Ulrich Engineers

2901 Wilcrest | Suite 200 www.ulrichengineers.com

Houston, TX 77042 edward.ulrich@ulrichengineers.com
[V] 713.780.SOIL | [F] 713.706.3686 | [C] 281.635.5040

Report No. 2015-061-02

June 17, 2016

The University of Texas

MD Anderson
Cancer Center
Proton Therapy
1840 Old Spanish Trail
Houston, Texas 77054

Attention: Mr. J. Ryan Barrett

Director of Operations

DESIGN GEOTECHNICAL REPORT NO. 2

MD ANDERSON PROTON THERAPY CENTER 2
BERTNER AVENUE
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Ulrich Engineers, Inc. (UEI) submits this second design geotechnical report for the
new MD Anderson Proton Therapy Center 2 to be built south of the existing Proton
Therapy Center along Bertner Avenue in Houston, Texas. This report is an update to the
first report and addresses two new topics, a slab-on-grade floor option and pavement
subgrade stabilization. New information is presented in red text for clarity. The
assignment was performed in general accordance with our Proposal No. 2015-061-02,
dated October 14, 2015.
The report presents an analysis of subsurface conditions at the site and gives our
conclusions and recommendations concerning design and construction of foundations.
The field and laboratory data used in the analysis is presented in illustrations following
the text. We also relied on our previous site specific investigations along with our
understanding of the existing facility performance.
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 2 of 25

INTRODUCTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The boundaries of the new Proton Therapy Center site are the existing Proton
Therapy Center on the north, Bertner Avenue on the east, a parking garage on the south,
and a private road on the west as shown in Plate 1. The facility will have four pits that will
extend 14 ft below the ground floor which will be about 1 foot above surrounding grade.
The pits will be supported on a reinforced concrete mat approximately 223 ft long by 63
ft wide in plan. The mat thickness is expected to be no more than 8 to 10 ft. Outside of
the pits, the facility will not extend below the ground floor. Table 1 presents the project
salient elevations.

TABLE 1
SALIENT ELEVATIONS
Description Elevation (ft) Depth (ft)
Ground Surface 49 ± 0
Ground Floor 49.83 + 0.83
Bottom of Pit 35.83 13.17
Bottom of Mat [BOM] 25.83 to 27.83 21.17 to 23.17

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this assignment is to develop recommendations to guide the design
and construction of foundations for the Proton Therapy Center. We accomplished this
objective with the following multi-phase program:

 Analysis of subsurface data from our experience working in design and

construction on the existing Proton Therapy Center
 Sample borings to explore subsurface conditions at the site and obtain samples
for laboratory testing
 Laboratory testing of selected samples to determine pertinent soil properties
 Engineering analyses of the assembled information to develop
recommendations for design and construction

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 3 of 25

This assignment did not include investigations of geologic faulting, subsidence,

wetlands, or environmental considerations. Each of these elements is important and may
have a major impact on foundation design. For example, active geologic faults move
vertically and horizontally but irregularly and rates of movement can be in the order of 0.2
in. per year. We are prepared to investigate these hazards as an expansion of our scope
of work.

REPORT CONTENTS
The initial sections of this report offer brief descriptions of the field and laboratory
investigation programs and our evaluation of the general soil conditions as disclosed by
the soil borings. Subsequent sections of the report present the results of our engineering
analyses and recommendations for design and construction of foundations. All field and
laboratory data are presented in the boring logs included following the text. A summary
is not part of this report.

FIELD INVESTIGATION
SOIL BORINGS
Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by five sample borings drilled at
the approximate locations shown in Plate 1. The soil borings were drilled using truck-
mounted equipment and the boring locations were staked by our staff. Most of the borings
extended to a depth of 60 ft and two, B-1 and B-2, extended to a depth of 100 ft.
Soil samples were obtained semi-continuously to 10-ft depth and at 5-ft intervals
thereafter using auger and rotary methods. Detailed descriptions of the soils encountered
in each boring and the depths at which samples were obtained are presented in the
individual boring logs in Plates 2 thru 6. A key to understanding the terms and symbols
used in the boring logs is presented in Plate 7.
A 3-in. thin-walled tube sampler was used to obtain clay samples and a 2-in. split-
barrel sampler was used in silt and sand. The samples recovered were removed from the
sampler in the field and then examined and visually classified by a specialist from our
staff. Representative portions of each sample were then packaged for transportation to
our laboratory for testing and to again be visually classified, this time by an Engineer.
The unconfined compressive strength of each cohesive sample was estimated in
the field using a calibrated hand penetrometer. Results of these estimates are plotted on
the boring logs as circles enclosing an “x” ().
The split-barrel sampler was driven by a 140-lb weight falling 30 in. The number of
blows required to advance the sampler 18 in. was recorded in 6-in. increments. The total
number of blows needed for the last 12 in. of penetration is called the Standard
Penetration Resistance, N-Value, and is given on the boring logs. A relationship between
N-Value and soil condition is also given in Plate 7.

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 4 of 25

PIEZOMETERS
One piezometer, P-1, was installed at the approximate location shown in Plate 1
to evaluate groundwater conditions. The piezometer was set at a depth of 60 ft as shown
in the illustration presented in Plate 8.

LABORATORY TESTING
The laboratory testing program was directed primarily toward evaluation of the
shear strength, shrink-swell, and classification characteristics of the foundation soils. The
following tests were performed: unconfined compression, Atterberg limits, and natural
water content. Natural water content was determined as a routine portion of each
compression and Atterberg limit test. The unit dry weight was also determined as part of
each compression test. The results of the laboratory tests are either plotted or tabulated
in the individual boring logs. Table 2 defines the symbols used in the boring logs to
present the laboratory test results.

TABLE 2
BORING LOG SYMBOLS
Type of Test Identifying Symbol

Unconfined Compression ○
Natural Water Content •
Hand Penetrometer 
Dry Density (Listed under “Unit Dry Wt”)

GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS
The site is located between the existing Proton Therapy Center, Bertner Avenue,
a parking garage, and a private road as shown in Plate 1. Ground surface elevation is at
49 ft ±. A parking lot with an asphalt surface occupies most of the site except for a grassed
area along the east boundary.

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 5 of 25

SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS

The subsurface soil conditions at the site to a depth of 100 ft may be divided into
the seven generalized strata presented in Table 3. Although the subsurface soil
conditions are presented generalized in this report, localized variations in thickness,
position, and textural characteristics over very short distances should be expected.

TABLE 3
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS
Depth (ft)
Stratum Description
__From__ ___To___
Fill: Highly variable; clay and sandy clay with
I 0 2-6
gravel
II 2-6 15-30 Stiff to very stiff clay (CH)
III 15-30 50-55 Very stiff sandy clay (CL)
IV 50-55 65 Medium-dense to dense silty fine sand (SM)
V 65 80 Very stiff to hard clay (CH)
Medium-dense to very dense silt and clayey sit
VI 80 90
(ML)
VII 90 100 Very stiff to hard clay (CH)

FILL. The thickness of surface fill as disclosed by the borings is 2 to 6 ft. The fill
material is highly variable and includes high plasticity material and gravel. During the
construction of the existing facility, extensive grading extended into this site. There may
be debris covered by the fill.
NATURAL SOIL. The natural soil deposits encountered by the borings at this site are
consistent with our experience working in design and construction of the existing Proton
Therapy Center. Highly plastic clay is underlain by sandy clay and silty fine sand to a
depth of about 65 ft. The Stratum II clay is highly plastic, slickensided, and has a high
swell potential.
Both the Stratum II clay and Stratum III sandy clay contain scattered sand and
clayey sand layers and lenses, and the Stratum III sandy clay can vary texturally to silty
clay over very short distances. Stratum IV is texturally highly variable in that
classifications can vary from silt, sandy silt, and silty fine sand. Sandstone is often found
in Stratum IV.

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 6 of 25

Below a depth of about 65 ft, clay is underlain by silt and clay to the maximum
depth explored. The Stratum V and VII clay is highly plastic and often contains
slickensides, a secondary structure which acts as a weak plane. The Stratum VI silt can
vary texturally to clayey silt over very short distances.

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
The depth to water at the site is 26 to 29 ft based on measurements made in the
open boreholes and the piezometer installed. Measurements made during the 1999 and
2003 investigations for the existing Proton Therapy Center indicated depth to water at the
time was 23 to 24 ft and 20 to 22 ft, respectively.
Given the severe storms Houston has endured recently, the deeper groundwater
levels measured at the site are probably the result of the existing Proton Therapy Center
permanent dewatering system effects. A fluctuation of ± 5 ft should be expected due to
seasonal variations.

BASEMENT EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS

GENERAL
The objective of any development is to achieve Ownership requirements while
minimizing costs. Foundation costs increase exponentially with basement excavation
depths and urban constraints. Even though local foundation design experience and
construction applied research allows us to engage foundation systems that would have
been considered too risky or cost prohibitive in the past, environmental constraints often
remain a key factor in design.
According to our experience, the most cost-efficient solution for a development is
a scheme where there are no basements and column loads are supported on shallow
foundations. When basements are required, the solution remains relatively economical
as long as the excavation level stays above groundwater level and the site can easily be
open-cut. If basements deeper than the groundwater level are needed along with bracing,
the excavation costs can rise by $1 and 2 M for the combined effects of bracing and
temporary dewatering.

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
The basement excavation should satisfy three minimum requirements. First, the
soil above the excavation grade must be removed without disturbing the foundation soil.
Second, the general excavation must be sloped or braced throughout construction to
prevent damage to adjacent utilities. Third, the excavation must be properly dewatered
and depressurized in advance of making the excavation. The dewatering is perhaps the
most important part of the excavation process because the dewatering controls slope
stability, bottom stability, and foundation movements.

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 7 of 25

OPEN-CUT EXCAVATION
We believe the environmental constraints at this site should allow sufficient space
to open-cut the excavation for the pits. The sides of the excavation should be sloped at
1-vertical to 1-horizontal and a 5-ft horizontal toe should be provided. Often, the
Contractor will try to truncate the slope toe and gamble with slope stability; such an act is
hazardous and should not be attempted. The side slopes should be protected with a
custom-designed tarp tucked into the crest to prevent surface water sliding between the
tarp and slope.
The recommended slope should work as long as there is no debris, utilities, or fill
in the slope. The Contractor should prepare an excavation plan for review and acceptance
by the Geotechnical Engineer. We understand only the east side of the excavation is to
be open-cut. The remaining sides will be braced with H-piles and timber lagging.

EXCAVATION SHEETING
TYPES AND LIMITATIONS. Several types of sheeting have been used successfully for
deep excavations in Houston. The main types include: (a) closely-spaced cast-in-place
concrete piers formed in drilled shafts, (b) H-Pile soldier beams interconnected by timber
lagging, and (c) interlocking steel sheet piling. The selection of a suitable sheeting system
will depend on the moment-carrying capacity of the sheeting type, as well as construction
and cost considerations.
Soldier beams of H-Pile sections with timber lagging are effective but can result in
cavities which may eventually cause the collapse of ground and sidewalks adjacent to the
walls. Bracing, internal or external, will be needed to hold up an H-Pile and lagging wall
with an excavation depth of about 20 ft. The H-Pile soldier piles should be installed
following standard drilled pier installation procedures in accordance with the American
Concrete Institute (ACI) Specification for the Construction of Drilled Piers, ACI 336.1-01,
including using the Slurry Displacement Method for soldier piles extending below the
groundwater table.
Our experience has shown that the soil outside the lagging frequently erodes and
collapses in the voids left by the rotting timber unless the lagging is removed as backfilling
proceeds to provide intimate contact with the overburden soils.
BRACING METHODS. Braced excavation sheeting should be supported either
internally with struts-and-rakers or externally through the use of tieback anchors if a
cantilever wall is not feasible. The cost of tiebacks is about $2,500 each. One level of
tieback bracing will be needed for an H-Pile and lagging wall with an excavation depth of
about 20 ft.

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 8 of 25

FOUNDATION ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA
All foundations must satisfy two basic independent design criteria. First, the
maximum bearing pressure transmitted to the foundation soil should not exceed the
allowable bearing pressure based on an adequate factor of safety with respect to soil
shear strength. Second, the foundation movements resulting either from expansion and/
or consolidation of the supporting soils under sustained loads should be within tolerable
limits for the structure.

TEMPORARY DEWATERING
Since the groundwater level may potentially be within 1 to 2 ft above the base of
the mat depending on seasonal variations, the site should be dewatered and
depressurized before the excavation reaches 15-ft depth. The objective of the dewatering
system should be to lower the groundwater level a minimum of 5 ft below the base of the
mat or the deepest excavation planned.
A system of deep wells spaced 60 ft on center around the excavation perimeter
and extending to 65 ft depth is recommended. UEI will prepare a temporary dewatering
specification for the project.

FOUNDATION TYPES AND DEPTH

PIT LEVEL. The foundation for the pits should be a reinforced concrete mat as
planned. The bottom of the mat is expected to be at a depth of about 21 to 23 ft depending
on its final thickness. Mat subgrade preparation should follow the recommendations of
this report under “Protection of Foundation Soil” and UEI Section 31 00 05: Shallow
Excavations & Open-Cut Foundations.
ACCELERATOR ROOM & HEBT CORRIDOR MAZE. These facilities are contiguous to
the pits but do not extend down to the Pit Level. Their foundation was initially an upper
tier to the Pit Level reinforced concrete mat as shown in Figure 1 but we understand the
current plan is to eliminate the upper tier and have just one deep mat. The initial approach
remains feasible and should follow one of the following two options.

Option 1: Deep Toe (Figure 1)

 Design the side bordering the deep mat with a toe that extends to the base of
the deep mat to avoid the effects of fill subsidence and a large earth pressure
on the basement wall, or extend the deep mat to form the toe
 The minimum toe geometry is 5 ft at the base and up at a 1-vertical to 1-
horizontal slope to the planned upper mat base. Confirm the horizontal shear
resistance at the toe base is adequate to resist lateral surcharge pressure pf
0.75q using Working Stress Design and an allowable value of 1

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 9 of 25

Option 2: No Toe (Figure 2)

 The shallow mat subgrade to the base of deep mat should be backfilled with
compacted cement stabilized sand
 The lower mat and basement wall should be designed to resist lateral
surcharge pressure from the upper mat of 0.75q, where q is the maximum
contact pressure of the upper mat. The upper mat surcharge pressure, q, could
be very severe depending on the location of the pressed edge.
 The upper mat should consider a subgrade response of zero along a 5-ft min.
wide zone contiguous the edge of the lower mat to account for near wall
compaction and/ or filter placement for perimeter drainage.
 The excavation above the upper mat should be either compacted cement
stabilized sand or select fill
 The target depth for bearing is 8 ft. in strong natural soil

FIGURE 1 - TWO TIER MAT OPTION 1

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 10 of 25

FIGURE 2 - TWO TIER MAT OPTION 2

GROUND LEVEL. Ground Level column loads may be supported on open-cut

shallow spread footings resting on strong natural soil at a target depth of 6 ft. Footings
near the pits should be lowered so that the top of footing is either [1] below a 45° plane
measured from the bottom of the mat vertical face or [2] in natural soil, whichever is
deeper, to avoid lateral surcharge pressure on the pit walls.
Footings over the backfill wedge of the open-cut excavation should be lowered to
bear on natural soil or the backfill should be compacted cement stabilized sand.

ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE

PIT LEVEL. The recommended allowable net bearing pressure to resist total loads
including wind is 6000 psf. Uniform net sustained mat contact pressures should be limited
to about 3000 psf, but higher allowable bearing pressures may be feasible under localized
areas. Net bearing pressure is defined in Plate 9. Please furnish us your calculations of
net sustained pressure.

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 11 of 25

ACCELERATOR ROOM & HEBT CORRIDOR MAZE. For the upper mat the
recommended allowable net bearing pressure to resist total loads including wind is 4000
psf for either option, provided the mat can sustain no subgrade resistance for 5 ft min. in
the No Toe Option. Uniform net sustained mat contact pressures should be limited to
about 2500 psf, but as stated previously higher allowable bearing pressures may be
feasible under localized areas.
GROUND LEVEL. The spread footings should be designed for an allowable net
bearing pressure of 4000 psf. If strip footings are used, the minimum footing width should
be 4 ft and an allowable net bearing pressure of 3500 psf is recommended. The
recommended values include a factor of safety of 2 with respect to soil shear strength.
The foundations should be designed to maintain the resultant under total loads
within the middle third for each direction of total loading. Also, foundations must be
proportioned so that the maximum net contact pressure under dead, live, and transient
loads does not exceed the allowable net bearing pressure. Allowable net bearing
pressure is defined in Plate 9.

FOUNDATION MOVEMENT
Estimates of foundation movement are possible, but not to an accuracy of ± 0.5
mm as was the requirement of the existing Proton Therapy Center. Assessments in soil
mechanics and foundation engineering have shown that foundation movement estimates
are probably ± 33% of the true value for very reliable models with good data bases1.
For a mat with a uniform contact pressure in a property constructed excavation we
would expect about 1 in. of movement for each 1000 psf of pressure and the movement
should stop soon after construction.
DISCRETE AREA METHOD (DAM)2. Experience has shown that modeling the
subgrade response as a uniform modulus of subgrade reaction can be misleading and
give moment assessments that are wrong. The subgrade response should be modeled
using the DAM wherein the mat is divided into discrete areas and the subgrade response
is computed for each discrete area resulting in variable moduli of subgrade reaction. A
single modulus of subgrade reaction of 22 pci may be used for the first iteration under the
sustained loading condition except for the 5 ft in Option 2, where the subgrade reaction
should be zero.

1
“Mat Foundation Design: An Historical Perspective” (1994). Invitational Lecture and Technical Paper,
Vertical and Horizontal Deformation of Foundations and Embankments, Geotechnical Special Publication
No. 40, ASCE, Volume 1, pp 107 - 120, June 16-18.
Personal Communication (1994). Ralph B. Peck on Reliability of Computed Foundation Settlement

2
"Subgrade Reaction in Mat Foundation Design" (1991). Concrete International, American Concrete
Institute, Vol. 13, No. 4, April, pp 41-50.

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 12 of 25

SKYBRIDGE
The SkyBridge will connect the new Proton Therapy Center to the existing and will
be supported on straight shaft drilled piers. Two drilled piers should be used at each bent
to create a force couple and eliminate the applied moment. The remaining lateral force
should be resisted by a single pier since the spacing will be too small for both piers to
provide resistance. Please provide us with the load applications and we will perform the
lateral analysis design and provide a minimum penetration depth.
We would also ask that, if feasible, the existing Proton Therapy Center be used for
support of the SkyBridge since it is supported on reinforced concrete mat. This would
eliminate at least one bent from the SkyBridge. If it is not feasible to use the existing
structure for support, then the bent closest to the structure should be a minimum of 10 ft
away from it to protect the existing permanent drainage system along the perimeter of the
basement.

STRAIGHT SHAFT DRILLED PIERS

The design of a pier has two interrelated parts wherein the structural and
geotechnical engineers should work closely to design the drilled piers.

Part 1: Load to Pier Compatibility

Part 2: Load to Pier to Earth Compatibility

Part 1 is executed primarily by the Structural Engineer unless the earth is the
driving force. In Part 2, the static method for predetermining the capacity of drilled piers
is based on empirical data gathered from model studies and field load tests and
interpreted in accordance with accepted soil mechanics theories.

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 13 of 25

The allowable axial compressive capacity of a drilled pier, Qt, is equal to the sum
of the side friction and end bearing so that the total capacity is:

Qt = Qs + Qp = fAs + qAp

Where

Qs = side friction
Qp = end bearing
Qt = total capacity

And

f = unit adhesion along the pier shaft

As = surface area of the pier shaft
q = unit end bearing at pier tip
Ap = effective section area of pier tip

Since the means and methods of construction govern pier behavior, UEI Section
31 63 00 is enclosed as a draft. Please allow us to edit the specification for these design
conditions.

ENTRYWAYS AND LANDSCAPE HARDSCAPE

Entryways and landscape hardscape resting on grade will move up and down
enough to show noticeable cracking, especially if the hardscape is on basement backfill.
The movement will be more severe for finishes on deep fill. The movement should be
accommodated in the finish detailing or the entryway and landscape hardscape should
be pier supported. We recommend that the hardscape be designed to accept replacement

BASEMENT WALLS
The design earth pressure for the pit walls under long-term conditions should be
an equivalent fluid of 72 pcf assuming drainage occurs through an outside perimeter
drainage system. A load factor of 1.4 is acceptable. The equivalent fluid value does not
include surcharge loads.

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 14 of 25

FLOOR SLABS
Since a significant portion of the ground floor slab will be over the backfill wedge
of the open-cut excavation of the gantry pits, we recommend engaging a structural slab-
on-grade over this area. The floor slab may rest on grade due to the removal and
replacement of the high volume change potential soil with low plasticity select fill but
should be structurally supported because the backfill will subside with time. The
subsidence will be more severe along the gantry pit wall where compaction will be limited
due to the presence of the permanent drainage system.
Outside of the backfill wedge, we believe engaging a slab-on-grade is a sensible
option given that the ground floor slabs at the existing facility have performed well during
their life. The slab-on-grade design should follow the recommendations in the ensuing
sections. A slab separated from the subgrade option is also presented in the event the
Owner is unwilling to accept the risk of unsuitable floor slab performance.

SLAB SEPARATED FROM SUBGRADE

Since shrinking and swelling of the soils should be expected from varying weather
conditions and/ or leaking buried utilities, we believe the most positive means of assuring
that vertical distress does not occur is by the use of a structural system which completely
removes the floor slabs from contact with the surface soils. This system of construction is
very expensive ($15 per sq ft more than a slab-on-grade plus other sandwich elements)
and may not be appropriate for the type of building planned at this site unless the Owner
is not willing to accept the risk of unsuitable floor slab behavior. A typical 5-inch thick floor
slab often becomes an 8-inch thick doubly reinforced section with two levels of reinforcing
and foundations on a 15-ft grid for floor slab support.
The slab separated from the subgrade offers more challenges that exacerbate
costs. Subgrade treatment is not required but the subgrade should be a seal slab sloped
to drain to the perimeter or internal drains. A moisture proof membrane such as Florprufe
by Grace should be provided on top of the void boxes for moisture control. Combinations
of this sandwich are appropriate but the basic ingredients will remain similar. Engaging a
slab separated from the subgrade often results in severe project challenges.
Moreover, the method of separation is important in that cardboard void boxes have
been known to collapse during concreting to ruin the design or the void boxes can allow
concrete from the floor slab to reach the subgrade. Manufactured adapters should be
affixed to the carton forms at penetrations to minimize the risk of concrete spreading to
the subgrade. Void boxes should not be applied beneath grade beams because we have
found water collects in the associated cavities.

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 15 of 25

SLAB-ON-GRADE
For economy, and with the understanding that movement and interior floor slab
cracking may occur, we recommend that a modified structural system be employed. In
this system, grade beams support block walls and masonry walls. The floor slab is tied to
the grade beams with reinforcing steel and the grade beams are connected to the
foundations. The grade beams are then designed as beams that span between
foundations and do not rely on the earth for support.
Although we have had very good results with this approach, the results of analyses
will not support the expected success; hence, we cannot consider this slab-on-grade
approach to be equivalent to the structural slab separated from the subgrade.
Furthermore, this approach is not designed to resist potential uplift soil pressures, but
instead to delay the effects in the event upward soil pressures become significant. Design
recommendations for the potential upward swell pressures are not part of this report
because our local experience has shown the minimum amount of reinforcing steel of 0.5%
has been adequate to resist the effects of uplift.
Movement and interior floor slab cracking is often accompanied by dry wall
cracking, door jamming, and cracking of architectural finishes. If movements reach values
to cause cracking, we know of no simple economical methods to arrest the movement.
With the grade beams constructed as recommended, a conventional concrete
"slab-on-fill" of the required structural thickness to carry the ground floor loads may be
used for the interior portion of the structure. The concrete slab should be placed on a
minimum of 4 ft of low plasticity (CL) select fill after the subgrade is lime-treated with a
minimum concentration of 6% by dry weight (about 55 lbs per sq yd) to 5 ft beyond the
building perimeter.
GRADE BEAMS. The floor slab should be structurally connected to grade beams and
individual foundations to delay the effects of upward slab movement with minimum
reinforcing of No. 4, Grade 60 bars on 16-inch centers. The exterior grade beams should
penetrate to the subgrade by 30 in. along the perimeter and be earth formed. We have
found that applying void boxes beneath the exterior grade beams accelerates upward
movement because water collects in the associated cavities.
LIME TREATMENT. The building subgrade plus 5 ft beyond each side should be lime-
treated with a concentration of 6% by dry weight (about 55 lbs per sq yd) to a depth of 8
in. after the exposed subgrade is reached.

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 16 of 25

UTILITIES AND LIME BARRIER. We recommend that the sub slab utilities be located
within the select fill above the lime-treated natural subgrade, and be bedded with cement
stabilized sand and backfilled with low plasticity (CL) select fill. Installation should be
compliant with UEI Specification Section 31 00 00: Earthwork and 31 00 01: Utility
Earthwork. Proposed deep utilities should be shallow and within the select fill thickness
before turning down outside of the structure or the utilities should be bedded and
backfilled with controlled low-strength material (CLSM) until the top of the lime-treated
zone is reached. Conduits entering and egressing the building should be bedded and
backfilled with CLSM from 5 ft outside of the building until the conduits turn up through
the floor slab.
CLSM BARRIER. A CLSM barrier should be used for all sub slab utilities entering
and egressing the building. The CLSM barrier should extend from 5 ft outside to 5 ft inside
the building.
SAND LEVELING COURSE. A sand fill leveling course beneath the floor slab and
sidewalks should be avoided because the sand provides a seepage path for surface water
and often that water remains trapped beneath the concrete. The trapped water will
accelerate soil swelling and cracking even on relatively inactive soil subgrades.
INTERNAL WALLS. Block, brick, masonry, and tile walls should rest on grade beams
in accordance with our previous recommendations. The walls should not be attached to
the ceilings or ceiling beams. Instead, the walls should be allowed to move independent
of the ceiling structure. Ground floor walls that extend to walls supported by the second
or third floor levels should be designed to accommodate vertical movement of at least 1.5
in. between the two independent supported walls.
INTERNAL DRY WALLS. Dry walls should be designed so that the metal studs can
move vertically through a slip joint mechanism. None of the studs should be fixed to the
ceiling structure. Expansion joints should be included above each door corner and as part
of the dry walls every 15 ft.
MECHANICAL SUPPORTS. Mechanical supports that extend from floor to ceiling
should be adjustable to accommodate vertical movement. Supports extending from the
ceilings to hold piping will have to be adjusted to accept movements of ground supported
elements.

BUILDING ENTRANCE
The building entrances should be treated like a structurally loaded portion of the
building and be supported on individual foundations. Walkways are otherwise likely to
move enough to jam doors and form trip hazards.

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 17 of 25

PERMANENT DRAINAGE & DAMP PROOFING

Since the pits are to remain dry, we recommend installing a perimeter drainage
system along the edge of the mat as shown in Figure 3. The drainage should consist of
a column of filter sand from 3 ft below ground surface to the bottom of the mat. The base
of the filter sand should have a slotted collector pipe encapsulated in filter gravel and
sloped to discharge the collected water into a sump.
The pit walls should be damp proofed using a single application of a bentonite
membrane such as Paraseal LG or Voltex. These membranes require confinement
pressure to adequately seal and prevent water seepage; therefore, a fluid-applied
membrane such as TREMproof 250GC should be applied in the upper 3 ft of the walls
where there is insufficient confinement. Cold joints should include a double application of
hydrophilic waterstops along with a single injectable waterstop. We recommend
Waterstop RX-101 and DeNeef Injecto for each application.
Ulrich Engineers, Inc. has become a specialist in basement waterproofing/
dampproofing, and we ask that you allow us to detail the below grade waterproofing and
drainage for the project.

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 18 of 25

FIGURE 3 - PERIMETER DRAINAGE

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 19 of 25

LANDSCAPING, DRAINAGE, AND UTILITIES

Landscaping and site drainage can adversely influence slab performance even if
the ground floor slabs are designed as structural units elevated above the ground. Fast-
growing, deciduous trees should not be placed near the building. Slow-growing trees,
such as oaks, should be located at a distance of at least the ultimate untrimmed drip line
radius the trees are expected to grow plus 15 ft.

MOW STRIPS
Mow strips, if used, should be concrete instead of loose granular material such as
gravel. Granular material even with drain systems should be avoided.

SLOPES
The grassed ground outside the building should be sloped steeply (5% or more) to
provide good drainage away from the building.

PLANTERS
Planters within and adjacent to the building should be concrete and impervious to
prevent irrigation water from entering the subgrade. Exterior flower beds should be raised
and contain only shallow rooted plants. The bed subgrade should be sloped away from
the building or wall and contain drains to carry off excess water from the structure.

WATER SPRINKLERS
Water sprinkler lines should be located at least 10 ft from the building walls
because experience has shown that underground sprinkler lines often leak and saturate
the subgrade.

UTILITY LINES
Utility lines adjacent to the building or entering the building should be bedded and
backfilled with CLSM in accordance with our previous recommendations under CLSM
Barrier. The CLSM should be used from 5 ft inside of the structure to 5 ft outside of the
structure. Bedding inside of the building should be compacted cement stabilized sand.
We recommend that low plasticity (CL) select fill be used for utility backfill above
the bedding. Section 31 00 00: Earthwork and Section 31 00 01: Utility Earthwork
prepared by UEI address utility installation in more detail than this report. Installation and
backfilling of underground utilities should be under the continuous review of the
Construction Geotechnical Engineer.

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 20 of 25

HARDSCAPE
Hardscape will move noticeable much sooner than floor slabs because the
combined effects of landscape and water sprinklers contribute to accelerate bad
performance. If frequent maintenance cannot be tolerated, then the design should follow
the recommendations of this report including placing low walls on grade beams.

DESIGN PAVEMENT SECTIONS

Pavement types considered suitable for the site are Portland cement concrete or
hot-mix asphaltic concrete surface over a base course. The pavement subgrade should
be lime stabilized to 8-in. depth and compacted to at least 100% of the maximum dry
density determined by ASTM D 698, at a moisture content between ± 2% of optimum.
Pavement sections should satisfy City and County design criteria and the
recommendations of this report. Plate 10 presents recommended pavement sections.
These sections were developed using design procedures developed by the Portland
Cement Association and the Asphalt Institute and are based on anticipated traffic volumes
for various classes of roadways and estimated CBR subgrade values. A design life other
than 20 years or the attainment of a higher CBR subgrade support value may result in
slightly different pavement sections. These should be reviewed on a case by case basis.
Pavements subjected to extremely heavy loads or unusual traffic conditions, such as
storage areas, should also be designed on an individual basis. An individual pavement
design to satisfy specific conditions such as those mentioned above is beyond the scope
of this study.
The recommended minimum concrete pavement thickness is 6 in. Large front
loading trash dumpsters frequently impose concentrated front-wheel loads on pavements
during loading. This type of loading typically results in pavement rutting and premature
pavement failure. Therefore, we recommend that the pavement in trash pickup areas and
routes be 8-in. thick. Reinforcing of No. 4, Grade 60 bars on 16-inch centers is preferred.

EARTHWORK
SUBGRADE PREPARATION
Subgrade preparation for placement of fill, floor slabs, or pavements should consist
of stripping organic matter, existing fill, and unsuitable areas of soft or wet materials as
assessed by the Construction Geotechnical Engineer. Exposed subgrade soils should be
compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D 698 with
passes of a roller weighing at least 25 tons unless the Construction Geotechnical
Engineer waives the density requirements. All subgrade preparation should be under the
continuous review of the Construction Geotechnical Engineer. Earthwork should conform
to UEI Section 31 00 00: Earthwork.

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 21 of 25

LIME TREATMENT
We recommend that the floor slab subgrade be lime-treated to a depth of 8 in. and
to a horizontal distance of 10 ft beyond the building line before select fill is placed. A lime
concentration of 6% by dry weight (55 lbs per sq-yd) should be used.

SELECT FILL
Fill that will be used onsite is termed select fill in this report. Select fill should
consist of low plasticity clay with a liquid limit less than 42 and a plasticity index between
8 and 22. The soil at this site may be suitable for use as select fill but must be checked
for conformance to these requirements. Select fill should be placed in 6-inch thick loose
lifts at a moisture content between ± 2% of optimum, and be compacted to between 95
and 100% of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D 698. Select fill placement
should be under the continuous review of the Construction Geotechnical Engineer.

CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
SHALLOW EXCAVATIONS
The side slopes of shallow excavations in the strong natural clay soil will probably
stand near vertical for limited periods. We recommend, however, that vertical-sided
excavations be limited to a depth of 5 ft. Sides of temporary excavations deeper than
about 5 ft should be braced or sloped back to at least 1-vertical to 1-horizontal. Bracing
requirements for excavations deeper than 5 ft should conform to applicable federal, state,
and local regulations.

PROTECTION OF FOUNDATION SOIL

The soil exposed at the base of completed foundation excavations should be
protected against disturbance from construction activities and changes in soil moisture
content. Silt, sandy silt, and very silty sand are very susceptible to disturbance by track-
mounted construction equipment and may be present at finished grade in localized zones.
Final grading should proceed with a smooth-face backhoe bucket under the continuous
review of the Construction Geotechnical Engineer who will assess subgrade conditions.
Construction equipment should not be permitted to access the fine-graded subgrade.
Where foundations cannot be poured the same day an excavation is completed,
protection should be provided by a seal slab of lean concrete at least 3 in. thick. The seal
slab will also provide a working surface on which the foundation can be placed. At the
time the seal slab is poured, the exposed subgrade should be relatively dry and
undisturbed. Soft or wet areas in the subgrade, as judged by the Construction
Geotechnical Engineer, should be removed and filled with lean concrete.

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 22 of 25

DRILLED PIER INSTALLATION

Drilled piers should be installed in accordance with UEI Section 31 63 00.
Recommendations that we believe should be carefully observed include the following.

 For drilled pier shafts extending below the groundwater table, approved Slurry
Displacement Methods with closed tremie concreting are recommended.
 The clear spacing between rebars or behind the rebar cage should be at least
four times the maximum size of coarse aggregate. Minimum rebar spacing of
4 in. is recommended. Bar spacing should be uniform around the pier.
 Experience has shown that cross bracing will be incorporated into the
fabrication of the reinforcing cage, probably to insure its stability during transit
and placement. Cross bracing can contribute to the development of voids in a
concrete shaft. Hence, we recommend that cross bracing in the form of either
wires or reinforcing steel be omitted from the reinforcing cage. If used, the cross
bracing must be removed either before or as the cage is lowered into the pier
hole. If additional reinforcement is needed to maintain the reinforcing cage
character during transit and concrete placement, it should be implemented only
at the direction and approval of the Structural and Geotechnical Engineers.
 Limit fly ash content in the pier concrete to a maximum of 25%.
 Concrete slump should be 7 to 9 in.
 Provide concrete with a minimum slump of 6 in. for 4 hours after arrival to site.
 Trial-batch the concrete mix under the review of UEI.
 The Geotechnical Engineer should prepare the excavation bracing and drilled
pier installation specifications.
 The Construction Geotechnical Engineer should continuously review the drilled
pier installation.
 Spacers are not needed for Slurry Pier Installation.

Maintaining the proper position of the rebar cage during concrete placement is very
important to avoid placement problems. Rebars should be spaced uniformly around the
shaft perimeter. Experience has shown that the rebar cage can become badly misaligned
during concrete placement. We suggest that provisions be made to provide an auxiliary
system to control the rebar cage if alignment problems become apparent during concrete
placement.

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 23 of 25

CONCLUSIONS
FOUNDATION COSTS
Experience has shown that risks are inherent in foundation construction. Not even
the most comprehensive geotechnical investigation can guide the design and
construction of foundations flawlessly. Hence, foundation budgeting should allow a
contingency to cope with the unexpected.

LIMITATIONS
This report is limited to the subsurface conditions interpreted by the results of the
field and laboratory phases. Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical
investigation, there is always a possibility that conditions between borings will be different
from those at boring locations and that conditions will not be as anticipated by the
designers and contractors. Subtle changes in the design or development concept may
occur before construction begins. In addition, the construction process may change the
soil conditions.
In the event that a testing laboratory is selected for construction services, or the
design geotechnical engineer is not selected for construction engineering of earthwork
and foundation installation, then the group selected shall accept this design geotechnical
report as their own and become the design geotechnical engineer, holding UEI harmless
from actions resulting from this report or the interpretations made by others.
A Design Geotechnical Report is a “for information only” document regardless if
the document is included with the Project Documents or is set aside as a separate
reference item because the report is not written in the terse mandatory language of
Project Drawings or Specifications. Accordingly, a Design Geotechnical Report gives
options, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations wherein the reader has the
option of accepting or rejecting.

CRANES AND MOBILE EQUIPMENT ACCESS

This report does not address mobile equipment access and egress, or crane
foundation design.

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 24 of 25

PROJECT DOCUMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING

The Geotechnical Engineer should participate in the [1] foundation construction
planning, [2] development and review of the final design and construction documents for
geotechnical considerations, as well as [3] engineer, inspect and document the
construction procedures used and the conditions encountered. Unanticipated conditions
and inadequate procedures should be reported to the design team along with
recommendations to solve observed problems. Construction engineering should be
continuous to be effective and responsible. Moreover, Construction Engineering is
probably the most essential element of the process because the earthwork and
foundation design is primarily a hypothesis which needs to be evaluated during
construction.
We recommend that Ulrich Engineers, Inc. provide this service based on our
familiarity with the project, the subsurface conditions, and the intent of the
recommendations for design.

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the design of this major structure.

Please call upon us when we may be of assistance during design and construction.

* * *

The following Illustrations are attached and complete this report.

Plate Description
Plate 1 Plan of Borings
Plates 2 thru 6 Individual Borings Logs
Plate 7 Key to Terms and Symbols
Plate 8 Piezometer Detail
Plate 9 Computation of Bearing Pressures
Plate 10 Recommended Pavement Sections

Ulrich Engineers
Proton Therapy 2 June 17, 2016
Report No. 2015-061-02 Page 25 of 25

Sincerely,
ULRICH ENGINEERS, INC.

Edson J. Chavez, P.E.

Project Engineer

Edward J. Ulrich, Jr., P.E.

Civil Engineer Specializing in Geotechnics
Diplomate | D. GE | AGP - ASCE
TBPE Cert. of Reg. No. F-139

EJU/EC

cc: Mr. Chris Milano

Mr. Mike Grossman

Ulrich Engineers
 B-1

B-5

Ulrich Engineers, Inc.

B-100-3

P-1
B-4

B-100-6
B-2
A-30-2
B-3
A-30-1

B-100-4

B-100-5

NEW EXISTING

SAMPLE BORING LEGEND PLAN OF BORINGS

0 100 200 FT
FROM UEI REORT NO. 23-015-06
_____
DATED MAY 19, 2003

_____ FROM THIS REPORT NORTH

 

PLATE 1
 LOG OF BORING NO. 1
MD ANDERSON PROTON THERAPY CENTER
BERTNER AVENUE
HOUSTON, TEXAS

TYPE: 3" thin-walled tube & 2" split-barrel LOCATION: See Plate 1

BLOWS PER FT

UNIT DRY WT
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, TONS/SQ FT
DEPTH, FT

STRAIN, %
SAMPLES

LB/CU FT
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

MOISTURE CONTENT, %
PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
SURF. EL: 49' 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 PAVEMENT: 3" asphalt & 4" base
FILL: Stiff to very stiff gray SANDY CLAY
w/ gravel
Stiff to very stiff dark gray CLAY 89 4.7
10 -light gray & brownish yellow below 8'

102 1.4

-yellowish red & light gay below 18' 111 3.3

20

-w/ sand seams, 23' to 25'

30
104 3.2

Medium-dense light gray CLAYEY SAND

1.61
40 Very stiff light gray & brownish yellow 117 10.2
SANDY CLAY

1.66
115 8.0
50

Medium-dense yellowish red & light gray

CLAYEY SAND
60 Medium-dense light brown SILTY FINE 28
SAND
50/3"

70 Very stiff reddish brown CLAY

2.02
100 8.0

-w/ silty fine sand seams below 78'

80

Very dense reddish brown SILT 51

90 Medium-dense reddish brown CLAYEY 17

SILT
1.85
Very stiff reddish brown CLAY 95 3.3

-light gray below 98'

100

110

COMPLETION DEPTH: 100' WATER DEPTH: 28' CAVED DEPTH: Open

DATE: 14 April 2016 DATE: 14 April 2016 DRILL METHOD: Auger & Rotary

Ulrich Engineers PLATE 2

 LOG OF BORING NO. 2
MD ANDERSON PROTON THERAPY CENTER
BERTNER AVENUE
HOUSTON, TEXAS

TYPE: 3" thin-walled tube & 2" split-barrel LOCATION: See Plate 1

BLOWS PER FT

UNIT DRY WT
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, TONS/SQ FT
DEPTH, FT

STRAIN, %
SAMPLES

LB/CU FT
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

MOISTURE CONTENT, %
PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
SURF. EL: 49' 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 FILL: Stiff brown SANDY CLAY w/ gravel
FILL: Stiff dark gray CLAY w/ gravel
Very stiff dark gray CLAY
10
94 9.9

Medium-dense light gray SAND

20 Loose light gray CLAYEY SAND 7

Very stiff yellowish red & light gray SANDY 111 9.8
CLAY
-w/ sand partings, 28' to 30' 103 5.4
30

108 6.1

40 Medium-dense light gray & yellowish red 10

CLAYEY SAND w/ sandstones
Very stiff light gray & brownish yellow
SANDY CLAY
50
113 3.2

Dense light brown SILTY FINE SAND 48

60
47

-yellowish red below 63' 41

70 Very stiff reddish brown CLAY 95 5.3

2
100 7.5
80

Medium-dense reddish brown CLAYEY

SILT
90
13

Very stiff reddish brown CLAY

1.73
-light gray & reddish brown below 98' 99 5.7
100

110

COMPLETION DEPTH: 100' WATER DEPTH: 29' CAVED DEPTH: Open

DATE: 15 April 2016 DATE: 15 April 2016 DRILL METHOD: Auger & Rotary

Ulrich Engineers PLATE 3

 LOG OF BORING NO. 3
MD ANDERSON PROTON THERAPY CENTER
BERTNER AVENUE
HOUSTON, TEXAS

TYPE: 3" thin-walled tube & 2" split-barrel LOCATION: See Plate 1

BLOWS PER FT

UNIT DRY WT
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, TONS/SQ FT
DEPTH, FT

STRAIN, %
SAMPLES

LB/CU FT
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

MOISTURE CONTENT, %
PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
SURF. EL: 49' 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 FILL: Stiff to very stiff dark gray CLAY

Stiff to very stiff dark gray CLAY 86 6.5

89 6.1
10

-light gray & yellowsih red below 13' 95 4.3

93 4.4
20

Very stiff light gray & brownish yellow

SANDY CLAY
2.88
120 2.9
30

-light gray & yellowish red, 33' to 40'

40

2.44
116 3.0

50

Very dense light gray SILTY FINE SAND 58

54
60

70

COMPLETION DEPTH: 60' WATER DEPTH: 27.5' CAVED DEPTH: Open

DATE: 20 April 2016 DATE: 20 April 2016 DRILL METHOD: Auger & Rotary

Ulrich Engineers PLATE 4

 LOG OF BORING NO. 4
MD ANDERSON PROTON THERAPY CENTER
BERTNER AVENUE
HOUSTON, TEXAS

TYPE: 3" thin-walled tube & 2" split-barrel LOCATION: See Plate 1

BLOWS PER FT

UNIT DRY WT
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, TONS/SQ FT
DEPTH, FT

STRAIN, %
SAMPLES

LB/CU FT
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

MOISTURE CONTENT, %
PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
SURF. EL: 49' 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 FILL: 3" asphalt & 4" base
FILL: Stiff dark gray CLAY w/ gravel
Stiff dark gray CLAY

-light gray & brownish yellow below 8' 98 4.4

10

98 4.4

Very stiff light gray & yellowish red SANDY 101 3.6
20 CLAY

102 4.3
30

-light gray & brownish yellow below 38'

40
1.87
123 2.9

50

Medium-dense light gray CLAYEY SAND 16

Dense yellowish red SILTY FINE SAND 40

60

70

COMPLETION DEPTH: 60' WATER DEPTH: 28' CAVED DEPTH: Open

DATE: 19 April 2016 DATE: 19 April 2016 DRILL METHOD: Auger & Rotary

Ulrich Engineers PLATE 5

 LOG OF BORING NO. 5
MD ANDERSON PROTON THERAPY CENTER
BERTNER AVENUE
HOUSTON, TEXAS

TYPE: 3" thin-walled tube & 2" split-barrel LOCATION: See Plate 1

BLOWS PER FT

UNIT DRY WT
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, TONS/SQ FT
DEPTH, FT

STRAIN, %
SAMPLES

LB/CU FT
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

MOISTURE CONTENT, %
PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
SURF. EL: 49' 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 PAVEMENT: 3" apshalt & 4" base
FILL: Medium-dense brown SAND
Stiff to very stiff dark gray CLAY

94 5.1
95 5.1
10

-light gray & yellowish red below 13'

100 2.2
20

102 1.4
30

Very stiff light gray SANDY CLAY

40

2.53
-light gray & brownish yellow below 48' 114 8.3
50

Medium-dense to dense light gray & 14

brownish yellow SILTY FINE SAND

-yellowish red below 58' 41

60

70

COMPLETION DEPTH: 60' WATER DEPTH: 26' CAVED DEPTH: Open

DATE: 19 April 2016 DATE: 19 April 2016 DRILL METHOD: Auger & Rotary

Ulrich Engineers PLATE 6

PLATE 7
 PIEZOMETER NO. 1
MD ANDERSON PROTON THERAPY CENTER
BERTNER AVENUE
HOUSTON, TEXAS

LOCATION: See Plate 1

WATER DEPTH
DEPTH, FT

SYMBOL

PIEZOMETER DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

DETAIL

SURF. EL: 49'

0 Hole diameter is 4" and piezometer diameter is 2"
- bentonite pellets to 10'

10
- filter sand from 10' to 60'

20

30

40
- 10' screen section from 40' to 60'

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

COMPLETION DEPTH: 60' WATER DEPTH: 29' CAVED DEPTH: Open

DATE: 15 April 2016 DATE: 27 April 2015 DRILL METHOD: Auger & Rotary

Ulrich Engineers PLATE 8

PLATE 9
 Traffic Class Traffic Descriptions Pavement Section

I Areas subject to heavy 7” (Reinforced) Portland

truck traffic Cement Concrete (fr = 550
psi or f’c = 4000 psi)
Or
4” Hot Mix Asphaltic
Concrete Surface and
10” Lime Treated Crushed
Limestone*

II Main entrance and areas 6” (Reinforced) Portland

subject to light truck traffic
Cement Concrete (fr = 550
psi or f’c = 4000 psi)
Or
3” Hot Mix Asphaltic
Concrete Surface and
6” Lime Treated Crushed
Limestone*

III Parking areas, automobile 6” (Reinforced) Portland

Cement Concrete (fr = 550
psi or f’c = 4000 psi)
Or
2” Hot Mix Asphaltic
Concrete Surface and
6” Lime Treated Crushed
Limestone*

* Compact to 100% of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D 698. Lime may
be deleted if Type A, Grade 1 limestone is used.

RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTIONS

Ulrich Engineers PLATE 10