5)_Hodges_Limited_Geotechnical_Report.pdf

Limited Geotechnical Exploration

Hodges Corporate Park

Hodges, Greenwood County, South

Carolina

S&ME Project No. 4226-18-101

PREPARED FOR:

Greenwood Partnership Alliance

104 Maxwell Avenue, 6th Floor

Greenwood, South Carolina 29646

PREPARED BY:

S&ME, Inc.

48 Brookfield Oaks Drive, Suite F

Greenville, SC 29607

August 30, 2018

S&ME, Inc. | 48 Brookfield Oaks Drive, Suite F | Greenville, SC 29607 | p 864.297.9944 | www.smeinc.com

August 30, 2018

Greenwood Partnership Alliance

104 Maxwell Avenue, 6th Floor

Greenwood, South Carolina 29646

Attention: Mr. James Bateman

Reference: Limited Geotechnical Exploration

Hodges Corporate Park

Hodges, Greenwood County, South Carolina

S&ME Project No. 4226-18-101

Dear Mr. Bateman:

We have completed our Limited Geotechnical Exploration for the referenced project. Project details and the terms under which our services were performed are outlined in the Report of Site Due Diligence Consulting Services, Hodges Corporate Park, dated August 31, 2018. This Limited Geotechnical Exploration report is an Appendix to the Report of Site Due Diligence Consulting Services, and is considered an integral part of that report. The purpose of this limited geotechnical exploration was to determine the general site subsurface conditions at widely-spaced locations and to evaluate the geotechnical considerations these conditions will have on site development. This report presents our methods of exploration, the site and subsurface conditions encountered, and preliminary conclusions and recommendations.

Methods of Exploration

Our limited exploration included a site reconnaissance by a Geotechnical Professional and six soil test borings

(labeled B-1 through B-6). As proposed, five of the borings extended 25 feet below the existing ground surface and one extended 40 feet below the existing ground surface. The boring locations were established by our personnel using the provided Hodges Developable, an aerial photograph, and by estimating distances and right angles from existing site features.

The borings were drilled with an ATV-mounted drill rig (CME 550X with an automatic hammer) using hollow-stem augers to advance the boreholes. Standard Penetration Resistance (N) values and split-spoon samples were generally obtained at 2.5-feet intervals in the upper 10 feet, and at 5-feet intervals thereafter. A surface sample was obtained in boring B-2 to sample the material within the upper 18 inches. After completion of drilling and attempting subsurface water level measurements, the driller backfilled each borehole with soil cuttings and installed a mechanical hole plug to help reduce borehole settlement.

Hodges, Greenwood County, South Carolina

S&ME Project No. 4226-18-101

August 30, 2018 2

After completing the field work, we transported the split-spoon samples to our laboratory where a Geotechnical

Professional visually and manually classified the soils in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification

System (USCS). The classification and field testing results are presented on the attached individual Boring Logs.

Other attachments include a Boring Location Plan, a Legend to Soil Classification and Symbols, and the Field

Testing Procedures. Ground surface elevations shown on the Boring Logs were estimated from Google EarthTM and are considered approximate.

Site and Subsurface Conditions

Surface Features

Based on our site visit and review of aerial photographs from Google EarthTM, a large percentage of the site consists of overgrown grassy fields with weeds, separated by alignments of tall trees. Smaller trees and underbrush also border the fields in some areas. These fields appear to have been used for grazing, as evidenced by cow waste and several large bales of hay present in the fields in the northeast corner of the site. A field in the central portion of the site consists of sunflower crops. East of these crops is a large pond which drains northward into a small stream. The stream was observed flowing during the site visit. The remainder of the site is moderately to heavily wooded.

Based on our site visit and topographic information available through the U.S. Geological Survey, the site generally slopes downward from southeast to northwest, with additional relief along the stream north of the pond. About 25 feet of topographic relief occurs in the area surrounding the stream. Overall, the site has about

60 feet of elevation difference between site boundaries.

Our site visit and exploration were made during warm, dry weather. The ground surface was observed by the driller to be generally stable beneath the drill rig.

Area Geology

The project site is in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of South Carolina. The Piedmont Physiographic

Province is a relatively broad strip extending from central Alabama across Georgia and the Carolinas into Virginia and parts of the northeast. Rocks of the Piedmont occur in belts that are some of the oldest formations in the

United States. The rock types are primarily metamorphic gneiss and schist with some granite intrusions.

The majority of the bedrock in the Piedmont is covered with residual soil of varying thickness, derived by chemical decomposition and physical weathering of the underlying rock. The resulting residual soils consist predominately of micaceous sandy silts and silty sands which grade to clayey silts and silty clays with nearness to the ground surface. The thickness of the residual soils can vary from only a few feet to over 100 feet.

The boundary between the residual soil and the underlying bedrock is not sharply defined. Generally, a transition zone exists, consisting of very hard soil to soft rock, appropriately classified as “partially weathered rock” (PWR).

PWR exhibits an N-value of at least 50 blows per 6 inches. Within the transition zone, large boulders or lenses of relatively “fresh” rock, which are generally much harder than the surrounding material, often exist. The irregular

August 30, 2018 3 bedrock surface is basically a consequence of differential weathering of the various minerals and joint patterns of the rock mass.

Subsurface Conditions

The following description of subsurface conditions is a brief overview. For detailed information, consult the attached individual Borings Logs. Similar soils were grouped into strata on the logs. The strata contact lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types; the actual transition between soil types in the field could be gradual in both the horizontal and vertical directions.

Surface Material

All of the borings initially penetrated a layer of organic-laden topsoil 3 to 5 inches thick. Please note that topsoil thickness will vary throughout the site and could be thicker in unexplored areas.

Cultivated Soil

Below the topsoil in boring B-2, we encountered an approximately 1-foot thick layer of cultivated soil (soil material disturbed in place through past agricultural activities, such as plowing or cultivation). A thin layer beneath the topsoil in boring B-6 also exhibited some of the same characteristics but to a lesser extent, and was classified as “possible cultivated soil.” The cultivated soil consisted of loose, clayey sand (USCS Classification SC) and loose, silty sand (SM). Given the nature of the site, it is likely that a similar, shallow layer of cultivated soil exists in other areas around the property.

Possible Fill

Below the cultivated soil in boring B-2, we encountered soils that exhibited some characteristics of existing fill, such as atypical layering and traces of roots. However, because the samples could not be clearly identified as fill, we classified them as “possible fill.” This “possible fill” was encountered to a depth of approximately 6 to 8 feet below the existing ground surface, and consisted of sandy, lean clay (CL). These soils exhibited SPT N-values of 8 to 18 blows per foot (bpf), indicating a firm to very stiff consistency.

Please note that fill soils generally tend to become wet as rainwater runoff infiltrates these soils and becomes trapped or “perched” above layers of more consistent or more clayey residual soils. In addition, the upper residual soils near the fill/residuum interface can be moist or wet. The depth and composition of fill in unexplored areas will vary and could be deeper, erratically compacted, and/or contain excessive organic matter. The engineering characteristics of such soils can also be difficult to predict.

Residual Soils

Below all topsoil, cultivated soil, and possible fill, each boring encountered residual soils (residuum). The residuum generally consisted of sandy lean clay (CL), clayey sand (SC), silty sand (SM), and poorly graded sand (SP). The N-values recorded in the residual clays and silts ranged from 10 to 24 bpf, indicating a stiff to very stiff consistency.

The N-values recorded in the residual sands ranged from 3 to 50 bpf, indicating a very loose to dense relative density. All of the borings except B-2 and B-6 terminated in residuum at their assigned depth.

August 30, 2018 4

Partially Weathered Rock (PWR)

PWR was encountered in borings B-2 and B-6 at depths of about 22 and 18 feet below the existing ground surface, respectively. The sampled PWR generally consisted of silty sand (SM) and poorly graded sand (SP). The

N-values in the PWR ranged between 50 blows per 4 inches to 50 blows per 2 inches of spoon advancement, indicating a very dense relative density. Borings B-2 and B-6 terminated in PWR at their assigned depth of 25 feet.

Subsurface Water

Subsurface water was encountered in boring B-3 upon termination of boring (TOB), at a depth of approximately

22 feet below ground surface. Note that subsurface water levels will fluctuate during the year due to such things as seasonal variations, precipitation, and construction activity in the area.

General Geotechnical Considerations

The general considerations included in this section are based on the data obtained during our reconnaissance-level exploration, which included six borings drilled at widely-spaced test locations. Subsurface conditions between the test locations will vary, as will grading and construction details. Therefore, these conclusions are given to present our general opinions of the subsurface conditions related to future development. Once final site development plans have been established, additional geotechnical exploration and analysis should be performed to provide design recommendations for site preparation and structural support. Additional focus should be given to the area in the vicinity of boring B-2 where “possible fill” was encountered, to evaluate the consistency and extent of this material. Based on the findings of the field exploration, the following general geotechnical considerations are provided:

Site Preparation. Site preparation will require the removal of all unsuitable surface materials, including surface vegetation, organic-laden topsoil, and unstable near-surface soils, including soil disturbed by past cultivation. Any voids left in the soil should be cleaned out and backfilled with well-compacted controlled fill.

Borings B-2 and B-6 encountered near-surface cultivated soils and B-2 also encountered low-consistency/possible fill soils to a depth of 6 to 8 feet. Thorough subgrade evaluations and proofrolling will be very important in these and other similar areas, and some shallow undercutting and replacement of loose or unstable cultivated soils should be anticipated. The extent and depth of the existing fill should be characterized through additional exploration once development plans are farther along. Depending on the extent and consistency of existing fill, some undercutting or improvement of these soils might be necessary. In general, undercutting to improve exposed, weak subgrade soils will heavily depend upon the quality and extent of any existing fill, as well as final grades, climatic conditions during construction, and the contractor’s means and methods.

Due to the presence of possible fill, we recommend that the depth, lateral extent, and composition of the possible fill be further explored with test pits made with a tracked excavator. A test pit allows for observation of a larger area than the small-diameter borings, and provides better assessment of the fill composition. If the test pits reveal fill soils that appear suitable based on observation from the

August 30, 2018 5

Geotechnical Engineer or his representative, then those portions of the existing fill could potentially remain in place. However, if the soils are found to be soft or erratic, additional undercutting and replacement of the fill could be necessary.

Our experience indicates the existing pond and stream bottoms may contain soft, wet soils and accumulated organic debris. Organic materials should be removed and unsuitable subgrades should be stabilized prior to filling the area with well-compacted controlled fill.

Prior to placement of new, controlled fill, the exposed subgrade in building and pavement areas should be evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer. This evaluation may involve manually probing, proofrolling, and/or hand-auger borings with dynamic cone penetrometer testing. Unstable areas can be undercut or stabilized as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer.

Controlled Fill. Areas requiring fill placement should be raised to their design subgrade with soil free of deleterious materials. Any rock fragments within the new fill should be less than 4 inches in diameter.

The fill should be uniformly spread in 6- to 8-inch thick loose lifts and be compacted to at least 95 percent of the soil’s maximum dry density, as determined by a laboratory standard Proctor test (ASTM

D698). The moisture content should be controlled at plus to minus 3 percent of optimum; however, a slight increase in moisture content could be allowable if the minimum compacted density is achieved and subgrade is stable.

Fill placement should be observed by a qualified Materials Technician working under the general direction of the Geotechnical Engineer. In addition to this visual evaluation, the Technician should perform a sufficient number of in-place field density tests to confirm the required degree of compaction is attained.

The majority of the sampled residual soils appear generally adaptable for use as controlled fill. Any cultivated soils encountered during grading should be closely evaluated by a Geotechnical Engineer to help determine which parts are suitable for reuse as fill. The moisture content of the on-site soils will fluctuate with prevailing weather conditions prior to and during site grading. Moisture adjustment

(wetting or drying) could be required to achieve the recommended degree of compaction. We note that the more silty and clayey soils will be more difficult to work with than the sandy soils.

Excavation. Excavation to potential subgrade levels will encounter low to moderate consistency soils.

We anticipate these soils can be excavated using typical equipment and techniques. Excavations are not expected to encounter groundwater, except in the vicinity of the pond and stream. If encountered, the water level should be maintained at least 1 foot below excavations to help maintain bottom stability.

Water can probably be controlled at the site by pumping from sumps located within the excavation.

Based on the limited boring data available, excavations to nominal depths below existing grades are not likely to encounter rock. PWR was encountered by two of the borings at depths of 18 to 22 feet.

Additional exploration based on final grading plans and utility excavation depths will be necessary to better qualify the potential for encountering PWR or rock.

August 30, 2018 6

All excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations, including OSHA (29 CFR Part 1926) excavation trench safety standards. The contractor is usually solely responsible for site safety. This information is provided only as a service, and under no circumstances should S&ME be assumed to be responsible for construction site safety.

IBC Seismic Site Class. Using the general procedure of the International Building Code (IBC), 2015

Edition, Section 1613.2 (which references Chapter 20 of ASCE 7), the boring data, and our experience, it is our interpretation that the majority of the boring data indicates the site has a seismic Site Class of “D.”

However, the higher SPT resistances of boring B-6 were indicative of a Site Class of “C.” Deeper exploration and additional testing should be performed as part of a design-level exploration to better define the seismic Site Class. The site vicinity is not known to be subject to concerns with geologic hazards, including earthquake fault zones, seismic settlement, slope instability, ground shaking, or liquefaction of subsurface soils.

Foundations. Based on the limited exploration, the site soils appear adaptable for supporting buildings using conventional shallow foundations. Although the test locations are too widely-spaced to provide final design values, we anticipate that maximum allowable bearing pressures ranging from 2,500 to 3,500 psf are feasible for conventional shallow foundations, assuming our site preparation recommendations are followed. As development plans progress and the building locations and general grading plans are established, additional borings should be conducted within building footprints to provide the necessary information for foundation design. The additional exploration and geotechnical analysis should also evaluate potential foundation settlement based on specific structural design loads.

Floor Slabs. Concrete ground floor slab can normally be soil-supported, provided our site preparation recommendations are followed. We suggest a 4- to 6-inch thick layer of crushed stone be used to separate the floor slab from the subgrade soils. This layer will help provide uniform support for the floor slab and provide a working surface during wet weather. The crushed stone should consist of Macadam

Base Course (SCDOT Standard Specifications) compacted to at least 100 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698). Typical modulus of subgrade reaction values for use in floor slab design at this site would range from 100 to 150 pci.

Pavements. Our general pavement opinions are based on our experience with similar sites and very limited geotechnical data. Final pavement thicknesses should be based on additional borings at specific pavement areas, laboratory testing, and anticipated traffic for specific developments. Flexible pavements are typically used in both standard and heavy duty applications, but we typically recommend rigid pavements for areas subject to turning of heavy trucks such as the entrance, truck docks, truck parking, dumpster areas, etc.

Flexible pavements typically consist of an asphaltic concrete surface underlain by a layer of compacted crushed stone base on a properly prepared subgrade. Based on our experience in the area of the site, typical California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values are normally in the range of 3 to 6 percent. Pavement thicknesses are primarily based on the supporting soils, drainage characteristics, and traffic. Typically, automobile parking areas not subjected to frequent truck traffic typically consist of a minimum 8-inch thick section (2 inches of asphalt and 6 inches of crushed stone base). For access drives or other areas

August 30, 2018 7 with frequent heavy truck traffic, a typical pavement section consists of a minimum of 4 inches of asphalt and 8 inches of crushed stone base. However, thicker sections could be needed depending on the volume and loading of anticipated traffic.

Rigid pavement should be considered for any areas subjected to turning of heavy trucks, but can also be used in other applications. Concrete pavement thicknesses typically vary from 6 to 8 inches thick depending on the volume and type of truck traffic. A minimum of 4 to 6 inches of compacted crushed stone base typically underlies concrete pavement. This layer will help provide additional support, provide drainage, and will help with the long-term performance of the concrete pavements when subjected to freeze-thaw actions.

Pavement performance (for both flexible and rigid pavements) is heavily dependent on the subgrade drainage conditions. Design should prevent water from standing on the pavement surface or behind curbing, and should provide positive drainage from the stone base material. Pavement performance will be influenced by a number of factors including the actual condition of subgrade soils at the time of pavement installation, installed thicknesses and compaction, construction traffic, and drainage.

Recommendations for Additional Exploration. The current number of borings provides a general indication of subsurface conditions that could be encountered at the site. However, the spacing and number of borings does not provide an adequately reliable basis for detailed design or construction considerations. This is particularly the case for the depth to PWR and the possible presence of existing fill.

When development is further advanced, a more detailed supplemental exploration should be performed.

This will include additional borings, test pits, and/or laboratory testing in specific areas. The supplemental exploration should also incorporate more detailed design information, such as the anticipated structural loads, allowable settlement criteria, and any extraordinary performance criteria (such as for heavily loaded racks, structural slabs, and/or specialty equipment foundations etc.).

Limitations of Report

This Limited Geotechnical Exploration Report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice for specific application to this project. The opinions in this report are based on the applicable standards of our practice in this geographic area at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. The conclusions submitted herein are based, in part, upon the data obtained from the limited subsurface exploration. This report was intended to give only general information about overall site conditions.

August 30, 2018 8

Closure

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have questions concerning our geotechnical engineering report, please call.

Sincerely, S&ME, Inc.

Josh Gathro, GIT Angela S. Musselwhite, PE, F.NSPE

Geotechnical Staff Professional Principal Engineer/Vice President

Registration No. 12594 (South Carolina)

Attachments

Important Information About Your

Geotechnical Engineering Report Variations in subsurface conditions can be a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns and claims.

The following information is provided to assist you in understanding and managing the risk of these variations.

Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Geotechnical engineers cannot specify material properties as other design engineers do.

Geotechnical material properties have a far broader range on a given site than any manufactured construction material, and some geotechnical material properties may change over time because of exposure to air and water, or human activity.

Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions at the time of exploration and only at the points where subsurface tests are performed or samples obtained. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their judgment to render professional opinions about site subsurface conditions. Their recommendations rely upon these professional opinions. Variations in the vertical and lateral extent of subsurface materials may be encountered during construction that significantly impact construction schedules, methods and material volumes. While higher levels of subsurface exploration can mitigate the risk of encountering unanticipated subsurface conditions, no level of subsurface exploration can eliminate this risk.

Scope of Geotechnical Services Professional geotechnical engineering judgment is required to develop a geotechnical exploration scope to obtain information necessary to support design and construction. A number of unique project factors are considered in developing the scope of geotechnical services, such as the exploration objective; the location, type, size and weight of the proposed structure; proposed site grades and improvements; the construction schedule and sequence; and the site geology.

Geotechnical engineers apply their experience with construction methods, subsurface conditions and exploration methods to develop the exploration scope. The scope of each exploration is unique based on available project and site information.

Incomplete project information or constraints on the scope of exploration increases the risk of variations in subsurface conditions not being identified and addressed in the geotechnical report.

Services Are Performed for Specific Projects Because the scope of each geotechnical exploration is unique, each geotechnical report is unique. Subsurface conditions are explored and recommendations are made for a specific project.

Subsurface information and recommendations may not be adequate for other uses. Changes in a proposed structure location, foundation loads, grades, schedule, etc. may require additional geotechnical exploration, analyses, and consultation. The geotechnical engineer should be consulted to determine if additional services are required in response to changes in proposed construction, location, loads, grades, schedule, etc.

Geo-Environmental Issues The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geo-environmental study differ significantly from those used for a geotechnical exploration. Indications of environmental contamination may be encountered incidental to performance of a geotechnical exploration but go unrecognized. Determination of the presence, type or extent of environmental contamination is beyond the scope of a geotechnical exploration.

Geotechnical Recommendations Are Not Final Recommendations are developed based on the geotechnical engineer’s understanding of the proposed construction and professional opinion of site subsurface conditions. Observations and tests must be performed during construction to confirm subsurface conditions exposed by construction excavations are consistent with those assumed in development of recommendations. It is advisable to retain the geotechnical engineer that performed the exploration and developed the geotechnical recommendations to conduct tests and observations during construction. This may reduce the risk that variations in subsurface conditions will not be addressed as recommended in the geotechnical report.

Portion obtained with permission from “Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report”, ASFE, 2004 © S&ME, Inc. 2010

PLATE 15

dswoap Text Box

B-1

B-2

B-4

B-3

BORING LOCATION PLAN

HODGES, SOUTH CAROLINA

HODGES CORPORATE PARK

US 25 AND CORPORATE COURT

HODGES DEVELOPABLE PROVIDED BY GREENWOOD PARTNERSHIP ALLIANCE ON

JULY 11, 2018

SOURCES:

LEGEND:

APPROXIMATE SOIL TEST BORING LOCATION

4226-18-101

JDG

08-29-2018

ASM

AutoCAD SHX Text N

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROJECT NO.:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAWN BY:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

CHECKED BY:

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCALE (FEET):NTS

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIGURE NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

GREENVILLE, SC

AutoCAD SHX Text

SPARTANBURG, SC

AutoCAD SHX Text S&ME, Inc.

AutoCAD SHX Text

864.297.9944 Greenville

AutoCAD SHX Text

864.574.2360 Spartanburg

AutoCAD SHX Text www.smeinc.com

Asphalt

Concrete

Topsoil

HC

LEGEND TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS

Partially Weathered Rock

Cored Rock

(Shown in Water Level Column)

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

Silt (ML)

Clay (CL, CH)

Sandy Silt (ML)

Clayey Sand (SC)

Clayey Silt (MH)

Organic (OL, OH)

RELATIVE DENSITY

Very Loose Loose

Medium Dense Dense

Very Dense

CONSTITUENT MODIFIERS

Trace: <5%

Few: 5 to <15% Little: 15 to <30% Some: 30 to <50% Mostly: 50 to 100%

- Total Length of Rock Recovered in the Core Barrel Divided by the Total Length of the Core Run Times 100%.

REC

RQD

TOB

(Shown in Graphic Log)

WATER LEVELS

CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS

CONSISTENCY

STD. PENETRATION

RESISTANCE

BLOWS/FOOT

Very Soft Soft Firm Stiff

Very Stiff Hard

Very Hard

STD. PENETRATION

RESISTANCE

BLOWS/FOOT

RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS

= Water Level At Termination of Boring

= Water Level Taken After 24 Hours

= Loss of Drilling Water

= Hole Cave

0 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 8

9 to 15 16 to 30 31 to 50 Over 50

Fill

Sand (SW, SP)

Silty Sand (SM)

Sandy Clay (CL, CH)

Silty Clay (CL, CH)

Gravel (GW, GM, GP)

SOIL TYPES (USCS CLASSIFICATION)

Shelby Tube

Split Spoon

Rock Core

No Recovery

SAMPLER TYPES

(Shown in Samples Column)

TERMS

Standard Penetration Resistance

- Total Length of Sound Rock Segments Recovered that are Longer Than or Equal to 4" (mechanical breaks excluded) Divided by the Total Length of the Core Run Times 100%.

- Termination of Boring

N.E. - Not Encountered

- The Number of Blows of 140 lb. Hammer Falling 30 in. Required to Drive 1.4 in. I.D. Split Spoon Sampler 1 Foot. As Specified in ASTM D-1586.

TOPSOIL - 5 inches

RESIDUUM: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) - stiff, orange white, fine to medium

CLAYEY SAND (SC) - medium dense, orange white, fine to coarse

SILTY SAND (SM) - loose, orange, fine, trace medium sand

SILTY SAND (SM) - loose, red tan, fine to medium, trace coarse sand, seam of silt

SANDY SILT (ML) - stiff, red brown, fine

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) - medium dense, tan white pink, fine to coarse, few angular rock fragments

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY

(SP-SC) - loose, tan white light brown, fine to coarse

Boring terminated at 25 feet

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

SS-7

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

N V

A L

U E

D E

P T

H

(f e e t)

THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED

PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.

BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL

ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.

STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.

WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.

NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

2n d

6i n

/ R E

C

3r d

6i n

/ R Q

D

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

S A

M P

L E

N O

1s t 6 in

R U

N

BLOW COUNT

/ CORE DATA

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f e e t)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BORING LOG B-1

1.

2.

3.

4.

S

M E

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

V

O G

T L

E

-1

-1

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

.G P

J S

M

E

.G

D T

/2

/1

PROJECT: Hodges Corporate Park Hodges, Greenwood County, South Carolina

S&ME Project No. 4226-18-101

CLIENT: Greenwood Partnership Alliance

DATE DRILLED: 8/21/18

DRILL RIG: CME 550X

DRILLER: Independence Drilling, Inc.

HAMMER TYPE: Automatic

SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon

DRILLING METHOD: 2¼" H.S.A.

ELEVATION:

BORING DEPTH: 25.0 ft

WATER LEVEL: Not Encountered at TOB

LOGGED BY: J. Gathro

NOTES:

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

50/4"

TOPSOIL - 3 inches

CULTIVATED SOIL: CLAYEY SAND (SC) -

loose, brown red, fine to medium, little roots, trace fine gravel

POSSIBLE FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) -

firm, brown red, fine to medium, trace roots

POSSIBLE FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) -

stiff to very stiff, red, grayish-brown, fine to medium, trace roots

No Recovery

RESIDUUM: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH

SILT (SP-SM) - dense, tan light gray, fine to coarse, few rock fragments

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT

(SP-SM) - loose, light tan white, fine to medium, trace coarse sand

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) - medium dense, tan light gray, fine to medium, trace silt

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: POORLY

GRADED SAND (SP) - very dense, tan light gray, fine to medium, trace silt

Boring terminated at 25 feet

50/4"

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

SS-7

SS-8

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

N V

A L

U E

D E

P T

H

(f e e t)

THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED

PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.

BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL

ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.

STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.

WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.

NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

2n d

6i n

/ R E

C

3r d

6i n

/ R Q

D

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

S A

M P

L E

N O

1s t 6 in

R U

N

BLOW COUNT

/ CORE DATA

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f e e t)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BORING LOG B-2

1.

2.

3.

4.

S

M E

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

V

O G

T

-1

-1

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

.G P

J S

M

E

.G

/1

PROJECT: Hodges Corporate Park Hodges, Greenwood County, South Carolina

S&ME Project No. 4226-18-101

CLIENT: Greenwood Partnership Alliance

DATE DRILLED: 8/20/18

DRILL RIG: CME 550X

DRILLER: Independence Drilling, Inc.

HAMMER TYPE: Automatic

SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon

DRILLING METHOD: 2¼" H.S.A.

ELEVATION:

BORING DEPTH: 25.0 ft

WATER LEVEL: Not Encountered at TOB

LOGGED BY: J. Gathro

NOTES:

TOPSOIL - 4 inches

RESIDUUM: CLAYEY SAND (SC) - medium dense, brown red, fine to medium, trace coarse sand, trace roots

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) - very stiff, orange brown, fine to medium

SANDY SILT (ML) - yellowish-brown, red, fine

SILTY SAND (SM) - loose, tan white gray, fine to coarse, moist

CLAYEY SAND (SC) - very loose, grayish-brown, red, fine to medium, seam of sandy lean clay

CLAYEY SAND (SC) - loose, tan gray, fine to coarse, wet

SILTY SAND (SM) - loose, tan gray, fine to coarse, little clay, wet

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

SS-7

SS-8

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

N V

A L

U E

D E

P T

H

(f e e t)

THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED

PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.

BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL

ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.

STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.

WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.

NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

2n d

6i n

/ R E

C

3r d

6i n

/ R Q

D

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

S A

M P

L E

N O

1s t 6 in

R U

N

BLOW COUNT

/ CORE DATA

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f e e t)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BORING LOG B-3

1.

2.

3.

4.

S

M E

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

V

O G

T

-1

-1

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

.G P

J S

M

E

.G

/1

PROJECT: Hodges Corporate Park Hodges, Greenwood County, South Carolina

S&ME Project No. 4226-18-101

CLIENT: Greenwood Partnership Alliance

DATE DRILLED: 8/20/18

DRILL RIG: CME 550X

DRILLER: Independence Drilling, Inc.

HAMMER TYPE: Automatic

SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon

DRILLING METHOD: 2¼" H.S.A.

ELEVATION:

BORING DEPTH: 40.0 ft

WATER LEVEL: 22 ft at TOB

LOGGED BY: J. Gathro

SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense, white gray tan, fine to medium, wet

SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense, white brown gray, fine to coarse, trace fine gravel, wet

Boring terminated at 40 feet

SS-9

SS-10

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

N V

A L

U E

D E

P T

H

(f e e t)

THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED

PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.

BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL

ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.

STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.

WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.

NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

2n d

6i n

/ R E

C

3r d

6i n

/ R Q

D

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

S A

M P

L E

N O

1s t 6 in

R U

N

BLOW COUNT

/ CORE DATA

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f e e t)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BORING LOG B-3

1.

2.

3.

4.

S

M E

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

V

O G

T

-1

-1

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

.G P

J S

M

E

.G

/1

PROJECT: Hodges Corporate Park Hodges, Greenwood County, South Carolina

S&ME Project No. 4226-18-101

CLIENT: Greenwood Partnership Alliance

DATE DRILLED: 8/20/18

DRILL RIG: CME 550X

DRILLER: Independence Drilling, Inc.

HAMMER TYPE: Automatic

SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon

DRILLING METHOD: 2¼" H.S.A.

ELEVATION:

BORING DEPTH: 40.0 ft

WATER LEVEL: 22 ft at TOB

LOGGED BY: J. Gathro

TOPSOIL - 5 inches

RESIDUUM: CLAYEY SAND (SC) - medium dense, red, yellowish-brown, fine to medium, trace roots

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) - very stiff, red brown, fine to medium, trace fine gravel

SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense, red brown, fine, trace medium sand

SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense, pinkish-orange, gray, fine to medium, little coarse sand, feldspathic

SILTY SAND (SM) - loose, pinkish-orange, white, fine to coarse

Boring terminated at 25 feet

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

SS-7

HC

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

N V

A L

U E

D E

P T

H

(f e e t)

THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED

PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.

BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL

ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.

STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.

WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.

NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

2n d

6i n

/ R E

C

3r d

6i n

/ R Q

D

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

S A

M P

L E

N O

1s t 6 in

R U

N

BLOW COUNT

/ CORE DATA

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f e e t)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BORING LOG B-4

1.

2.

3.

4.

S

M E

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

V

O G

T

-1

-1

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

.G P

J S

M

E

.G

/1

PROJECT: Hodges Corporate Park Hodges, Greenwood County, South Carolina

S&ME Project No. 4226-18-101

CLIENT: Greenwood Partnership Alliance

DATE DRILLED: 8/20/18

DRILL RIG: CME 550X

DRILLER: Independence Drilling, Inc.

HAMMER TYPE: Automatic

SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon

DRILLING METHOD: 2¼" H.S.A.

ELEVATION:

BORING DEPTH: 25.0 ft

WATER LEVEL: Not Encountered at TOB

LOGGED BY: J. Gathro

CAVE-IN DEPTH: 22'

TOPSOIL - 4 inches

RESIDUUM: CLAYEY SAND (SC) - loose, red tan yellow, fine to medium

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) - very stiff, red yellow white, fine to medium, little coarse sand

SILTY SAND (SM) - loose, orange red, fine, seam of light gray medium sand

SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense, olive, fine to medium, seam of light orange medium sand

SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense, white tan gray, fine to coarse, some <3/4 in quartz fragments

SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense, gray tan, fine to coarse

Boring terminated at 25 feet

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

SS-7

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

N V

A L

U E

D E

P T

H

(f e e t)

THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED

PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.

BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL

ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.

STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.

WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.

NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

2n d

6i n

/ R E

C

3r d

6i n

/ R Q

D

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

S A

M P

L E

N O

1s t 6 in

R U

N

BLOW COUNT

/ CORE DATA

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f e e t)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BORING LOG B-5

1.

2.

3.

4.

S

M E

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

V

O G

T

-1

-1

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

.G P

J S

M

E

.G

/1

PROJECT: Hodges Corporate Park Hodges, Greenwood County, South Carolina

S&ME Project No. 4226-18-101

CLIENT: Greenwood Partnership Alliance

DATE DRILLED: 8/21/18

DRILL RIG: CME 550X

DRILLER: Independence Drilling, Inc.

HAMMER TYPE: Automatic

SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon

DRILLING METHOD: 2¼" H.S.A.

ELEVATION:

BORING DEPTH: 25.0 ft

WATER LEVEL: Not Encountered at TOB

LOGGED BY: J. Gathro

50/4"

50/2"

TOPSOIL - 5 inches

POSSIBLE CULTIVATED SOIL: SILTY SAND

(SM) - loose, gray brown red, fine to medium, trace coarse sand, trace clay, some roots

RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense, light gray tan, fine to medium

SILTY SAND (SM) - dense, light gray tan pink, fine to coarse, little clay, few rock fragments, slightly micaceous

SILTY SAND (SM) - dense, dark gray olive, fine, trace medium sand, slightly micaceous

SILTY SAND (SM) - dense, dark gray olive, fine to coarse, few rock fragments, slightly micaceous

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SILTY

SAND (SM) - very dense, gray brown, fine to coarse, little rock fragments

Boring terminated at 25 feet

50/2"

50/4"

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

SS-7

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

N V

A L

U E

D E

P T

H

(f e e t)

THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED

PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.

BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL

ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.

STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.

WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.

NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

2n d

6i n

/ R E

C

3r d

6i n

/ R Q

D

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

S A

M P

L E

N O

1s t 6 in

R U

N

BLOW COUNT

/ CORE DATA

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f e e t)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BORING LOG B-6

1.

2.

3.

4.

S

M E

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

V

O G

T

-1

-1

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

.G P

J S

M

E

.G

/1

PROJECT: Hodges Corporate Park Hodges, Greenwood County, South Carolina

S&ME Project No. 4226-18-101

CLIENT: Greenwood Partnership Alliance

DATE DRILLED: 8/20/18

DRILL RIG: CME 550X

DRILLER: Independence Drilling, Inc.

HAMMER TYPE: Automatic

SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon

DRILLING METHOD: 2¼" H.S.A.

ELEVATION:

BORING DEPTH: 25.0 ft

WATER LEVEL: Not Encountered at TOB

LOGGED BY: J. Gathro

NOTES:

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

♦ Field Testing Procedures

Soil Test Borings

All borings and sampling were conducted in accordance with ASTM D-1586 test method. Initially, the borings were advanced by either mechanically augering or wash boring through the overburden soils. When necessary, a heavy drilling fluid is used below the water table to stabilize the sides and bottom of the borehole. At regular intervals, soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4-inch I.D., 2-inch O.D., split-barrel or split-spoon sampler.

The sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings and then driven an additional foot with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final foot is designated as the "Standard Penetration Resistance" or N-value. The penetration resistance, when properly evaluated, can be correlated to consistency, relative density, strength and compressibility of the sampled soils.

Water Level Readings

Water level readings are normally taken in conjunction with borings and are recorded on the Boring Logs following termination of drilling (designated by ) and at a period of 24 hours following termination of drilling

(designated by ). These readings indicate the approximate location of the hydrostatic water table at the time of our field exploration. The groundwater table may be dependent upon the amount of precipitation at the site during a particular period of time. Fluctuations in the water table should also be expected with variations in surface run-off, evaporation, construction activity and other factors.

Occasionally the boreholes sides will cave, preventing the water level readings from being obtained or trapping drilling water above the cave-in zone. In these instances, the hole cave-in depth (designated by HC) is measured and recorded on the Boring Logs. Water level readings taken during the field operations do not provide information on the long-term fluctuations of the water table. When this information is required, piezometers are installed to prevent the boreholes from caving.