducted at the time of
construction to monitor the extent of the existing field material and field fit how close the excavations
should be to the existing building. Even if this field monitoring is conducted, the excavations should not
be made closer to the existing building than the previously stated recommendation.
Exposed subgrades should be thoroughly proofrolled in order to locate and densify any weak,
compressible zones. A minimum of 5 passes of a fully-loaded dump truck or a similar heavily-loaded piece
of construction equipment should be used for planning purposes. Proofrolling operations should be
observed by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative to document subgrade condition and
preparation. Weak or soft areas identified during proofrolling should be removed and replaced with a
suitable, compacted select fill in accordance with the recommendations presented under the Select Fill
subsection of this section of the report. Proofrolling operations and any excavation/backfill activities
should be observed by RKCI representatives to document subgrade condition and preparation.
Upon completion of the proofrolling operations and just prior to fill placement, the exposed subgrades
should be moisture-conditioned by scarifying to a minimum depth of 6 in. and recompacting to a minimum
of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) D1557, Compaction Test. The moisture content of the subgrade should be maintained
within the range of two percentage points below the optimum moisture content to two percentage points
above the optimum moisture content until permanently covered.
SELECT FILL
Materials used as select fill for final site grading should meet the alternative gradations and plasticity index
requirements tabulated below in preferential order.
Percent Retained on Sieve Size (%)
No. 40
(425 m)
Maximum
Liquid
Limit (%)
Maximum
Plasticity
Index (%)
45 to 65
70 to 85
35
10
45 to 75
50 to 85
35
12
Alternatives
1-3/4-in
(45 mm)
7/8-in.
(22.4 mm)
3/8-in.
(9.5 mm)
No. 4
(4.75 mm)
10 to 35
30 to 50
II
--
--
III
0
---50 to 85
35
12
Note: In addition, the select fill material shall include soil binder consisting of a minimum of 20 percent by weight
of material passing a No. 200 sieve.
Alternatively, the following soils, as classified according to the USCS, may be considered satisfactory for
use as select fill materials at this site: GC, SC, and combinations of these soils. In addition to the USCS
classification, the alternative select fill materials shall have a maximum liquid limit of 40 percent, a
plasticity index between 5 and 18 percent, and a maximum particle size not exceeding 4 inches (10 cm) or
one-half the loose lift thickness, whichever is smaller. In addition, if these materials are utilized, grain size

April 1, 2016
16
analyses and Atterberg Limits must be performed during placement at a minimum rate of one test each
per 5,000 cubic yards of material due to the high degree of variability associated with pit-run materials.
If the alternative materials listed above are being considered for bidding purposes, the materials should be
submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer for pre-approval at a minimum of 10 working days or more prior
to the bid date. Failure to do so will be the responsibility of the General Contractor. The General
Contractor will also be responsible for ensuring that the properties of all delivered alternate select fill
materials are similar to those of the pre-approved submittal. It should also be noted that when using
alternative fill materials, difficulties may be experienced with respect to moisture control during and
subsequent to fill placement, as well as with erosion, particularly when exposed to inclement weather.
This may result in sloughing of beam trenches and/or pumping of the fill materials.
Soils classified as CH, MH, ML, SM, GM, OH, OL, and Pt under the USCS and not meeting the alternative
select fill material requirements, are not considered suitable for use as select fill materials at this site. The
near-surface native soils at this site are considered suitable for use as select fill materials.
Select fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 in. in thickness and compacted to at least 95
percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. The moisture content of the fill should
be maintained within the range of two percentage points below to two percentage points above the
optimum moisture content until the final lift of fill is permanently covered.
The select fill should be properly compacted in accordance with these recommendations and tested by
RKCI personnel for compaction as specified.
SHALLOW FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS
Shallow foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative
prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. This is necessary to verify that the bearing soils at
the bottom of the excavations are similar to those encountered in our borings and that excessive loose
materials and water are not present in the excavations. If loose pockets of soil are encountered in the
foundation excavations, they should be removed and replaced with a compacted non-expansive fill
material or lean concrete up to the design foundation bearing elevations.
Disturbance from foot traffic and from the accumulation of excess water can result in losses in bearing
capacity and increased settlement. If inclement weather is anticipated at the time construction,
consideration should be given to protecting the bottoms of beam trenches by placing a thin mud mat
(layer of flowable fill or lean concrete) at the bottom of trenches immediately following excavation.
This will reduce disturbance from foot traffic and will impede the infiltration of surface water. All
necessary precautions should be implemented to protect open excavations from the accumulation of
surface water runoff and rain.

April 1, 2016
17
EXCAVATION SLOPING AND BENCHING

Excavations that extend to or below a depth of 5 ft (1.5 m) below construction grade shall require the
General Contractor to develop a trench safety plan to protect personnel entering the trench or trench
vicinity. The collection of specific geotechnical data and the development of such a plan, which could
include designs for sloping and benching or various types of temporary shoring, are beyond the scope of
the current study. Any such designs and safety plans shall be developed in accordance with current
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines and other applicable industry standards.
EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT
SPT N-values in excess of 50 blows per foot were recorded in the borings conducted for this site, from the
ground surface elevations existing at the time of our study extending down to the termination depths of
the borings. Thus, very dense subsurface conditions should be anticipated during excavation activities at
this site. The boring logs are not intended for use in determining construction means and methods and
may therefore be misleading if used for that purpose. We recommend that earthwork and utility
contractors interested in bidding on the work perform their own tests in the form of test pits to
determine the quantities of the different materials to be excavated, as well as the preferred excavation
methods and equipment for this site.
UTILITIES
Utilities which project through slab-on-grade, slab-on-fill, floating floor slabs, or any other rigid unit
should be designed with either some degree of flexibility or with sleeves. Such design features will help
reduce the risk of damage to the utility lines as vertical movements occur.
Our experience indicates that significant settlement of backfill can occur in utility trenches, particularly
when trenches are deep, when backfill materials are placed in thick lifts with insufficient compaction, and
when water can access and infiltrate the trench backfill materials. The potential for water to access the
backfill is increased where water can infiltrate flexible base materials due to insufficient penetration of
curbs, and at site where geological features can influence water migration into utility trenches. It is our
belief that another factor which can significantly impact settlement is the migration of fines within the
backfill into the open voids in the underlying free-draining bedding material.
To reduce the potential for settlement in utility trenches, we recommend that consideration be given to
the following:
Backfill materials should be placed and compacted in controlled lifts appropriate for
the type of backfill and the type of compaction equipment being utilized and
backfilling procedures should be tested and documented.
Consideration should be given to wrapping free-draining bedding gravels with a
geotextile fabric (similar to Mirafi 140N or CONTECH C-Drain Geocomposite) to
reduce the infiltration and loss of fines from backfill material into the interstitial voids
in bedding materials.

April 1, 2016
18
PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for both flexible and rigid pavements for a 20-year design period are presented in
this report. The CLIENT may select either pavement type depending on the performance criteria
established for the proposed project. In general, flexible pavement systems have a lower initial
construction cost as compared to rigid pavements. However, maintenance requirements over the life
of the pavement are typically much greater for flexible pavements. This typically requires regularly
scheduled observation and repair, as well as overlays and/or other pavement rehabilitation at
approximately one-half to two-thirds of the design life. Rigid pavements are generally more "forgiving",
and therefore tend to be more durable and require less maintenance after construction.
For either pavement type, drainage conditions will have a significant impact on long-term performance,
particularly where permeable base materials are utilized in the pavement section. Drainage
considerations are discussed in more detail in a subsequent section of this report.
SUBGRADE CONDITIONS
A single generalized subgrade condition has been assumed for this site. The predominant subgrade soils
used in developing the pavement sections for this project are the sand soils. On the basis of our past
experience with similar subsurface conditions in this area, a design California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 5
was assigned to evaluate the pavement components.
DESIGN INFORMATION
The following recommendations for the pavement sections are based on our past experience with similar
subgrade soils, the CLIENT-provided traffic loading, an assumed CBR test value for the subgrade soils, and
design procedures utilizing a software program entitled AASHTOWare DARWin 3.01, Pavement Design
and Analysis System, published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). The pavement design and analyses performed by this program are based directly on the 1993
and 1997 editions of the Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures by AASHTO.
The pavement systems for the proposed industrial facility can be divided into two general areas, each with
different loading conditions and performance criteria. These areas are:
Automobile drives and parking lots (light vehicular traffic); and

Truck loading/unloading areas and drive-in lanes (heavy vehicular traffic).
For a 20-year design period, Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL's) were estimated for an assumed traffic
loading of 1 tractor-trailer truck per day, six days a week for the light vehicular traffic areas. This
corresponds to about 24,500 ESAL's. On the basis of the heavy vehicular traffic loading provided by the
CLIENT via electronic-mail transmittal on Friday, March 18, 2016, ESAL's were estimated for a traffic
loading of about 30 trailer-trucks per day, six days a week for a 20-year design period. This corresponds to
about 733,850 ESAL's. It is recommended that the project Civil Engineer review the above mentioned

April 1, 2016
19
levels of traffic and design periods to ensure that they are appropriate for the intended use of the
proposed industrial facility.
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
The following flexible pavement section alternatives are available for this site:
Automobile Drives and Parking Lots (Light Vehicular Traffic)
Where:
PS
FBM
HMAC
in. (cm)
in. (cm)
in. (cm)
8 (20)
8 (20)
2 (5)
PS = Prepared Subgrade
FBM = Flexible Base Material
HMAC = Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete Surface Course
Truck Loading/Unloading Areas and Drive-in Lanes (Heavy Vehicular Traffic)
Where:
PS
FBM
HMAC
in. (cm)
in. (cm)
in. (cm)
12 (30)
12 (30)
3-1/2 (9)
PS = Prepared Subgrade
FBM = Flexible Base Material
HMAC = Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete Surface Course
Garbage Dumpsters
Where flexible pavements are constructed at any site, it is recommended that reinforced concrete pads be
provided in front of and beneath trash receptacles. The dumpster trucks should be parked on the concrete
pads when the receptacles are lifted. It is suggested that such pads also be provided in drives where the
dumpster trucks make turns with small radii to access the receptacles. The concrete pads at this site
should be a minimum of 8-1/2 inches (21.5 cm) thick and reinforced with conventional steel reinforcing
bars, underlain by 12 inches (30 cm) of prepared subgrade.

April 1, 2016
20
RIGID PAVEMENTS
The following rigid pavement sections are available at this site:
Pavement Area
Prepared Subgrade,
in. (cm)
Reinforced Concrete,
in. (cm)
Automobile Drives and Parking Lots

(Light Vehicular Traffic)
12 (30)
5 (13)
Truck Loading/Unloading Areas and Drive-in Lanes

(Heavy Vehicular Traffic)
12 (30)
8-1/2 (21.5)
It is recommended that the concrete pavements be reinforced with reinforcing steel bars. As a minimum,
the reinforcing bars should be No. 3 reinforcing bars spaced at about 15 in. (38 cm) on center in both
directions (depending upon slab dimensions). The concrete reinforcing should be placed approximately
1/3 the slab thickness below the surface, but not less than 2 in. (5.1 cm) The reinforcing steel should not
extend across construction or expansion joints.
Joints in concrete pavements aid in the construction and control the location and magnitude of cracks.
Where practical, lay out the construction, expansion, control, and sawed joints to form square panels, but
not to exceed American Concrete Institute (ACI) 302.69 Code recommendations. The ratio of slab lengthto-width should not exceed 1.25. Recommended joint spacing is 15 ft (4.6 m) longitudinal and 15 ft (4.6
m) transverse.
If possible, the pavement should develop a minimum slope of 0.015 ft/ft (0.015 m/m) to provide
surface drainage. Reinforced concrete pavement should cure a minimum of 7 days before allowing any
traffic.
PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
As with any soil-supported structure, the satisfactory performance of a pavement system is contingent on
the provision of adequate surface and subsurface drainage. Insufficient drainage, which allows saturation
of the pavement subgrade, will greatly reduce the performance and service life of the pavement systems,
even when the system is constructed using either typical cross section guidelines or design
recommendations based on site-specific soils testing.
Surface and subsurface drainage considerations crucial to the performance of pavements at this site
include (but are not limited to) the following:
1)
2)
Any known natural or man-made subsurface seepage at the site which may occur
at sufficiently shallow depths as to influence moisture contents within the
subgrade should be intercepted by drainage ditches or below grade french drains.
Final site grading should eliminate isolated depressions adjacent to curbs which
may allow surface water to pond and infiltrate into the underlying soils. Curbs

April 1, 2016
3)
21
should be installed to a sufficient depth below the flexible base materials to

reduce infiltration of water beneath the curbs.
Pavement surfaces should be maintained to reduce surface ponding and to
provide rapid sealing of any developing cracks. These measures will help
reduce infiltration of surface water downward through the pavement section.
SUBGRADE PREPARATION
Areas to support pavements should be stripped of all vegetation and/or organic topsoil down to a
minimum depth of 8 inches (20 cm) and extending a minimum of 2 ft (0.6 m) beyond the pavement
perimeters. Upon completion of site stripping activities, the exposed subgrade should be thoroughly
proofrolled in accordance with the Site Preparation subsection recommendations provided in the
Foundation Construction Considerations section of this report. Likewise, upon completion of the
proofrolling activities and just prior to select fill or flexible base placement, the exposed subgrade should
be scarified and recompacted as recommended in such subsection.
FLEXIBLE BASE COURSE
The flexible base course should consist of material conforming to TxDOT 2004 Standard Specifications for
Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges, Item 247, Flexible Base, Type A, Grades 1
or 2 (crushed limestone flexible base). Alternatively, the flexible base course material may comply with the
requirements of the Secretara de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT) Specification No. N-CMT-4-02002/11.
The flexible base course should be placed in lifts with a maximum compacted thickness of 8 in. (20 cm) and
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. The
moisture content of the base course materials should be maintained within the range of three percentage
points below the optimum moisture content to three percentage points above the optimum moisture
content until permanently covered.
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE
The asphaltic concrete surface course should conform to TxDOT 2004 Standard Specifications for
Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges, Item 340, Dense-Graded Hot-Mix
Asphalt, Type D.
Alternatively, if it is desired to utilize an SCT hot-mix asphalt specification, the hot-mix asphaltic concrete
surface course should develop a minimum Marshall stability of 1,800 lb. [816 kg] at 75 blows, a flow value
ranging from 8 to 14 (0.01-inch) [2 to 3.5 mm], and mix design air voids of 4% (+/-1%) in accordance with
the Marshall Method of Mix Design of the Asphalt Institutes Manual Series No. 2 (MS-2), Mix Design
Methods for Asphaltic Concrete, and the SCT Specification No. N-CMT-4-05-003/08. The aggregate used in
the hot-mix asphaltic concrete mix shall comply with the requirements of the SCT Specification No. N-CMT4-04/08 for a design traffic count value higher than 106 ESALs. The asphaltic concrete course shall have a
maximum nominal aggregate size of 1/2-inch (12.5 mm). According to Figure 1 of the SCT Specification

April 1, 2016
22
No. N-CMT-4-05-004/08, a PG 70-22 performance-graded asphalt binder is recommended for asphaltic

concrete mixes used in the City of Nogales.
The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 92 percent of the maximum theoretical
specific gravity (Rice) of the mixture determined according to Test Method Tex-227-F. Pavement
specimens, which shall be either cores or sections of asphaltic pavement, will be tested according to Test
Method Tex-207-F. The nuclear-density gauge or other methods which correlate satisfactorily with results
obtained from project roadway specimens may be used when approved by the Engineer. Unless
otherwise shown on the plans, the Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining the required roadway
specimens at their expense and in a manner and at locations selected by the Engineer.
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE
The Portland cement concrete pavement should be air entrained to result in 4 percent plus/minus 1
percent air, should have a maximum slump of 4 inches, and should have a minimum 28-day compressive
strength of 3,500 psi (250 kg/cm2). A liquid membrane-forming curing compound should be applied as
soon as practical after broom finishing the concrete surface. The curing compound will reduce the loss of
water from the concrete. The reduction in the rapid loss of water will reduce shrinkage cracking of the
concrete.
CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING AND TESTING SERVICES
As presented in the attachment to this report, Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering
Report, subsurface conditions can vary across a project site. The conditions described in this report are
based on interpolations derived from a limited number of data points. Variations will be encountered
during construction, and only the geotechnical design engineer will be able to determine if these
conditions are different than those assumed for design.
Construction problems resulting from variations or anomalies in subsurface conditions are among the
most prevalent on construction projects and often lead to delays, changes, cost overruns, and disputes.
These variations and anomalies can best be addressed if the geotechnical engineer of record, Raba Kistner,
is retained to perform construction materials engineering and testing services during the construction of
the project. This is because:
RKCI has an intimate understanding of the geotechnical engineering reports findings and
recommendations. RKCI understands how the report should be interpreted and can
provide such interpretations on site, on the CLIENTs behalf.
RKCI knows what subsurface conditions are anticipated at the site.
RKCI is familiar with the goals of the CLIENT and the projects design professionals, having
worked with them in the development of the project foundation design workscope. This
enables RKCI to suggest remedial measures (when needed) which help meet others
requirements.

April 1, 2016
23
RKCI has a vested interest in client satisfaction, and thus assigns qualified personnel
whose principal concern is client satisfaction. This concern is exhibited by the manner in
which contractors work is tested, evaluated and reported, and in selection of alternative
approaches when such may become necessary.
RKCI cannot be held accountable for problems which result due to misinterpretation of
our findings or recommendations when we are not on hand to provide the interpretation
which is required.
BUDGETING FOR CONSTRUCTION TESTING

Appropriate budgets need to be developed for the required construction materials engineering and testing
services. At the appropriate time before construction, we advise that RKCI and the project designers meet
and jointly develop the testing budgets, as well as review the testing specifications as it pertains to this
project.
Once the construction testing budget and scope of work are finalized, we encourage a preconstruction
meeting with the selected General Contractor to review the scope of work to make sure it is consistent
with the construction means and methods proposed by the contractor. RKCI looks forward to the
opportunity to provide continued support on this project, and would welcome the opportunity to meet
with the Project Team to develop both a scope and budget for these services.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The following figures are attached and complete this report:

Figure 1
Figures 2 through 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Boring Location Map

Logs of Borings
Key to Terms and Symbols
Results of Soil Sample Analyses
ATTACHMENTS
Engineering
Testing
Facilities
Environmental
Infrastructure
ALONG WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA LOS NOGALES
800 E. Hackberry Avenue

McAllen, Texas 78501
(956)682-5332 TEL
(956)682-5487 FAX
www.rkci.com
TBPE Firm F-3257
P-1
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-5
B-4
E.
B-8
AV
B-7
LO
S
NO
GA
LE
B-6
B-9
REVISIONS:
LOG OF BORING NO. B-1
1.5
10
20
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER
CONTENT
30
40
50
3.5
4.0
LIQUID
LIMIT
60
31
70
80
17
48
5
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC)

dense to very dense to dense, dark brown
% -200
1.0
PLASTIC
LIMIT
11
50
15
50/9"
10
50/9"
15
20
36

dense to very dense, light brown
25
30
15
45
50/6"
Boring terminated at a depth of about 29 ft.
REF/
6"
NOTES:
Upon completion of the drilling operations,
the boring was observed dry.
35
24-HOUR OBSERVATIONS:
The boring was observed dry.
40
DEPTH DRILLED:
DATE DRILLED:
29.0 ft
3/5/2016
DEPTH TO WATER:
DATE MEASURED:
DRY
3/5/2016
PROJ. No.:
FIGURE:
AXA16-002-00
2
NOTE: THESE LOGS SHOULD NOT BE USED SEPARATELY FROM THE PROJECT REPORT
SURFACE ELEVATION: Ex. Grade ft

POORLY-GRADED SAND with CLAY and
GRAVEL (SP-SC)
dense, reddish-brown
0.5
PLASTICITY
INDEX
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
TBPE Firm Registration No. F-3257
LOCATION: See Figure 1

SHEAR STRENGTH, TONS/FT2
UNIT DRY
WEIGHT, pcf
BLOWS PER FT
Straight Flight Auger

SAMPLES
SYMBOL
DEPTH, FT
DRILLING
METHOD:
Proposed Building Expansion-Belden Electronics (NOG001)

Along West Side of Avenida Los Nogales

dense to very dense, dark brown
1.0
1.5
PLASTIC
LIMIT
10
20
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER
CONTENT
30
40
50
4.0
60
70
80
48
19
50/9"
5
3.5
LIQUID
LIMIT
9
30
50/8"
45
10
50/9"
15
20
25
REF/5"
50
NOTES:
30
35
40
DEPTH DRILLED:
DATE DRILLED:
20.0 ft
3/4/2016
DEPTH TO WATER:
DATE MEASURED:
% -200
0.5
PLASTICITY
INDEX
UNIT DRY
WEIGHT, pcf

BLOWS PER FT
Hollow Stem Auger & Tricone Bit

SAMPLES
SYMBOL
DEPTH, FT
DRILLING
METHOD:

DRY
3/4/2016
PROJ. No.:
FIGURE:
AXA16-002-00
3

medium dense, light brown
10

medium dense to dense, reddish-brown
5
1.0
1.5
PLASTIC
LIMIT
20
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER
CONTENT
30
40
50
3.5
4.0
LIQUID
LIMIT
60
70
80
22
13
25
14
10
50/4"
24
50/
11"
15
50/
10"
20
18
41
25
36
50/7"
Boring terminated at a depth of about 29.6
ft.
NOTES:
35
40
DEPTH DRILLED:
DATE DRILLED:
29.6 ft
3/2/2016
DEPTH TO WATER:
DATE MEASURED:
DRY
3/2/2016
PROJ. No.:
FIGURE:
AXA16-002-00
4
50
very dense to dense to very dense, dark
brown
30
% -200
0.5
PLASTICITY
INDEX

UNIT DRY
WEIGHT, pcf
BLOWS PER FT

SAMPLES
SYMBOL
DEPTH, FT
DRILLING
METHOD:


very dense, dark brown
5
1.5
10
20
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER
CONTENT
30
40
50
3.5
4.0
LIQUID
LIMIT
60
27
70
80
13
50/
11"
20
50/6"
REF/
4"
10
26
33
15
46
20
47
25
19
50
30
REF/
1"
35
50/9"
40
DEPTH DRILLED:
DATE DRILLED:
% -200
1.0
PLASTIC
LIMIT
19
50/9"
115.1 ft
3/7/2016
DEPTH TO WATER:
DATE MEASURED:
DRY
3/7/2016
PROJ. No.:
FIGURE:
AXA16-002-00
5a

medium dense, brown
0.5
PLASTICITY
INDEX

UNIT DRY
WEIGHT, pcf
BLOWS PER FT

SAMPLES
SYMBOL
DEPTH, FT
DRILLING
METHOD:


very dense, dark brown (continued)
3.0
30
40
50
3.5
4.0
LIQUID
LIMIT
60
70
80
10
20

very dense, light brown
REF/
1"
REF/
2"
75
REF/
1"
- with reddish-brown sand lenses below a

depth of about 80 ft
85
REF/
1"
REF/
2"
115.1 ft
3/7/2016
DEPTH TO WATER:
DATE MEASURED:
% -200
2.5
WATER
CONTENT
50/3"
70
DEPTH DRILLED:
DATE DRILLED:
20
2.0
50/7"
60
80
1.5
32
55
65
1.0
PLASTIC
LIMIT
10
REF/
6"
50
0.5
PLASTICITY
INDEX

UNIT DRY
WEIGHT, pcf
BLOWS PER FT

SAMPLES
SYMBOL
DEPTH, FT
DRILLING
METHOD:

DRY
3/7/2016
PROJ. No.:
FIGURE:
AXA16-002-00
5b
REF/
1"
100
REF/
0"
105
REF/
1"
110
REF/0'
120

ft.
20
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER
CONTENT
30
40
50
3.5
4.0
LIQUID
LIMIT
60
70
80
REF/
1"
NOTES:
125
130
DEPTH DRILLED:
DATE DRILLED:
115.1 ft
3/7/2016
DEPTH TO WATER:
DATE MEASURED:
DRY
3/7/2016
% -200
1.5
PLASTICITY
INDEX
1.0
PLASTIC
LIMIT
10
REF/
0"
95
115
0.5

very dense, light brown (continued)
UNIT DRY
WEIGHT, pcf

BLOWS PER FT

SAMPLES
SYMBOL
DEPTH, FT
DRILLING
METHOD:

PROJ. No.:
FIGURE:
AXA16-002-00
5c
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL

medium dense to dense, dark brown
5
10
25
10
20
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER
CONTENT
30
40
50
3.5
4.0
LIQUID
LIMIT
60
22
70
80
6
38
20
15
13
42
12
14
17
30
NOTES:
30
35
40
DEPTH DRILLED:
DATE DRILLED:
20.0 ft
3/5/2016
DEPTH TO WATER:
DATE MEASURED:
% -200
1.5
PLASTICITY
INDEX
1.0
PLASTIC
LIMIT
46
15
20
0.5
DRY
3/5/2016
PROJ. No.:
FIGURE:
AXA16-002-00
6

CLAYEY, SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SC)
medium dense, dark brown

UNIT DRY
WEIGHT, pcf
BLOWS PER FT

SAMPLES
SYMBOL
DEPTH, FT
DRILLING
METHOD:

50/9"

medium dense to very dense, dark brown
to light brown
18
1.5
10
20
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER
CONTENT
30
40
50
3.5
4.0
LIQUID
LIMIT
60
70
80
7
25
50/6"
16
REF/
5"
10
20
25
50/7"
15
REF/3"

ft.
REF/
3"
NOTES:
25
30
35
40
DEPTH DRILLED:
DATE DRILLED:
18.8 ft
3/1/2016
DEPTH TO WATER:
DATE MEASURED:
% -200
1.0
PLASTIC
LIMIT
PLASTICITY
INDEX
0.5
DRY
3/1/2016
PROJ. No.:
FIGURE:
AXA16-002-00
7

CLAYEY SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SC-SM)
very dense, light brown to reddish-brown
UNIT DRY
WEIGHT, pcf

BLOWS PER FT

SAMPLES
SYMBOL
DEPTH, FT
DRILLING
METHOD:


dense to medium dense, dark brown
1.0
1.5
PLASTIC
LIMIT
10
20
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER
CONTENT
30
40
50
3.5
4.0
LIQUID
LIMIT
60
70
% -200
0.5
PLASTICITY
INDEX

UNIT DRY
WEIGHT, pcf
BLOWS PER FT

SAMPLES
SYMBOL
DEPTH, FT
DRILLING
METHOD:

80
38
19
25
18
13
46
10
32
15
20
25
44
20
NOTES:
30
35
40
DEPTH DRILLED:
DATE DRILLED:
20.0 ft
3/5/2016
DEPTH TO WATER:
DATE MEASURED:
DRY
3/5/2016
PROJ. No.:
FIGURE:
AXA16-002-00
8

medium dense to dense, dark brown
1.0
1.5
PLASTIC
LIMIT
10
20
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER
CONTENT
30
40
50
4.0
60
70
80
26
17
44
5
3.5
LIQUID
LIMIT
% -200
0.5
PLASTICITY
INDEX

UNIT DRY
WEIGHT, pcf
BLOWS PER FT
29
37
10
18
15
26
20
16
25
30
35
18
31
44
NOTES:
40
DEPTH DRILLED:
DATE DRILLED:
30.0 ft
3/5/2016
DEPTH TO WATER:
DATE MEASURED:
DRY
3/5/2016
PROJ. No.:
FIGURE:
AXA16-002-00
9
SAMPLES
SYMBOL
DEPTH, FT
DRILLING
METHOD:


POORLY-GRADED SAND with CLAY and
GRAVEL (SP-SC)
very dense, dark brown
very dense, light brown
5
1.0
1.5
PLASTIC
LIMIT
10
20
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER
CONTENT
30
40
50
3.5
4.0
LIQUID
LIMIT
60
70
% -200
0.5
PLASTICITY
INDEX

UNIT DRY
WEIGHT, pcf
BLOWS PER FT
80
50/9"
REF/
3"
REF/
2"
REF/
4"
10
REF/
2"
15
REF/
3"
20
REF/
3"
25

ft.
28
REF/
4"
NOTES:
30
35
40
DEPTH DRILLED:
DATE DRILLED:
23.8 ft
3/5/2016
DEPTH TO WATER:
DATE MEASURED:
DRY
3/5/2016
PROJ. No.:
FIGURE:
AXA16-002-00
10
SAMPLES
SYMBOL
DEPTH, FT
DRILLING
METHOD:

LOG OF BORING NO. P-1

medium dense, light brown, with roots
extending down to a depth of about 2 ft
10
1.5
10
20
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER
CONTENT
30
40
50
3.5
4.0
LIQUID
LIMIT
60
70
80
17
12
27

NOTES:
15
20
25
30
35
40
DEPTH DRILLED:
DATE DRILLED:
% -200
1.0
PLASTIC
LIMIT
PLASTICITY
INDEX
0.5

UNIT DRY
WEIGHT, pcf
BLOWS PER FT

SAMPLES
SYMBOL
DEPTH, FT
DRILLING
METHOD:

5.0 ft
3/5/2016
DEPTH TO WATER:
DATE MEASURED:
DRY
3/5/2016
PROJ. No.:
FIGURE:
AXA16-002-00
11
KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS

MATERIAL TYPES
SOIL TERMS
ROCK TERMS
OTHER
CALCAREOUS
PEAT
CHALK
LIMESTONE
ASPHALT
CALICHE
SAND
CLAYSTONE
MARL
BASE
CLAY
SANDY
CLAY-SHALE
METAMORPHIC
CONCRETE/CEMENT
CLAYEY
SILT
CONGLOMERATE
SANDSTONE
BRICKS /
PAVERS
GRAVEL
SILTY
DOLOMITE
SHALE
WASTE
GRAVELLY
FILL
IGNEOUS
SILTSTONE
NO INFORMATION
WELL CONSTRUCTION AND PLUGGING MATERIALS
BLANK PIPE
BENTONITE
BENTONITE &
CUTTINGS
CUTTINGS
SAND
SCREEN
CEMENT GROUT
CONCRETE/CEMENT
GRAVEL
VOLCLAY
SAMPLE TYPES
STRENGTH TEST TYPES

POCKET PENETROMETER
AIR
ROTARY
MUD
ROTARY
SHELBY TUBE
GRAB
SAMPLE
NO
RECOVERY
SPLIT BARREL
TORVANE
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION
UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED
CORE
NX CORE
SPLIT SPOON
TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION
CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED
GEOPROBE
SAMPLER
PITCHER
TEXAS CONE
PENETROMETER
ROTOSONIC
-DAMAGED
ROTOSONIC
-INTACT
DISTURBED
REVISED 04/2012
NOTE: VALUES SYMBOLIZED ON BORING LOGS REPRESENT SHEAR

STRENGTHS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

FIGURE 12a
KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS (CONT'D)

TERMINOLOGY
Terms used in this report to describe soils with regard to their consistency or conditions are in general accordance with the
discussion presented in Article 45 of SOILS MECHANICS IN ENGINEERING PRACTICE, Terzaghi and Peck, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
1967, using the most reliable information available from the field and laboratory investigations. Terms used for describing soils
according to their texture or grain size distribution are in accordance with the UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, as described
in American Society for Testing and Materials D2487-06 and D2488-00, Volume 04.08, Soil and Rock; Dimension Stone;
Geosynthetics; 2005.
The depths shown on the boring logs are not exact, and have been estimated to the nearest half-foot. Depth measurements may
be presented in a manner that implies greater precision in depth measurement, i.e 6.71 meters. The reader should understand
and interpret this information only within the stated half-foot tolerance on depth measurements.
RELATIVE DENSITY
COHESIVE STRENGTH
Penetration
Resistance
Blows per ft
Relative
Density
Resistance
Blows per ft
Consistency
0 - 4
Very Loose
0 - 2
Very Soft
4 - 10
Loose
2 - 4
Soft
10 - 30
Medium Dense
4 - 8
30 - 50
Dense
Very Dense
> 50
PLASTICITY
Plasticity
Index
Degree of
Plasticity
0 - 5
None
0.125 - 0.25
5 - 10
Low
Firm
0.25 - 0.5
10 - 20
Moderate
8 - 15
Stiff
0.5 - 1.0
20 - 40
Plastic
15 - 30
Very Stiff
1.0 - 2.0
> 40
> 30
Cohesion
TSF
0 - 0.125
Hard
Highly Plastic
> 2.0
ABBREVIATIONS
B = Benzene
Qam, Qas, Qal = Quaternary Alluvium
Kef = Eagle Ford Shale
T = Toluene
Qat = Low Terrace Deposits
Kbu = Buda Limestone
E = Ethylbenzene
Qbc = Beaumont Formation
Kdr = Del Rio Clay
X = Total Xylenes
BTEX = Total BTEX
TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
ND = Not Detected
Qt = Fluviatile Terrace Deposits

Qao = Seymour Formation
Kgt = Georgetown Formation
Qle = Leona Formation
Kep = Person Formation
Q-Tu = Uvalde Gravel
NA = Not Analyzed
Ewi = Wilcox Formation
NR = Not Recorded/No Recovery
Emi = Midway Group
OVA = Organic Vapor Analyzer

ppm = Parts Per Million
Kft = Fort Terrett Member
Mc = Catahoula Formation
EI = Laredo Formation
Kknm = Navarro Group and Marlbrook
Marl
Kpg = Pecan Gap Chalk
Kek = Kainer Formation

Kes = Escondido Formation
Kew = Walnut Formation
Kgr = Glen Rose Formation
Kgru = Upper Glen Rose Formation
Kgrl = Lower Glen Rose Formation
Kh = Hensell Sand
Kau = Austin Chalk

REVISED 04/2012
FIGURE 12b
KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS (CONT'D)

TERMINOLOGY
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.
SAMPLING METHODS
RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLING
Cohesive soil samples are to be collected using three-inch thin-walled tubes in general accordance with the Standard Practice
for Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Soils (ASTM D1587) and granular soil samples are to be collected using two-inch split-barrel
samplers in general accordance with the Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils (ASTM
D1586). Cohesive soil samples may be extruded on-site when appropriate handling and storage techniques maintain sample
integrity and moisture content.
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

A 2-in.-OD, 1-3/8-in.-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.
Blows Per Foot

25
50/7"
Ref/3"
SPLIT-BARREL SAMPLER DRIVING RECORD
Description
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.

REVISED 04/2012
FIGURE 12c
RESULTS OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSES

PROJECT NAME:

FILE NAME: AXA16-002-00.GPJ
3/30/2016
Boring
No.
Sample
Depth
(ft)
Blows
per ft
Water
Content
(%)
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index
USCS
B-1
0.0 to 1.5
31
38
21
17
SP-SC
2.5 to 4.0
48
5.0 to 6.5
50
7.5 to 8.8
50/9"
10.0 to 11.3
50/9"
15.0 to 16.5
36
20.0 to 21.5
45
B-2
B-3
B-4
25.0 to 26.0
50/6"
28.5 to 29.0
REF/ 6"
10
0.0 to 1.5
48
2.5 to 3.8
50/9"
5.0 to 6.2
50/8"
34
19
15
19
30
21
SC
30
45
7
10
15.0 to 15.4
REF/5"
18.5 to 20.0
50
15
0.0 to 1.5
22
34
21
13
SC
2.5 to 4.0
25
30
16
14
SC
5.0 to 6.5
50
11
7.5 to 8.8
50/4"
39
15
24
SC
10.0 to 11.4
50/ 11"
10
15.0 to 16.3
50/ 10"
21
20.0 to 21.5
41
17
25.0 to 26.5
36
12
28.5 to 29.6
50/7"
27
7
6
5.0 to 6.0
50/6"
7.5 to 7.8
REF/ 4"
10.0 to 11.5
33
15.0 to 16.5
46
20.0 to 21.5
47
25.0 to 26.5
50
10
30.0 to 30.1
REF/ 1"
11
35.0 to 36.3
50/9"
40.0 to 41.3
50/9"
45.0 to 45.5
REF/ 6"
10
50.0 to 51.5
32
11
55.0 to 56.1
50/7"
10
PP = Pocket Penetrometer
18
32
19
13
SC
20
30
21
SC
26
19
19
30
20
10
SC
20
TV = Torvane
CU = Consolidated Undrained Triaxial
Strength
Test
15
50/9"
50/ 11"
Shear
Strength
(tsf)
SC
7.5 to 9.0
2.5 to 3.9
% -200
Sieve
11
10.0 to 11.3
0.0 to 1.5
Dry Unit
Weight
(pcf)
UC = Unconfined Compression
CNBD = Cound Not Be Determined
FV = Field Vane UU = Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial

NP = Non-Plastic

FIGURE 13a

PROJECT NAME:


Boring
No.
Sample
Depth
(ft)
Blows
per ft
Water
Content
(%)
B-4
60.0 to 60.8
50/3"
65.0 to 65.1
REF/ 1"
70.0 to 70.2
REF/ 2"
75.0 to 75.1
REF/ 1"
10
80.0 to 80.1
REF/ 1"
85.0 to 85.2
REF/ 2"
90.0 to 90.0
REF/ 0"
95.0 to 95.1
REF/ 1"
3/30/2016
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index
USCS
27
21
SC-SM
Dry Unit
Weight
(pcf)
% -200
Sieve
Shear
Strength
(tsf)
Strength
Test
100.0 to 100.0 REF/ 0"
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
105.0 to 105.1 REF/ 1"
110.0 to 110.0
REF/0'
10
115.0 to 115.1 REF/ 1"
0.0 to 1.5
22
10
2.5 to 4.0
38
5.0 to 6.5
15
33
20
13
SC
34
22
12
SC
7.5 to 9.0
42
10.0 to 11.5
46
15.0 to 16.5
17
18.5 to 20.0
30
11
0.0 to 1.3
50/9"
2.5 to 4.0
18
14
5.0 to 6.0
50/6"
7.5 to 7.9
REF/ 5"
13
10.0 to 11.1
50/7"
15.0 to 15.3
REF/3"
15
18.5 to 18.8
REF/ 3"
0.0 to 1.5
38
2.5 to 4.0
25
5.0 to 6.5
18
7.5 to 9.0
46
10.0 to 11.5
32
15.0 to 16.5
44
18.5 to 20.0
20
0.0 to 1.5
26
2.5 to 4.0
44
5.0 to 6.5
29
7.5 to 9.0
37
10
10.0 to 11.5
18
10
15.0 to 16.5
26
20
14
21
SC-SM
38
22
16
SC
25
25
19
13
30
21
SC
17
32
23
SC
18
TV = Torvane
28

NP = Non-Plastic

FIGURE 13b

PROJECT NAME:

3/30/2016
Boring
No.
Sample
Depth
(ft)
Blows
per ft
Water
Content
(%)
B-8
20.0 to 21.5
16
12
25.0 to 26.5
31
11
28.5 to 30.0
44
10
0.0 to 1.3
50/9"
2.5 to 2.8
REF/ 3"
5.0 to 5.2
REF/ 2"
7.5 to 7.8
REF/ 4"
10.0 to 10.2
REF/ 2"
10
15.0 to 15.3
REF/ 3"
20.0 to 20.3
REF/ 3"
23.5 to 23.8
REF/ 4"
0.0 to 1.5
17
33
21
12
SC
3.5 to 5.0
27
30
22
SC
B-9
P-1
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index
USCS
Dry Unit
Weight
(pcf)
% -200
Sieve
Shear
Strength
(tsf)
Strength
Test
8
26
17
SC
28
TV = Torvane
Liquid
Limit

NP = Non-Plastic

FIGURE 13c
Important Information about This
Geotechnical-Engineering Report
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for

Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the

specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering
study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of
a constructor a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering study
is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique,
prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on
this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring
with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
not even you should apply this report for any purpose or
project except the one originally contemplated.
Read the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on

a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Do
not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected
elements only.
Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on

a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider many unique, project-specific

factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors
include: the clients goals, objectives, and risk-management
preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its
size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the
site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless
the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically
indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering
report that was:
not prepared for you;
not prepared for your project;
not prepared for the specific site explored; or
completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing
geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect:
the function of the proposed structure, as when its changed
from a parking garage to an office building, or from a lightindustrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;
the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight
of the proposed structure;
the composition of the design team; or
project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer
of project changeseven minor onesand request an
assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot

accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because
their reports do not consider developments of which they were
not informed.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that

existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the
study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose
adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time;
man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the
site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes,
or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer
before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A
minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent
major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional

Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those

points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are
taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory
data and then apply their professional judgment to render
an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ sometimes
significantly from those indicated in your report. Retaining
the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to
provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most
effective method of managing the risks associated with
unanticipated conditions.
A Reports Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the confirmation-dependent

recommendations included in your report. Confirmationdependent recommendations are not final, because
geotechnical engineers develop them principally from
judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize
their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface
conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical
engineer who developed your report cannot assume
responsibility or liability for the reports confirmation-dependent
recommendations if that engineer does not perform the
geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the
recommendations applicability.
A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject

to Misinterpretation
Other design-team members misinterpretation of
geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly
problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical

engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team
after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical
engineer to review pertinent elements of the design teams
plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret
a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and
preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical
construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineers Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs

based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory
data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a
geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn
for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only
photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but
recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and

Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they

can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface
conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation.
To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the
complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with
a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise
constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes
of bid development and that the reports accuracy is limited;
encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer
who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/
or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of
information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also
be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform
additional study. Only then might you be in a position to
give constructors the best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial
responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to

recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than
other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding
has created unrealistic expectations that have led to
disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include
a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes
labeled limitations, many of these provisions indicate where
geotechnical engineers responsibilities begin and end, to help
others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read

these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical
engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform

an environmental study differ significantly from those used to
perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnicalengineering report does not usually relate any environmental
findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about
the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks
or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental
problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not
yet obtained your own environmental information,
ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management
guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
someone else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal

with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design,

construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent
significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.
To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for
the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a
comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a
professional mold-prevention consultant. Because just a small
amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of
severe mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategies
focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater,
water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed
as part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in
charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant;
none of the services performed in connection with the
geotechnical engineers study were designed or conducted for
the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the
recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be
sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure
involved.
Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer
for Additional Assistance
Membership in the Geotechnical Business Council of the
Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques
that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with
a construction project. Confer with you GBC-Member
geotechnical engineer for more information.
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910

Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org
Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part,
by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBAs specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document
is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBAmay use
this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without
being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
CONSULTANTS ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE
San Antonio , TX
Austin, TX
Dallas , TX
McAllen, TX
Brownsville, TX
El Paso, TX
Mexico
Corpus Christi , TX
Houston, TX
Salt Lake City, UT
R A B AK I S T N E R

AXA16-002-00 Report

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

AXA16-002-00 Report

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Mr. Rafael Martnez, LEED APBD+C

Geotechnical Engineering Study

Dear Mr. Martnez:

O:\Active Projects\McAllen\2016\AXA16\AXA16-002-00 Belden Electronics Building Expansion-Nogales\Reporting\AXA16-002-00 Report.doc

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY

PROPOSED BUILDING EXPANSION BELDEN ELECTRONICS (NOG001)

PROJECT NO. AXA16-002-00

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Stability Analysis of Slope on West Side

B-1, B-3, and B-8

B-2, B-5 through B-7

Ground-Supported, Water Storage Tank

Parking Lots and Driveway Areas

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Split-Spoon (with Standard Penetration Test, SPT)

Natural Moisture Content

Percent Passing a No. 200 Sieve

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Figure 1 Existing Drainage Canal

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Figure 2 Existing Drainage Canal

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Soil Shear Wave

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Along the West

Probable Factor of Safety

STA 0+140.00 (Steepest Slope)

STA 0+205.00 (Tallest Slope)

STA 0+250.00 (Tallest Slope)

STA 0+420.00 (Steepest Slope)

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Project No. AXA16-002-00

36 in. (91 cm)

Minimum beam width:

12 in. (30 cm)

Maximum allowable soil-bearing pressure for continuous footings - grade beams:

2,300 psf (11.2 metric tons/m2)

Maximum allowable soil-bearing pressure for spread footings - widened beams:

2,700 psf (13.2 metric tons/m2)

Where psf = pounds per square foot

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Project No. AXA16-002-00

EXCAVATION SLOPING AND BENCHING

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Automobile drives and parking lots (light vehicular traffic); and

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Project No. AXA16-002-00

Automobile Drives and Parking Lots

Truck Loading/Unloading Areas and Drive-in Lanes

Project No. AXA16-002-00

should be installed to a sufficient depth below the flexible base materials to

Project No. AXA16-002-00

No. N-CMT-4-05-004/08, a PG 70-22 performance-graded asphalt binder is recommended for asphaltic