1210 W Arthur Ave

Geotechnical Report
Proposed Mixed-Use Development

1200 West Arthur Avenue
Chicago, Illinois
STS Project No. 200801011
Prepared by:
Patrick C. Chang
Senior Project Engineer
STS
847.279.2522
STS
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Overview.................................. 1
1.1 Project Description................................................................ 1
2.0 Exploration Procedures ....................... 2
2.1 Subsurface Exploration......................................................... 2
2.2 Laboratory Testing Program ................................................ 3
3.0 Exploration Results.............................. 4
3.1 Site Conditions..................................................................... 4
3.2 Soil Conditions ..................................................................... 4
3.3 Groundwater Conditions ...................................................... 4
4.0 Supplemental Geotechnical
Recommendations..................................... 5
4.1 Supplemental Foundation Analysis ...................................... 5
4.2 Open-Cut Excavation........................................................... 7
5.0 Construction Considerations............... 8
6.0 General Qualifications ......................... 9
K:\PROJECTS\200801011\Final\R200801011_MixedUse_Development_1200W.Arthur.doc
STS
1.0 Project Overview

1.1 Project Description
For the information provided, we understand that the site is being planned for a four-level mixed-use structure. The
majority portion of the development will be utilized for a parking structure. A small portion to be located at the
southwest corner of the site will be utilized as staff residences for Loyola University. We also understand that it is
desired to support the proposed parking portion on drilled and belled caissons situated on the hardpan layer
encountered in previous soil borings at depths on the order of approximately 58 to 60 feet below ground surface,
and the residential portion on a shallow foundation. The maximum column load to be supported by belled caissons
is approximately 1400 kips; the structural load information on the shallow foundation was not available at the time
of preparing this report. No basement spaces are expected for this construction.
STS previously completed a due diligence preliminary geotechnical engineering study at the above referenced site
for Newcastle Limited, a marketing agent for Loyola University, and provided general geotechnical
recommendations for both shallow footing foundations and drilled caissons supported on the hardpan layer in a
geotechnical report dated September 18, 2006. A copy of the geotechnical report is attached in the Appendix.
This report includes supplemental geotechnical exploration and evaluation primarily for the purpose of completing
in-situ vane shear testing and pressuremeter testing, which were not performed in the previous program, and to
provide more specific foundation design recommendations for the structure described above. The supplemental
subsurface exploration consisted of two (2) additional soil borings. These borings were laid out in the field by
representatives of STS. The purpose of this report is to describe the supplemental field exploration, in-situ and
laboratory testing procedures utilized to evaluate the soil and groundwater conditions which were encountered in
the borings, and to present our supplemental recommendations for the design and construction of foundations.
STS
2.0 Exploration Procedures

2.1 Subsurface Exploration
The borings, numbered as B-1A and B-4A, were performed by Subsurface Exploration, Inc. (SEI), a subsidiary
drilling company of STS. The boring locations are shown on the Soil Boring Location Diagram in the Appendix.
These borings were completed in the nearby vicinity of previous Borings B-1 and B-4, respectively. The borings
were performed with a truck mounted drilling rig which utilized continuous flight augers to initiate the boreholes.
The rotary, wash boring procedure was used in the drilling operation below the water table. Representative soil
samples were obtained in the borings by means of both split-barrel and Shelby tube sampling procedures, in
general conformance with ASTM Standards D 1586 and D 1587, respectively. Soil samples were obtained at depth
intervals of approximately 10 feet to boring completion. The soil samples recovered by the split-barrel sampler
were placed in clean glass jars, labeled, sealed and along with the Shelby tube samples, transported to our Vernon
Hills, Illinois laboratory. Upon completion of the field drilling and sampling operations, the boreholes were grouted
so as to prevent them from becoming passageways for the upward or downward movement of ground or surface
runoff water. During the field operations, the drill crew maintained a log of the drilling procedures and soil
conditions encountered.
In conjunction with the normal sampling procedures, in-situ vane shear tests were performed at the site. In-situ
vane shear tests were performed in both soil borings at depths varying from 20.5 feet to 50 feet below grade in
general accordance with ASTM Standard D 2573. The purpose of the vane shear testing was to determine the in-
situ undrained shear strength of the soft to medium stiff clay deposits. The results of the vane shear tests in terms
of undrained shear strength, Su, are indicated on the soil boring logs. A Table that summarizes the peak and
remolded shear strength and sensitivity at each of the test locations is presented in the Appendix.
In-situ pressuremeter tests were also performed in both boring locations at depths ranging from 55 to 65 feet below
grade. The purpose of the pressuremeter testing was to evaluate the stress-strain-strength properties of the silty
clay hardpan for drilled caisson bearing capacity and settlement evaluation. Data obtained from the pressuremeter
tests and a brief description of the principles involved in the testing procedure is included in the Appendix.
Relative ground surface elevations at two boring locations were measured by the drill crew using an assumed
benchmark, the top of the curb at the southwest corner of Arthur Avenue and Sheridan Road, with an elevation of
+9.0 Chicago City Datum (CCD). The location of the referenced benchmark is shown on the attached Soil Boring
Location Diagram. These surface elevations are indicated on the attached boring logs.
STS
2.2 Laboratory Testing Program

The soil samples recovered from the borings were subjected to a laboratory testing program which included
determination of the natural moisture content and visual classification of each soil sample. The visual classification
was performed according to the STS Soil Classification System; the estimated group symbol according to the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) is included in parentheses following the soil descriptions on the boring
logs. The STS Soil Classification System is based on the USCS. A brief explanation of the STS Soil Classification
System is attached.
Where cohesive soils were recovered, the unconfined compressive strength was measured utilizing a hand
penetrometer. In the hand penetrometer test, the unconfined compressive strength is estimated, to a maximum
value of 7.0 tons per square foot (tsf), by measuring the resistance of the soil sample to penetration of a small,
spring-calibrated cylinder. Where granular soils or fill materials were encountered, the Standard Penetration
Resistance values were determined in-situ as the borings were advanced. The results of our field observations and
field and laboratory tests are summarized on formal boring logs which are enclosed with this report.
The procedures utilized in preparing the final boring logs from the field logs and laboratory test data are described
on the attached sheet entitled “STS Standard Boring Log Procedures”. The soil samples recovered from the
borings will be retained in our Vernon Hills, Illinois laboratory for a period of sixty (60) days, after which they will be
discarded unless other instructions as to their disposition are received.
STS
3.0 Exploration Results

3.1 Site Conditions
The subject site is bounded by a 16-foot wide alley to the north, West Arthur Avenue to the south, Sheridan Road to
the east, West Loyola Avenue to the northeast and an existing low-rise residential building to the west. The ground
surface was relatively flat and covered by bituminous concrete. At the time of boring, the site was used as an open
parking lot.
3.2 Soil Conditions

The specific soil conditions encountered at the two boring locations are indicated on the respective boring logs and
summarized below.
Generally, asphaltic concrete was encountered at the surface and was underlain by a thin layer of base fill material.
Fine to coarse sand was encountered underlying the pavement and extended to a depth of approximately 18.5 feet
below grade. The sand was moist in the upper portion and became saturated at the bottom. The relative density
was medium dense to dense. Underlying the sand layer, soft to medium silty clay was encountered a depth of 55
feet and 49 feet below grade in Boring B-1A and B-4A, respectively. In Boring B-4A, a thin layer of stiff to very stiff
silty clay was encountered beneath the sand and overlying the soft to medium silty clay. Underlying the soft to
medium clay, very stiff to hard silty clay was encountered to the termination of both borings.
It should be noted that the stratification lines indicated on the boring logs were selected on the basis of laboratory
tests, field logs and visual observations of the recovered soil samples. Therefore, the stratification lines that occur
on the boring logs are, in some cases, estimated; in-situ, the transition between soil types in both the horizontal and
vertical directions may be gradual.
3.3 Groundwater Conditions

Water level observations were not made in the supplemental soil boring holes both during and immediately
following completion of the drilling and sampling operations. The previous program revealed that the long term
groundwater level was estimated at 8.5 feet approximately below the existing ground surface at the time the
previous borings were performed. Fluctuations in the level of the groundwater table should be anticipated
throughout the years, depending upon variations in precipitation, evaporation and surface runoff.
STS
4.0 Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations

4.1 Supplemental Foundation Analysis
Shallow footings should be extended to the naturally occurring medium dense silty sand which was encountered
below a depth of 5 feet and above the long-term ground water table. The previous STS geotechnical report
recommends that these footings be proportioned for a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure not to exceed
3,000 psf. The supplemental calculations attached in the Appendix indicate that total settlement of footing
foundations, situated in the recommended bearing strata described above, designed for 3,000 psf, and under a
typical assumed load for a low-rise structure, is estimated to be approximately on the order of 1 inch with typical
differential settlements on the order of one half of the total settlement. In order to prevent disproportionately small
footing sizes, we recommend that continuous wall footings have a minimum lateral dimension of 18 inches, and that
isolated column foundations have a minimum lateral dimension of 30 inches. To provide frost protection, we
recommend that perimeter footings of heated areas be located at a minimum depth of 3.5 feet below finished
grade, and that any footings in non-heated areas be extended to a minimum depth of 4 feet below finished grade.
The previous STS geotechnical report recommends belled caisson foundations be founded on the hard silty clay
hardpan at a depth of approximately 58 to 60 feet below existing grade, with a maximum net allowable soil pressure
not to exceed 20,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The two additional borings performed during the supplemental
exploration confirm the above recommended caisson bearing strata and depth. However, the pressuremeter tests
conducted in the hardpan layer indicate that the maximum net allowable bearing capacity can be increased to
25,000 psf. The maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure is that pressure which may be transmitted to the
foundation soils in excess of the final minimum surrounding overburden pressure. This value may be increased by
1/3 for intermittent loads such as wind.
We estimate a maximum settlement in the range of 0.9 inch or less for caisson foundations supported on the hard
clay described above for the column load described earlier in this report. Differential settlements would be
dependent on the adjacent loads but are typically about 1/2 to 2/3 of the total settlement. It should be noted that
these settlement values are for soil compression only and that elastic compression of the caisson concrete should
be added to these values.
Silty sand was encountered in previous and supplemental explorations from near the ground surface to a depth of
approximately 18 feet below grade. The long term groundwater table at this site is estimated to be at 8.5 feet below
grade. To prevent the surface granular soils from sloughing into the caisson shaft and water inflow from the
shallow water table, we recommend that a temporary steel casing be employed at the surface during construction.
This temporary casing should be extended to a minimum of 2 feet into the underlying clay to effect a seal against
groundwater.
5
STS
Based on the in-situ vane shear strength test data obtained in the soft to medium silty clay layer, there is a possibility
of squeezing clay. Since there is the possibility of soft zones, we recommend that caisson construction begin at the
center of the site and the caissons be monitored by a representative of STS to determine if squeeze is occurring. In
the event of squeezing, longer length temporary casing may be required. The amount of squeeze is dependent not
only upon the strength of soils encountered but also on the length of time the excavation is left open. This squeeze
could result in settlements of adjacent city utilities, streets, and adjacent building; therefore, perimeter caissons may
need to be temporarily cased through potentially squeezing soft clay. The contractor should have temporary casings
of sufficient length available at this jobsite in the event they are needed.
We recommend temporary casing through potentially squeezing clays when the total vertical overburden pressure
divided by the undrained shear strength exceeds the values listed in the following table:
Total Overburden Pressure/Undrained

Depth/Shaft Radius
Shear Strength SU
4 5
8 6
12 6.5
16 7
20 7.5
24 8
28 8.5
32 9.0
A minimum caisson shaft diameter of 2 1/2 feet is recommended. The caisson bell diameter should not
exceed 3 times the shaft diameter. The contractor should extend the caisson bell sufficiently so that the bell
excavation clears the bottom of the temporary casing. After belling is completed, concrete should be placed
immediately. Each caisson should be excavated and filled with concrete within the same work day before
leaving the site. Caisson concrete may be placed by the free fall method into the clean and dry shaft
excavations as long as concrete does not hit the sides of the shaft or the rebar cage during placement.
Concrete slump should be in the range of 5 to 7 inches. Maximum aggregate size for the caisson concrete
should be ¾ inch.
STS
The direct observation of the caisson bell excavation is not anticipated due to safety concerns. Unless a caisson
camera is used to observe the excavation, it will be necessary to oversize the bell area by 15% or 1 foot, whichever
is smaller. Alternatively, if it proves more economical, a camera could be lowered into the bell after final cleanup to
verify that the bell is suitably free of loose material and the oversize eliminated. We recommend that a
representative of STS be present during all phases of caisson construction to observe that the excavations have
reached a suitable bearing stratum as recommended.
Differential settlement between the drilled caisson supported portion of the building and footing supported areas is
expected to be on the order of 1 inch. Appropriate reinforcing and expansion/control joints should be utilized in the
structure where these transitions between foundation types and ground level floor slabs are made.
4.2 Open-Cut Excavation

An open-cut excavation, extending to a depth of approximately 4 feet, is planned in the site. Drawing No.
ERS2/EX2 (dated March 7, 2008, attached in the Appendix) provided to STS by Antunovich Associates shows that
the open-cut excavation will be very close to the existing residential building in the west property line. The cut
slope varies from 1 Horizontal (H):1 Vertical (V) to 1.5 H:1V. For the loose silty sand encountered at the surface of
all boring locations, STS is of opinion that proposed cut slope may be too steep to stay stable. A flatter cut slope
may be required.
The above Drawing also shows that the existing residential building is supported on shallow footings at a depth
approximately the same level as the open-cut excavation. As requested, STS analyzed the bearing capacity of
existing footings after the open-cut excavation. The detailed calculation is attached in the Appendix. The results
show that the bearing capacity of existing footings will be approximately 1000 psf after the open-cut excavation
(removal of the confining overburden) using a typical factor of safety of 3 for bearing capacity of shallow footings.
For the open-cut excavation close to existing footings, there is possibility that the granular soil may displace
laterally from beneath the existing footing. If such movement does occur, the bearing capacity of existing footings
may be less. As importantly, this may result in settlement cracks in the existing building. Those problems may be
avoided by constructing a properly designed sheet pile earth retention system to retain the soil in essentially the Ko
(the earth pressure at rest) state outside the open-cut excavation, or by stabilizing the sandy soils by solidification
grouting. We caution that driving of sheeting immediately adjacent to the existing building footing may actually
density the sandy soil immediately around the sheeting, potentially causing foundation settlement.
Sliding or overturning stability analyses of existing footings were also carried out based on the above mentioned
Drawing and assumptions. The calculation attached in the Appendix shows that those movement may not likely
occur after the open-cut excavation.
STS
5.0 Construction Considerations

Problems including accumulation of seepage or runoff water at the base of the foundation excavations may occur
during construction. All such accumulations should be promptly removed. Additionally, all soils which become
softened or loosened at the base of the foundation excavations should be carefully trimmed down to an approved,
undisturbed soil surface prior to the placement of foundation concrete or compacted fill. No concrete or fill should
be placed into excavations containing water or disturbed soil. Excavation close to the existing building foundations
should be carefully monitored. An earth retention system or foundation underpinning may be required.
Construction safety is the responsibility of the contractor.
Construction issues related to the drilled caisson foundation have been addressed above.
We suggest that a pre-construction meeting be held before beginning foundation construction to review the
installation procedures and to discuss any potential problems and means of resolution to reduce potential problems
during construction.
The supplemental recommendations in this report are based on our supplemental geotechnical exploration
services, in-situ vane shear and pressuremeter testing at the site. We recommend STS be retained as the
construction quality assurance firm to provide consistency between design recommendations and foundation
construction. A full-time STS technician should be assigned to the project to observe excavation of the soil to confirm
the bearing strata and observe the placement of steel reinforcement and concrete. An STS soils technician should
be present to observe earthwork activities.
STS
6.0 General Qualifications

The preceding recommendations are based upon available information gathered from the subsurface exploration
completed on the site for this project and our experience in the area. The limitations and qualifications applicable to
this report are included in the Appendix. We recommend that STS be provided the opportunity to review the final
project plans and specifications to confirm that the recommendations contained in this report have been interpreted
in accordance with our intent.
STS
Appendix
1. General Qualifications
2. Soil Boring Location Diagram
3. Soil Boring Logs
4. In-Situ Vane Shear Test Results
5. Pressuremeter Test Results
STS Pressuremeter Procedures
6. Previous Geotechnical Report
7. Analysis Calculations
Drawing No ERS2/EX2 (provided by Antunovich Associates)
8. General Notes
STS Soil Classification System
STS Field and Laboratory Procedures
STS Standard Boring Log Procedures
STS
APPENDIX 1
General Qualifications
STS General Qualifications
Underground Engineering
This report has been prepared in general accordance with normally accepted geotechnical engineering
practices to aid in the evaluation of this site and to assist our Client in the design of this project. We have
prepared this report for the purpose intended by our Client, and reliance on its contents by anyone other
than our Client is done at the sole risk of the user. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is
made. The scope is limited to the specific project and location described herein, and our description of
the project represents our understanding of the significant aspects relevant to the geotechnical
characteristics. In the event that any changes in the design or location of the facilities as outlined in this
report are planned, we should be informed so that the changes can be reviewed and the conclusions of
this report modified as necessary in writing by the geotechnical engineer. As a check, we recommend
that we be authorized to review the project plans and specifications to confirm that the recommendations
contained in this report have been interpreted in accordance with our intent. Without this review, we will
not be responsible for the misinterpretation of our data, our analysis, and/or our recommendations, nor
how these are incorporated into the final design.
The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the data obtained from the soil
borings performed at the locations indicated on the location diagram and from the information discussed
in this report. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between the borings. In the
performance of subsurface explorations, specific information is obtained at specific locations at specific
times. However, it is a well-known fact that variations in soil and rock conditions exist on most sites
between boring locations and that seasonal and annual fluctuations in groundwater levels will likely occur.
The nature and extent of variations may not become evident until the course of construction. If variations
then appear evident, it will be necessary for a re-evaluation of the recommendations contained in this
report after performing on-site observations during the construction period and noting the characteristics
of the variations.
The geotechnical engineer of record is the professional engineer who authored the geotechnical report. It
is recommended that all construction operations dealing with earthwork and foundations be observed by
the geotechnical engineer of record or the geotechnical engineer’s appointed representative to confirm
that the design requirements are fulfilled in the actual construction. For some projects, this may be
required by the governing building code.
The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any
environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria, viruses, and the byproducts of such organisms)
assessment of the site, or identification of or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions.
Other studies beyond the scope of this project would be required to evaluate the potential of such
contamination or pollution.
STS
APPENDIX 2
Soil Boring Location Diagram

STS
APPENDIX 3
Soil Boring Logs

CLIENT LOG OF BORING NUMBER B-1A
McCaffery Interests, Inc.
PROJECT NAME ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
Proposed Mixed Use Structure Antunovich Associates
SITE LOCATION UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
TONS/FT.2
1200 W. Arthur Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 1 2 3 4 5
ELEVATION(FT)
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID

SAMPLE DISTANCE
LIMIT % CONTENT % LIMIT %

DEPTH(FT)
SAMPLE TYPE
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
UNIT DRY WT.

SAMPLE NO.
RECOVERY
10 20 30 40 50
LBS./FT.3
STANDARD
PENETRATION BLOWS/(FT)
SURFACE ELEVATION +9.7 10 20 30 40 50
Fine to coarse sand, little silt and fine gravel - brown and
gray - medium dense to dense - moist to saturated (SP)
Driller's note: Bituminous Concrete at surface
PA
5.0
32
1 SS
10.0
PA
15.0
13
2 SS 18.5
2A SS Silty clay, trace fine gravel, fine sand and shale - gray -
20.0 soft to medium (CL) *
Vane Shear Test #1 at 22.5 ft.

RB
Peak Su = 1100 psf, Remolded Su = 400 psf
25.0

3 SS Peak Su = 825 psf, Remolded Su = 300 psf
30.0 *

RB Peak Su = 600 psf, Remolded Su = 275 psf
BORING_LOG 200801011.GPJ STS.GDT 3/25/08
35.0

4 ST Peak Su = 625 psf, Remolded Su = 275 psf
40.0
*
. . . continued * Calibrated Penetrometer
The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil types: in situ, the transition may be gradual. STS JOB NO. SHEET NO. OF
200801011 1 2
TONS/FT.2
ELEVATION(FT)

SAMPLE DISTANCE

DEPTH(FT)
SAMPLE TYPE
UNIT DRY WT.

SAMPLE NO.
RECOVERY
10 20 30 40 50
LBS./FT.3
STANDARD
SURFACE ELEVATION +9.7 (Continued) 10 20 30 40 50
Silty clay, trace fine gravel, fine sand and shale - gray -
soft to medium (CL)

45.0

50.0
*
RB
55.0 55.0
Silty clay, trace fine gravel, fine sand and shale - gray - 23
6 SS
very stiff to hard (CL)
Pressuremeter Test #1 at 55.0 - 57.5 ft. *
58.0 Pf = 7.5 tsf, Ed = 93 tsf
RB Silty clay, trace fine gravel, fine sand and shale - gray -
hard (CL)
60.0 27 7+
7 SS
62.5 RB 62.5 Pf = 14 tsf, Ed = 309 tsf
End of Boring * Calibrated Penetrometer
Borehole grouted upon completion.
Casing used: 20 ft. of 4 in.
Automatic-Diedrich hammer used for Standard
Penetration Test
The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil types: in situ, the transition may be gradual.
WL BORING STARTED STS OFFICE
Not Observed 3/17/08 Chicago Area - 01
WL BORING COMPLETED ENTERED BY SHEET NO. OF
3/17/08 PCC 2 2
WL RIG/FOREMAN APP'D BY STS JOB NO.
Auger-Rotary/Ringler PCC 200801011
TONS/FT.2
ELEVATION(FT)

SAMPLE DISTANCE

DEPTH(FT)
SAMPLE TYPE
UNIT DRY WT.

SAMPLE NO.
RECOVERY
10 20 30 40 50
LBS./FT.3
STANDARD
SURFACE ELEVATION +9.0 10 20 30 40 50
Fine to medium sand, trace silt and fine gravel - gray -
loose to dense - moist (SP)
Driller Notes: Bituminous concrete at surface
PA
5.0
35
1 SS
10.0
PA
15.0
26
2 SS
18.5
20.0 stiff to very stiff (CL)
RB 21.0 Vane Shear Test #1 at 20.5 ft.
Peak Su = 2100 psf
soft to medium (CL)
25.0
Vane Shear Test #2 at 25 ft.
*
30.0
35.0
*
40.0
. . . continued * Calibrated Penetrometer
The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil types: in situ, the transition may be gradual. STS JOB NO. SHEET NO. OF
200801011 1 2
TONS/FT.2
ELEVATION(FT)

SAMPLE DISTANCE

DEPTH(FT)
SAMPLE TYPE
UNIT DRY WT.

SAMPLE NO.
RECOVERY
10 20 30 40 50
LBS./FT.3
STANDARD
SURFACE ELEVATION +9.0 (Continued) 10 20 30 40 50
RB soft to medium (CL)
Peak Su = 700 psf, Remolded Su = 350 psf
45.0
5 ST Peak Su = 1000 psf
*
RB 49.0
50.0 very stiff (CL)
6 ST Vane Shear Test #7 at 50 ft.
Peak Su = 2175 psf *
55.0 RB
57.5
Silty clay, trace fine gravel, fine sand and shale - gray - 37
7 SS
hard (CL)
60.0 Pf = 11 tsf, Ed = 151 tsf
RB
67
8 SS
65.0 RB 65.0 Pf = 12 tsf, Ed = 129 tsf
Driller Notes: Whitish limestone fragments noted at the
termination of boring
* Calibrated Penetrometer
End of Boring
Borehole grouted upon completion.
Casing used: 20 ft. of 4 in.
Automatic-Diedrich hammer used for Standard
Penetration Test
SS* = SPT value based on first 6 in. or less.
The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil types: in situ, the transition may be gradual.
WL BORING STARTED STS OFFICE
Not Observed 3/14/08 Chicago Area - 01
WL BORING COMPLETED ENTERED BY SHEET NO. OF
3/14/08 PCC 2 2
WL RIG/FOREMAN APP'D BY STS JOB NO.
Auger-Rotary/Ringler PCC 200801011
STS
APPENDIX 4
In-Situ Vane Shear Test Results

VANE SHEAR RESULTS
PROJECT: Proposed Mixed Use Structure, 1200 West Arthur Ave, Chicago, IL *VANE SIZE
STS JOB NUMBER: 200801011 2.0 = SMALL (11CM X 5CM) VANE
OPERATOR: R. Ringler 1.0 = MEDIUM (13CM X 6.5 CM) VANE
DATE OF TEST: March 14 & 17, 2008 0.5 = LARGE (17.2CM X 8CM) VANE
SURFACE ELEVATION: B-1 B-4 VANE CONSTANT
(Feet CCD) 9.68 9.02 K = 1.0643
DATA REDUCTION: PCC
VANE TIP APPROX. VANE TIP

BORING DEPTH VANE* a PEAK Su a REMOLDED Su SENSITIVITY ELEVATION
NO. (ft) (in) (tsf) (psf) (in) (tsf) (psf) PEAK/REM. (CCD)
B-1A 22.5 1.0 2.00 0.55 1100 0.72 0.20 400 2.8 -12.8
27.5 1.0 1.48 0.41 825 0.54 0.15 300 2.8 -17.8
32.5 0.5 2.22 0.31 600 0.96 0.13 275 2.2 -22.8
37.5 0.5 2.30 0.32 625 0.98 0.14 275 2.3 -27.8
42.5 1.0 1.30 0.36 725 0.72 0.20 400 1.8 -32.8
47.5 1.0 1.32 0.36 725 1.12 0.31 625 1.2 -37.8
B-4A 20.5 1.0 3.82 1.05 2100 N/A* - -11.5

25.0 1.0 1.38 0.38 750 0.60 0.17 325 2.3 -16.0
30.0 0.5 1.68 0.23 475 1.04 0.14 275 1.7 -21.0
35.0 0.5 2.18 0.30 600 1.06 0.15 300 2.0 -26.0
40.0 0.5 2.54 0.35 700 1.24 0.17 350 2.0 -31.0
45.0 0.5 3.62 0.50 1000 N/A* - -36.0
50.0 1.0 3.94 1.09 2175 N/A* - -41.0
* Test reached maximum capacity. Remolded test not performed.
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
20
10
B-1 B-4
0
Elevation (Feet CCD)
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
Peak Undrained Shear Strength (psf)
3/24/2008
STS
APPENDIX 5
Pressuremeter Test Results

STS Pressuremeter Procedures
PROJECT NAME: Proposed Mixed-Use Development, Loyola University
PROJECT LOCATION: 1200 West Arthur Avenue, Chicago, IL
STS JOB NUMBER: 200801011
OPERATOR: Seiler/Toonen
DATE: 3/17/08
PRESSUREMETER TEST RESULTS
BORING DEPTH Po Pf Pl Ed E+
NUMBER (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) Ed /E+ Ed /Pl Pl /Pf
1 55.0-57.5 3.5 7.5 12.6 93 133 0.70 7.4 1.7

60.0-62.5 3.0 14.0 37.4 309 705 0.44 8.3 2.7
4 57.5-60.0 3.0 11.0 29.5 151 354 0.43 5.1 2.7

62.5-65.0 3.0 12.0 33.2 129 482 0.27 3.9 2.8
AVERAGE 0.46 6.2 2.4
C:\Mecah\STS\Projects\200801011_Mixed Use Loyola Univ_Chicago IL\Pressuremeter 801011CRO.xls3/24/2008

Pressuremeter Data Reduction (BX)
STS Job Number: 801011 Date: 03-17-08

Boring No.: 1
Test Depth: 55.0-57.5 Feet
Pressure in TSF
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0
900 90
800 80
700 70
600 60
Pl = 12.6 tsf
Injected Volume in CC
500 50
Creep in CC
400 40
300 30
Ed = 93 tsf
200 20
E+ = 133 tsf
Pf = 7.5 tsf
100 10
0 0
Po = 3.5 tsf
-100 -10
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0
Pressure in TSF
Volume
Creep


Boring No.: 1
Pressure in TSF
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
900 90
800 80
700 70
600 60
Pl = 37.4 tsf
500 50
Creep in CC
400 40
300 30
Ed = 309 tsf
200 20
E+ = 705 tsf
Pf = 14.0 tsf
100 10
Po = 3.0 tsf
0 0
-100 -10
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Pressure in TSF
Volume
Creep


Boring No.: 4
Pressure in TSF
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
900 90
800 80
700 70
600 60
Pl = 29.5 tsf
500 50
Creep in CC
400 40
300 30
Ed = 151 tsf
200 E+ = 354 tsf 20
Pf = 11.0 tsf
100 10
Po = 3.0 tsf
0 0
-100 -10
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Pressure in TSF
Volume
Creep


Boring No.: 4
Pressure in TSF
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
900 90
800 80
700 70
600 60
Pl = 33.2 tsf
500 50
Creep in CC
400 40
300 30
Ed = 129 tsf
200 E+ = 482 tsf 20

Pf = 12.0 tsf
100 10
Po = 3.0 tsf
0 0
-100 -10
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Pressure in TSF
Volume
Creep

Pressuremeter Procedures
Introduction
The pressuremeter is a soil and rock testing device which measures stress-strain characteristics of soils in-situ. It is a portable piece
of equipment consisting of three main components:
1. A cylindrical, radially expanding probe which is inserted into a borehole.
2. A pressure source for expanding the probe.
3. A metering system.
A schematic drawing showing these components is shown in Figure 1.
Pressuremeter Test
The test consists of inserting the probe into the borehole and expanding the probe against the sides of the hole at increasing pressure
increments until failure of the soil is reached.
The pressuremeter can be used to test nearly all soil types: from loose sand or silt to hard cohesive, or dense granular soils and soft
rock. Tests can be performed in a drilled borehole or hand augered hole. Tests can be performed above or below the water table.
Special procedures or techniques, including the use of a borehole shaver, have been developed to carefully prepare the borehole so
that reliable test parameters are measured.
Using correlations with routine or special laboratory tests, the pressuremeter is a very useful geotechnical tool.
General Uses
The following is a summary of some of the applications of the pressuremeter:
1. Determination of bearing capacity of shallow and deep foundations.
2. Estimates of foundation settlement.
3. Determination of soil shear strength.
4. Determination of horizontal subgrade modulus to predict horizontal movement under lateral loads for piles, sheetpile walls,
cast-in-place concrete walls, and drilled piers.
5. Determination of the modulus of vertical subgrade reaction.
6. Determining the improvement in soil properties following site densification.
Apparatus
The probe measures 2.5 inches in diameter, is 2 feet 2 inches long, and fits inside a BX size casing, with the length of the center
expanding cell of the probe measuring 7 inches. A liquid (water in summer and glycerin in winter) is used to expand the center cell of
the probe and gas pressure, usually carbon dioxide, is used to expand the two end cells of the probe. When the probe is inserted into
the soil and the cells are expanded, the top and bottom portions of the probe tend to seal off the borehole while the volume change in
the center portion is measured. By this method, a nearly plane stress, plane strain condition is set up in the soil. Volume changes in
the center portion of the probe are measured versus the pressure increment. Six to 14 load increments are used per test, each
increment being applied to the soil for a 1-miinute period. Readings are taken 30 seconds and 60 seconds after the pressure
increment.
Interpretation of Test Results
Results of the pressuremeter tests are generally plotted as pressure versus volume change at 60 seconds for each pressure
increment. A typical curve is shown in Figure 2. The interpretation of the test results is generally in conformance with procedures
developed by Menard. The soil behavior usually follows three zones: elastic, pseudo-elastic, and plastic.
The elastic zone, in which strains are completely recoverable, may not be noticed due to the borehole disturbance. The lower limit of
this elastic zone is defined as PO. At pressures above PO, the soil behaves as a pseudo-elastic material, which is indicated as a
straight line on the pressure versus probe volume curve. The strains occurring within this zone are not completely recoverable.
The upper limit of the pseudo-elastic zone is defined as PF. At pressures greater than the value of PF, creep deformation of the soil
particles occurs as the pressure increases and eventually causes failure of the soil. The pressure at which the failure occurs is called
the limit pressure, PL, and can be related to the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil.
The pressuremeter modulus is calculated for the pseudo-elastic zone portion of the test. In-situ, the vertical modulus may be
significantly different for the horizontal modulus. However, experience has shown that in many situations, this test still permits a much
better prediction of foundation settlements than other empirical methods. Settlement predictions based on pressuremeter test results
are presently the most reliable for granular materials and preconsolidated glacial tills.
General Equations
Analysis of the pressuremeter test is based upon the principles of theoretical soil mechanics. The parameters obtained from these
tests have been correlated to parameters obtained from laboratory tests. The general equations for bearing capacity and settlement
have been modified by and confirmed with numerous field tests including full scale load tests.
The bearing capacity of a foundation is derived from the following general equation:
q = PV + k (PL - PO)
where q = Ultimate bearing capacity
PO = At rest pressure of the soil
PL = Limit pressure of the soil
k = A coefficient depending upon soil type, geometric shape of the foundation, and depth of embedment
PV = Overburden pressure at foundation level
The calculations for settlement of a foundation are based upon the following formula::
1.33 λ2 R ∝ ∝
w = p RO ( ) + pλ 3 R
3EB RO 4.5EA
where p = Pressure transmitted to the soil by the foundation

EA, EB = Pressuremeter moduli
R = Radius of the foundation
RO = Reference length (30 cm)
λ2, λ3 = Shape coefficients
∝ = Rheological coefficient depending upon type of soil
The above discussion is intended to be a summary of the pressuremeter test techniques. References are included for details
of these procedures.
List of References
1. “The Menard Pressuremeter - Investigation and Application of Pressuremeter Test Results,” Sol-Soils 26, 1975.
2. Gibson, R.E. and Anderson, W.F., “In-Situ Measurement of Soil Properties with the Pressure-Meter,” Civil Engineering and Public Works
Review, London, May 1961.
3. Goodman, R.E., Van, T.K., and Heuze, F.E., “The Measurement of Rock Deformability in Bore Holes,” 10th Symposium on Rock
Mechanics, University of Texas at Austin, Texas, 1968.
4. Higgins, C.M., “Pressuremeter Correlation Study,” Highway Research Record No. 284, Highway Research Board, 1969.
5. Menard, L., “The Application of the Pressuremeter for Investigation of Rock Masses,” presented at the Colloquium of the International
Society for Rock Mechanics in Salzburg, Austria, 1965.
6. Canadian Manual on Foundation Engineering, (Draft for Public Comment), Issued by the Associate Committee on the National Building
Code, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, 1975.
7. Lukas, Robert G. and DeBussy, Bruno, “Pressuremeter and Laboratory Test Correlations for Clays,” ASCE Geotechnical Division, GT9,
September 1976.
8. Baguelin F., Jezequel J.F., Shields, D.H., “The Pressuremeter and Foundation Engineering,” Trans Tech Publications, 1978.
9. Lukas, Robert G. and Seiler, Norman H., “Experience with Menard Pressuremeter Testing,” Engineering Foundation Conference,
Updating Subsurface Sampling of Soils and Rocks and Their In-Situ Testing, January 1983.
STS
APPENDIX 6
Previous STS Geotechnical Report

STS
APPENDIX 7
Analysis Calculations
Drawing No ERS2/EX2 (provided by Antunovich Associates)
STS
APPENDIX 8
General Notes
STS Soil Classification System
STS General Notes
Drilling and Sampling Symbols:

SS : Split Spoon - 1-3/8" I.D. 2" O.D. (Unless otherwise noted) HS : Hollow Stem Auger
ST : Shelby Tube-2" O.D. (Unless otherwise noted) WS : Wash Sample
PA : Power Auger FT : Fish Tail
DB : Diamond Bit-NX, BX, AX RB : Rock Bit
AS : Auger Sample BS : Bulk Sample
JS : Jar Sample PM : Pressuremeter Test
VS : Vane Shear GS : Giddings Sampler
OS : Osterberg Sampler
Standard "N" Penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch O.D. split spoon sampler,
except where otherwise noted.
Water Level Measurement Symbols:

WL : Water Level WCI : Wet Cave In
WS : While Sampling DCI : Dry Cave In
WD : While Drilling BCR : Before Casing Removal
AB : After Boring ACR : After Casing Removal
Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the boring at the time indicated. In pervious soils, the indicated
elevations are considered reliable groundwater levels. In impervious soils, the accurate determination of groundwater elevations
may not be possible, even after several days of observations; additional evidence of groundwater elevations must be sought.
Gradation Description and Terminology:

Coarse grained or granular soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as boulders,
cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine grained soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as
clay or clayey silt if they are cohesive and silt if they are non-cohesive. In addition to gradation, granular soils are defined on the
basis of their relative in-place density and fine grained soils on the basis of their strength or consistency and their plasticity.
Description of Other
Major Component of
Size Range Components Present in Percent Dry Weight
Sample
Sample
Boulders Over 8 in. (200 mm) Trace 1-9
8 inches to 3 inches
Cobbles Little 10-19
(200 mm to 75 mm)
3 inches to #4 sieve
Gravel Some 20-34
(75 mm to 4.76 mm)
#4 to #200 sieve
Sand And 35-50
(4.76 mm to 0.074 mm)
Passing #200 sieve
Silt
(0.074 mm to 0.005 mm)
Clay Smaller than 0.005 mm
Consistency of Cohesive Soils: Relative Density of Granular Soils:

Unconfined Compressive
Consistency N-Blows per foot Relative Density
Strength, Qu, tsf
<0.25 Very Soft 0-3 Very Loose
0.25 - 0.49 Soft 4-9 Loose
0.50 - 0.99 Medium (firm) 10 - 29 Medium Dense
1.00 - 1.99 Stiff 30 - 49 Dense
2.00 - 3.99 Very Stiff 50 - 80 Very Dense
4.00 - 8.00 Hard >80 Extremely Dense
>8.00 Very Hard
STS Soil Classification System (1)
1. See STS General Notes for component gradation terminology, consistency of cohesive soils and relative density
of granular soils.
2. Reference: Unified Soil Classification Systems
3. Borderline classifications, used for soils possessing characteristics of two groups, are designated by
combinations of group symbols. For example: GW-GC, well-graded gravel-sand mixture with clay binder.
Field Sampling Procedures
Auger Sampling (AS)

In this procedure, soil samples are collected from cuttings off of the auger flights as they are removed
from the ground. Such samples provide a general indication of subsurface conditions; however, they do
not provide undisturbed samples, nor do they provide samples from discrete depths.
Split-Barrel Sampling (SS) - (ASTM Standard D-1586-99)

In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a 2-inch O.D. split barrel sampler is driven into the soil a distance
of 18 inches by means of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The value of the Standard Penetration
Resistance is obtained by counting the number of blows of the hammer over the final 12 inches of driving.
This value provides a qualitative indication of the in-place relative density of cohesionless soils. The
indication is qualitative only, however, since many factors can significantly affect the Standard
Penetration Resistance Value, and direct correlation of results obtained by drill crews using different rigs,
drilling procedures, and hammer-rod-spoon assemblies should not be made. A portion of the recovered
sample is placed in a sample jar and returned to the laboratory for further analysis and testing.
Shelby Tube Sampling Procedure (ST) - ASTM Standard D-1587-94

In the Shelby tube sampling procedure, a thin-walled steel seamless tube with a sharp cutting edge is
pushed hydraulically into the soil and a relatively undisturbed sample is obtained. This procedure is
generally employed in cohesive soils. The tubes are identified, sealed and carefully handled in the field to
avoid excessive disturbance and are returned to the laboratory for extrusion and further analysis and
testing.
Giddings Sampler (GS)

This type of sampling device consists of 5-foot sections of thin-wall tubing which are capable of retrieving
continuous columns of soil in 5-foot maximum increments. Because of a continuous slot in the sampling
tubes, the sampler allows field determination of stratification boundaries and containerization of soil
samples from any sampling depth within the 5-foot interval.
STS Laboratory Procedures
Water Content (Wc)

The water content of a soil is the ratio of the weight of water in a given soil mass to the weight of the dry
soil. Water content is generally expressed as a percentage.
Hand Penetrometer (Qp)

In the hand penetrometer test, the unconfined compressive strength of a soil is determined, to a
maximum value of 4.5 tons per square foot (tsf) or 7.0 tsf depending on the testing device utilized, by
measuring the resistance of the soil sample to penetration by a small, spring-calibrated cylinder. The
hand penetrometer test has been carefully correlated with unconfined compressive strength tests, and
thereby provides a useful and a relatively simple testing procedure in which soil strength can be quickly
and easily estimated.
Unconfined Compression Tests (Qu)

In the unconfined compression strength test, an undisturbed prism of soil is loaded axially until failure or
until 20% strain has been reached, whichever occurs first.
Dry Density (γd)

The dry density is a measure of the amount of solids in a unit volume of soil. Use of this value is often
made when measuring the degree of compaction of a soil.
Classification of Samples
In conjunction with the sample testing program, all soil samples are examined in our laboratory and
visually classified on the basis of their texture and plasticity in accordance with the STS Soil Classification
System which is described on a separate sheet. The soil descriptions on the boring logs are derived from
this system as well as the component gradation terminology, consistency of cohesive soils and relative
density of granular soils as described on a separate sheet entitled "STS General Notes". The estimated
group symbols included in parentheses following the soil descriptions on the boring logs are in general
conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) which serves as the basis of the STS
Soil Classification System.
In the process of obtaining and testing samples and preparing this report, standard procedures are
followed regarding field logs, laboratory data sheets and samples.
Field logs are prepared during performance of the drilling and sampling operations and are intended to
essentially portray field occurrences, sampling locations and procedures.
Samples obtained in the field are frequently subjected to additional testing and reclassification in the
laboratory by experienced geotechnical engineers, and as such, differences between the field logs and
the final logs may exist. The engineer preparing the report reviews the field logs, laboratory test data and
classifications, and using judgment and experience in interpreting this data, may make further changes. It
is common practice in the geotechnical engineering profession not to include field logs and laboratory
data sheets in engineering reports, because they do not represent the engineer's final opinions as to
appropriate descriptions for conditions encountered in the exploration and testing work. Results of
laboratory tests are generally shown on the boring logs or are described in the text of the report, as
appropriate.
Samples taken in the field, some of which are later subjected to laboratory tests, are retained in our
laboratory for sixty days and are then discarded unless special disposition is requested by our client.
Samples retained over a long period of time, even in sealed jars, are subject to moisture loss which
changes the apparent strength of cohesive soil, generally increasing the strength from what was originally
encountered in the field. Since they are then no longer representative of the moisture conditions initially
encountered, observers of these samples should recognize this factor.

1210 W Arthur Ave

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1210 W Arthur Ave

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1210 W Arthur Ave

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Report

Proposed Mixed-Use Development

STS Project No. 200801011

1.0 Project Overview

2.0 Exploration Procedures

2.2 Laboratory Testing Program

3.0 Exploration Results

3.2 Soil Conditions

3.3 Groundwater Conditions

4.0 Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations

Total Overburden Pressure/Undrained

4.2 Open-Cut Excavation

5.0 Construction Considerations

6.0 General Qualifications

Soil Boring Location Diagram

Soil Boring Logs

PLASTIC WATER LIQUID

LIMIT % CONTENT % LIMIT %

UNIT DRY WT.

Vane Shear Test #1 at 22.5 ft.

Vane Shear Test #2 at 27.5 ft.

Vane Shear Test #3 at 32.5 ft.

Vane Shear Test #4 at 37.5 ft.

PLASTIC WATER LIQUID

LIMIT % CONTENT % LIMIT %

UNIT DRY WT.

Vane Shear Test #5 at 42.5 ft.

Vane Shear Test #6 at 47.5 ft.

PLASTIC WATER LIQUID

LIMIT % CONTENT % LIMIT %

UNIT DRY WT.

PLASTIC WATER LIQUID

LIMIT % CONTENT % LIMIT %

UNIT DRY WT.

In-Situ Vane Shear Test Results

DATA REDUCTION: PCC

VANE TIP APPROX. VANE TIP

B-4A 20.5 1.0 3.82 1.05 2100 N/A* - -11.5

* Test reached maximum capacity. Remolded test not performed.

Pressuremeter Test Results

PRESSUREMETER TEST RESULTS

1 55.0-57.5 3.5 7.5 12.6 93 133 0.70 7.4 1.7

4 57.5-60.0 3.0 11.0 29.5 151 354 0.43 5.1 2.7

C:\Mecah\STS\Projects\200801011_Mixed Use Loyola Univ_Chicago IL\Pressuremeter 801011CRO.xls3/24/2008

STS Job Number: 801011 Date: 03-17-08

C:\Mecah\STS\Projects\200801011_Mixed Use Loyola Univ_Chicago IL\Pressuremeter 801011CRO.xls3/24/2008

STS Job Number: 801011 Date: 03-17-08

C:\Mecah\STS\Projects\200801011_Mixed Use Loyola Univ_Chicago IL\Pressuremeter 801011CRO.xls3/24/2008

STS Job Number: 801011 Date: 03-14-08

200 E+ = 354 tsf 20

C:\Mecah\STS\Projects\200801011_Mixed Use Loyola Univ_Chicago IL\Pressuremeter 801011CRO.xls3/24/2008

STS Job Number: 801011 Date: 03-14-08

200 E+ = 482 tsf 20

C:\Mecah\STS\Projects\200801011_Mixed Use Loyola Univ_Chicago IL\Pressuremeter 801011CRO.xls3/24/2008

where p = Pressure transmitted to the soil by the foundation

Previous STS Geotechnical Report

Drilling and Sampling Symbols:

Water Level Measurement Symbols:

Gradation Description and Terminology: