36C25622R0094 ECS Geotechnical Report.pdf

ECS Southeast, LLP Geotechnical Engineering Report Chiller Replacement – Alexandria VA Medical Center

2495 Shreveport Hwy Pineville, Louisiana

ECS Project No. 65:1112

September 27, 2021

September 27, 2021

Mr. Tom Bergeron HCS Group, PC 8401 Crossland Loop Montgomery, AL tom@hcsgroupet.com

ECS Project No. 65:1112

Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Report Chiller Replacement – Alexandria VA Medical Center 2495 Shreveport Hwy Pineville, Louisiana

Mr. Bergeron:

ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS) has completed the subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analyses for the above-referenced project. Our services were performed in general accordance with our agreed to scope of work. This report presents our understanding of the geotechnical aspects of the project along with the results of the field exploration and laboratory testing conducted, and our design and construction recommendations.

It has been our pleasure to be of service to HCS Group during the design phase of this project. We would appreciate the opportunity to remain involved during the continuation of the design phase, and we would like to provide our services during construction phase operations as well to verify subsurface conditions assumed for this report. Should you have any questions concerning the information contained in this report, or if we can be of further assistance to you, please contact us.

Respectfully submitted, ECS Southeast, LLP

Nathan Burke, E.I.

Project Manager nburke@ecslimited.com

David Marsh, P.E.

Principal Engineer

Joe Cobena, P.E.

Office Manager jcobena@ecslimited.com dmarsh@ecslimited.com

09/27/2021

Chiller Replacement– Alexandria VA Medical Center – Pineville, LA September 27, 2021 ECS Project No. 65:1112 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Location/Current Site Use

2.2 Proposed Construction

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 Field Exploration Program

3.1.1 Test Borings

3.2 Subsurface characterization

3.3 Groundwater Observations

3.4 Laboratory Testing

4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Foundations

4.1.1Deep Foundations

4.2 Seismic Design Considerations

5.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Construction Monitoring

5.2 Earthwork Operations

5.2.1 Structural Fill

6.0 CLOSING

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Drawings & Reports

• Site Location Diagram

• Boring Location Diagram

Appendix B – Field Operations

• Reference Notes for Boring Logs

• Boring Log B-1

Appendix C – Laboratory Testing

• Laboratory Testing Results Summary

Chiller Replacement- Alexandria VA Medical Center –Pineville, LA September 27, 2021 ECS Project No. 65:1112 Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS) has completed the subsurface exploration for the proposed Chiller Replacement at the Alexandria VA Medical Center. The project information summarized below is based exclusively on the information made available to us by the client at the time of this report. Our findings, conclusions and recommendations are summarized below.

PROJECT INFORMATION:

• Site Location: 2495 Shreveport Hwy, Pineville, LA

• Project Scope: Industrial Chiller with hurricane-rated enclosure

• Foundation Type: Shallow or Deep Foundation

• Equipment Weight: 6,500 pounds

• Earthwork: Cut and fill up to about 2 feet

• Sitework: Pavement demolition, Underground utilities

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS:

• Field Exploration: 1 SPT boring to 20 feet in the proposed chiller area

• Surface Material: Topsoil about 6 inches

• Probable Fill: Not apparent in the soil test borings

• Natural Material: Clayey Sand (SC) and Sandy Silty Clay (CL/ML)

• Groundwater: Not Encountered within the depths of exploration

DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS:

• Shallow foundations o Max. Net Allow. Bearing Pressure = 1,500 psf o Min. Exterior Footing Depth = 24 inches o Min. Interior Footing Depth = 18 inches o Min. Mat Foundation Depth = 12 inches

• Slab-on-Grade: Modulus of Subgrade Reaction of 90 pci

• Seismic Design: IBC Site Class “D”

• Deep Foundations o Class 5 Timber Pile Max Allowable Compressive Axial Load 8 tons for a single pile

The following summarizes the main findings of the exploration, particularly those that may have a cost impact on the planned development. Further, our principal foundation recommendations are summarized. Information gleaned from the Executive Summary should not be utilized in lieu of reading the entire geotechnical report.

ECS Project No. 65:1112 Page 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to provide geotechnical information for the design of a new Chiller with a hurricane-rated enclosure. The project will include an approximately 6,500-pound chiller designed to be slab-on-grade. The recommendations developed for this report are based on project information supplied by the client.

Our services were provided in accordance with our Proposal No. 1217, dated May 14, 2021, as authorized by Mr. Kent Hornsby on July 19, 2021, which includes our Terms and Conditions of Service.

This report contains the procedures and results of our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing programs, review of existing site conditions, engineering analyses, and recommendations for the design and construction of the project.

The report includes the following items:

• Observations from our site reconnaissance including current site conditions, surface drainage features, and surface topographic conditions.

• Description of the field exploration and laboratory tests performed.

• Final logs of soil test borings and records of the field exploration and laboratory tests in accordance with the standard practice of geotechnical engineers. This includes a location diagram.

• Recommendations for allowable bearing pressure for conventional shallow/deep foundation systems (as applicable) and estimates of total and differential foundation settlement. This will include specific project information and design loads provided by the project structural engineer or loads assumed by ECS.

• A discussion of groundwater, in-place fill, and alluvial soils and their potential impact on structures and project construction.

• Recommendations regarding site preparation and construction observations and testing.

• Recommendations for additional testing and/or consultation that might be required to complete the geotechnical assessment and related engineering for this project (supplemental reports and evaluations can be performed as requested; supplemental reports and evaluations will be considered additional scope and will be billed in accordance with our standard fee schedule unless otherwise negotiated).

ECS Project No. 65:1112 Page 3

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION/CURRENT SITE USE

The project is located at 2495 Shreveport Hwy in Pineville, Louisiana, at the Alexandria VA Medical Center.

The site is currently a curbed green space surrounded by concrete pavement. The topography of the proposed chiller location is slightly sloped with surface elevations ranging from +150 feet MSL to +152 feet MSL. The elevations and topographic variations were estimated from Google Earth. Elevation ranges are approximate +/- several feet. The location is depicted on the Figure shown below:

Site Location

ECS Project No. 65:1112 Page 4

2.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

The following information explains our understanding of the proposed infrastructure:

SUBJECT DESIGN INFORMATION / ASSUMPTIONS

Usage Approximately 6,500-lb Chiller with hurricane rated enclosure

Construction Materials Masonry Wall Lowest Finish Floor

Elevation EL. 152 ft MSL (Estimated to be about the same as present site grades)

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM

The field exploration was planned with the objective of characterizing the project site in general geotechnical and geological terms and to evaluate subsequent field and laboratory data to assist in the determination of geotechnical recommendations.

3.1.1 Test Borings

Our scope of work included drilling one (1) soil test boring. The boring was located on the proposed chiller footprint and was advanced to a depth of approximately 20 feet below the existing site grades. The boring location was chosen by Tom Bergeron of HCS Group, and its approximate location is shown on the Boring Location Diagram in Appendix A. The approximate ground surface elevations noted in this report were obtained from Google Earth Pro. Elevation ranges are approximate +/- several feet.

Representative soil samples were obtained by means of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) procedures in accordance with ASTM Specifications D-1586 in granular soils and by means of Shelby tube sampling procedures in accordance with ASTM Specifications D-1587 in cohesive soils. SPT sampling is performed by driving a split-barrel sampler into the soil in 1.5-feet intervals with a 140-lb hammer and measures the resistance of the soil to penetration of the 2-inch diameter sampler. In the Shelby tube sampling procedure, a thin walled, steel, seamless tube with sharp cutting edges is pushed hydraulically into the soil, and a relatively undisturbed sample is obtained.

Field logs of the soils encountered in the borings were maintained by the drill crew. After recovery, each geotechnical soil sample was removed for the sampler and visually classified. Representative portions of each soil sample were then wrapped in plastic and transported to our laboratory for further visual examination and laboratory testing. After completion of the drilling operations, the boreholes were backfilled with cuttings to the existing ground surface.

3.2 SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION

The following text provides generalized characterizations of the soil strata encountered during our subsurface exploration. For subsurface information specific information, please refer to the Boring Logs in Appendix B:

ECS Project No. 65:1112 Page 5

GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Approximate

Depth (ft) Elevation (1)

(Ft, MSL) Stratum No. Soil Description

0-0.5 ft

EL. + 152 to + 151.5

- TOPSOIL

0.5-6.5 ft EL. +151.5 to + 145.5

I CLAYEY SAND (SC), Moist, Loose to Very Dense

6.5- 8.5 ft EL. + 145.5 to +143.5

II SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL/ML), Moist, Firm

8.5- 20 ft EL. + 143.5 to + 132

III CLAYEY SAND (SC), Moist, Medium Dense

Notes:

(1) Please note that the ground surface elevations were or were not surveyed by a licensed surveyor; these elevations are approximate based on Google-Earth© or topographic survey provided; therefore. Elevation ranges are approximate +/-several feet.

Please refer to the attached boring logs and laboratory data summary for this field exploration for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings as the stratification descriptions above are generalized for presentation purposes.

3.3 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater levels, if observed, were made in the borings during and shortly after drilling operations. In auger drilling operations, water is not introduced into the borehole and the groundwater position can often be determined by observing water flowing into and out of the excavation. Furthermore, visual observation of soil samples retrieved can often be used in evaluating the groundwater conditions.

Groundwater was not encountered within the depths explored at the time of drilling. Variations in the long-term water table may occur as a result of changes in precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff, construction activities, and other factors.

The highest groundwater observations are normally encountered in the late winter or early spring or following seasonal heavy rainfall events. Fluctuation in the location of the long-term water table may occur as a result of changes in precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff and other factors not immediately apparent at the time of his investigation. Therefore, the groundwater conditions at this site are expected to be significantly influenced by surface water runoff and rainfall.

3.4 LABORATORY TESTING

The laboratory testing consisted of selected tests performed on samples obtained during our field exploration operations. Classification and index property tests were performed on representative soil samples. The soil samples were tested for moisture content, Atterberg Limits and percent passing standard No. 200 sieve.

ECS Project No. 65:1112 Page 6

Each sample was visually classified on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with ASTM D2488 Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures) and including USCS classification symbols. After classification, the samples were grouped in the major zones noted on the boring logs in Appendix B. The group symbols for each soil type are indicated in parentheses along with the soil descriptions. The stratification lines between strata on the logs are approximate; in situ, the transitions may be gradual.

The soil samples will be retained in our laboratory for a period of 60 days, after which, they will be discarded unless other instructions are received as to their disposition.

4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations have been developed on the basis of the previously described project characteristics and subsurface conditions. If there are any changes to the project characteristics or if different subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, ECS should be consulted so that the recommendations of this report can be reviewed. Site grading information was not provided during this report; however, we have assumed that the foundation elevation will be within about 2 feet of the existing site elevations. If the finished floor elevation deviates from this assumed site grades, the recommendations provided below should be evaluated by our office.

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, the anticipated column and loading conditions and the lowest level bearing elevation, the site appears well suited for the proposed development as described herein. The following sections detail our recommendations for the proposed development regarding foundation and below grade work.

4.1 FOUNDATIONS

Provided subgrades and structural fills are prepared as recommended in this report, the proposed structure can be supported by shallow foundations including column footings and continuous wall footings. We recommend that the foundation design use the following parameters:

Design Parameter Column Footing Wall Footing Mat Foundation

Net Allowable Bearing Pressure (1) 2,500 psf 2,000 psf -

Net Allowable Contact Pressure - - 1,500 psf

Minimum Foundation Depth 24 inches 18 inches 12 inches

Acceptable Bearing Soil Material Dense CLAYEY SAND (SC) or Compacted

Engineered Fill

Dense CLAYEY SAND (SC) or Compacted

Engineered Fill

Dense CLAYEY SAND (SC) or Compacted

Engineered Fill

Estimated Total Settlement (3) Less than 1- inch Less than 1- inch Less than 1- inch

Estimated Differential Settlement (4) Less than 1/2 inches between columns

Less than 1/2 inches Less than 1/2 inches over 40 feet

Notes:

ECS Project No. 65:1112 Page 7

(1) Net allowable bearing and contact pressure is the applied pressure in excess of the surrounding overburden soils above the base of the foundation.

(2) For bearing considerations and expansive soil concerns.

(3) Based on assumed structural loads. If final loads are different, ECS must be contacted to update foundation recommendations and settlement calculations.

(4) Based on maximum column/wall loads and variability in borings. Differential settlement can be re-evaluated once the foundation plans are more complete.

4.1.1 Deep Foundation Considerations

It is our understanding that the proposed equipment may be supported with deep foundations. In order to assist in the design of the deep foundation system, we’ve provided the table below of recommended deep foundation parameters. Once a foundation type is finalized, ECS should be contacted to provide additional analysis or recommendations as requested.

Deep Foundation Parameters

Stratum No. Soil Type Average N

Values (bpf)

Total Unit Weight (pcf)

Friction Angle (°)

Cohesion (psf)

Modulus of Subgrade

Reaction (pci) I Clayey Sand 29 125 36 - 190 II Sandy Silty Clay 6 100 - 750 50 III Clayey Sand 16 120 32 - 130

4.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Seismic Site Classification: The International Building Code (IBC) requires site classification for seismic design based on the upper 100 feet of a soil profile. The methods are utilized in classifying sites, namely the shear wave velocity (vs) method; the unconfined compressive strength (su) method; and the Standard Penetration Resistance (N-value) method. The unconfined compressive strength (su) method was used in classifying this site.

SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION

Site Class Soil Profile Name Shear Wave Velocity, Vs, (ft./s)

Soil undrained shear strength (psf)

A Hard Rock Vs > 5,000 fps N/A B Rock 2,500 < Vs ≤ 5,000 fps N/A C Very dense soil and soft rock 1,200 < Vs ≤ 2,500 fps ≥ 2000 D Stiff Soil Profile 600 ≤ Vs ≤ 1,200 fps 1000 ≤ Su ≤ 2000 E Soft Soil Profile Vs < 600 fps <1000

Based upon our interpretation of the subsurface conditions, the appropriate Seismic Site Classification is “D” as shown in the preceding Table.

The Site Class definition should not be confused with the Seismic Design Category designation which the Structural Engineer typically assesses. If a higher site classification is beneficial to the project, we can provide additional testing methods that may yield more favorable results.

ECS Project No. 65:1112 Page 8

5.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING

ECS should be on-site full-time during earthwork and foundation construction activities to document that our recommendations are strictly followed and to provide recommendations for remedial activities, where necessary.

5.2 EARTHWORK OPERATIONS

5.2.1 Structural Fill

Prior to placement of Structural Fill, representative bulk samples (about 50 pounds) of on-site and/or off-site borrow should be submitted to ECS for laboratory testing, which will typically include Atterberg limits, natural moisture content, grain-size distribution, and moisture-density relationships (i.e., Proctors) for compaction. Import materials should be tested prior to being hauled to the site to determine if they meet project specifications. Alternatively, Proctor data from other accredited laboratories can be submitted if the test results are within the last 90 days.

Satisfactory Structural Fill Materials: Materials satisfactory for use as Structural Fill should consist of inorganic soils with the following engineering properties and compaction requirements.

STRUCTURAL FILL INDEX PROPERTIES

Soil Type USCS Classification Property

Imported Clay Fill CL, SC LL < 45, 10<PI<25

Imported Sand Fill SP, SP-SM Less than 10% passing #200 sieve

Aggregate Base GP LADOTD 610 crushed limestone or similarly graded recycled aggregate

STRUCTURAL FILL COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS

Subject Requirement

Compaction Standard Standard Proctor, ASTM D698

Required Compaction 95% of Max. Dry Density

Moisture Content Optimum to +3 % points of the soil’s optimum value

Loose Thickness 8 inches prior to compaction

Fill Placement: Excessively wet soils or aggregates should be scarified, aerated, and moisture conditioned.

Drying and compaction of wet soils is typically difficult during the cold, winter months. Accordingly, earthwork should be performed during the warmer, drier times of the year, if practical. Proper drainage should be maintained during the earthwork phases of construction to prevent ponding of water which tends to degrade subgrade soils. Alternatively, if these soils cannot be stabilized by conventional methods as previously discussed, additional modifications to the subgrade soils such as lime or cement stabilization may be utilized to adjust the moisture content. If lime kiln dust (LKD) or Portland cement are utilized to

ECS Project No. 65:1112 Page 9 control moisture contents and/or for stabilization, Calciment® or regular Type 1 Portland cement can be used. The construction testing laboratory should evaluate proposed lime or cement soil modification procedures, such as quantity of additive and mixing and curing procedures before implementation.

Admixture concentrations on the order of 9 percent by volume are typical for this type of soil. Also, sufficient water must be available in the soil to hydrate the admixture to achieve its optimal strength. The contractor should be required to minimize dusting or implement dust control measures, as required.

ECS Project No. 65:1112 Page 10

6.0 CLOSING

ECS has prepared this report to guide the geotechnical-related design and construction aspects of the project. We performed these services in accordance with the standard of care expected of professionals in the industry performing similar services on projects of like size and complexity at this time in the region.

No other representation expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this report.

The description of the proposed project is based on information provided to ECS by HCS Group. If any of this information is inaccurate or changes, either because of our interpretation of the documents provided or site or design changes that may occur later, ECS should be contacted so we can review our recommendations and provide additional or alternate recommendations that reflect the proposed construction.

We recommend that ECS review the project plans and specifications so we can confirm that those plans/specifications are in accordance with the recommendations of this geotechnical report.

Field observations, and quality assurance testing during earthwork and foundation installation are an extension of, and integral to, the geotechnical design. We recommend that ECS be retained to apply our expertise throughout the geotechnical phases of construction, and to provide consultation and recommendation should issues arise.

ECS is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based on the data in this report.

APPENDIX A – Diagrams & Reports

Site Location Diagram Boring Location Diagram Subsurface Cross-Section

Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors

²

HCS GROUP

CHILLER REPLACEMENT

2495 SHREVEPORT HWY, PINEVILLE, LOUISIANA

SITE LOCATION DIAGRAM

0 600300 Feet

9/7/2021

ENGINEER

SCALE

65:1112

PROJECT NO.

SHEET

DATE

MJC

AS NOTED

B-1

Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors

²

Borings B: Approximate boring locations -

HCS GROUP

CHILLER REPLACEMENT

2495 SHREVEPORT HWY, PINEVILLE, LOUISIANA

BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM

0 12060 Feet

9/7/2021

ENGINEER

SCALE

65:1112

PROJECT NO.

SHEET

DATE

MJC

AS NOTED

153 153

152 152

151 151

150 150

149 149

148 148

147 147

146 146

145 145

144 144

143 143

142 142

141 141

140 140

139 139

138 138

137 137

136 136

135 135

134 134

133 133

132 132

0.

.4 8

.3 6

131.0

Legend Key Topsoil

CLAYEY

SAND

SILTY

CLAY

Notes:

1- EOB: END OF BORING AR: AUGER REFUSAL SR: SAMPLER REFUSAL.

2- THE NUMBER BELOW THE STRIPS IS THE DISTANCE ALONG THE BASELINE.

3- SEE INDIVIDUAL BORING LOG AND GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION.

4- STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE (LEFT OF BORING) IN BLOWS PER FOOT

(ASTM D1586).

Plastic Limit Water Content Liquid Limit X─────────⚫─────────△

[FINES CONTENT %]

BOTTOM OF CASING

LOSS OF

CIRCULATION

WL (First Encountered)

WL (Completion)

WL (Seasonal High Water)

WL (Stabilized)

Fill

Possible Fill

Probable Fill

Rock

GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILE Sec on line 1

Chiller Replacement, Alexandria VA HCS Group

2495 Shreveport Hwy, Pineville, Louisiana 71360 Project No: 65:1112 Date: 09/15/2021

*B -1

EOB

@20.0'

Topsoil

SC

CL/ML

SC

APPENDIX B – Field Operations

Reference Notes for Boring Logs Boring Log B-1

Reference Notes for Boring Logs (03-22-2017) © 2017 ECS Corporate Services, LLC. All Rights Reserved

COHESIVE SILTS & CLAYS

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH, QP

SPT

(BPF)

CONSISTENCY

(COHESIVE)

<0.25 <3 Very Soft

0.25 - <0.50 3 - 4 Soft

0.50 - <1.00 5 - 8 Firm

1.00 - <2.00 9 - 15 Stiff

2.00 - <4.00 16 - 30 Very Stiff

4.00 - 8.00 31 - 50 Hard

>8.00 >50 Very Hard

GRAVELS, SANDS & NON-COHESIVE SILTS

SPT

DENSITY

<5 Very Loose

5 - 10 Loose

11 - 30 Medium Dense

31 - 50 Dense

>50 Very Dense

REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS

Classifications and symbols per ASTM D 2488-09 (Visual-Manual Procedure) unless noted otherwise.

To be consistent with general practice, “POORLY GRADED” has been removed from GP, GP-GM, GP-GC, SP, SP-SM, SP-SC soil types on the boring logs.

Non-ASTM designations are included in soil descriptions and symbols along with ASTM symbol [Ex: (SM-FILL)].

Typically estimated via pocket penetrometer or Torvane shear test and expressed in tons per square foot (tsf).

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) refers to the number of hammer blows (blow count) of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch OD split spoon sampler required to drive the sampler 12 inches (ASTM D 1586). “N-value” is another term for “blow count” and is expressed in blows per foot (bpf).

The water levels are those levels actually measured in the borehole at the times indicated by the symbol. The measurements are relatively reliable when augering, without adding fluids, in granular soils. In clay and cohesive silts, the determination of water levels may require several days for the water level to stabilize. In such cases, additional methods of measurement are generally employed.

Minor deviation from ASTM D 2488-09 Note 16.

Percentages are estimated to the nearest 5% per ASTM D 2488-09.

RELATIVE

AMOUNT

COARSE

GRAINED

FINE

GRAINED

Trace <5 <5

Dual Symbol (ex: SW-SM)

10 10

With 15 - 20 15 - 25

Adjective (ex: “Silty”)

>25 >30

WATER LEVELS

WL Water Level (WS)(WD)

(WS) While Sampling

(WD) While Drilling

SHW Seasonal High WT

ACR After Casing Removal

SWT Stabilized Water Table

DCI Dry Cave-In

WCI Wet Cave-In

DRILLING SAMPLING SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS

SS Split Spoon Sampler PM Pressuremeter Test

ST Shelby Tube Sampler RD Rock Bit Drilling

WS Wash Sample RC Rock Core, NX, BX, AX

BS Bulk Sample of Cuttings REC Rock Sample Recovery %

PA Power Auger (no sample) RQD Rock Quality Designation %

HSA Hollow Stem Auger

PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION

DESIGNATION PARTICLE SIZES

Boulders 12 inches (300 mm) or larger

Cobbles 3 inches to 12 inches (75 mm to 300 mm)

Gravel: Coarse ¾ inch to 3 inches (19 mm to 75 mm)

Fine 4.75 mm to 19 mm (No. 4 sieve to ¾ inch)

Sand: Coarse 2.00 mm to 4.75 mm (No. 10 to No. 4 sieve)

Medium 0.425 mm to 2.00 mm (No. 40 to No. 10 sieve)

Fine 0.074 mm to 0.425 mm (No. 200 to No. 40 sieve)

Silt & Clay (“Fines”) <0.074 mm (smaller than a No. 200 sieve)

MATERIAL

1,2

ASPHALT

CONCRETE

GRAVEL

TOPSOIL

VOID

BRICK

AGGREGATE BASE COURSE

FILL

MAN-PLACED SOILS

GW WELL-GRADED GRAVEL

gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL

gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GM SILTY GRAVEL

gravel-sand-silt mixtures

GC CLAYEY GRAVEL

gravel-sand-clay mixtures

SW WELL-GRADED SAND

gravelly sand, little or no fines

SP POORLY-GRADED SAND

gravelly sand, little or no fines

SM SILTY SAND

sand-silt mixtures

SC CLAYEY SAND

sand-clay mixtures

ML SILT

non-plastic to medium plasticity

MH ELASTIC SILT

high plasticity

CL LEAN CLAY

low to medium plasticity

CH FAT CLAY

OL ORGANIC SILT or CLAY non-plastic to low plasticity

OH ORGANIC SILT or CLAY

PT PEAT

highly organic soils

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2487)

Major Divisions Group

Symbols Typical Names Laboratory Classification Criteria

GW

Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

Cu = D60/D10 greater than 4

Cc = (D30) /(D10xD60) between 1 and 3

C le a n g ra v e ls (L it tl e o r n o fi n e s

GP

Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW d

GM

a u

Silty gravels, gravel-sand mixtures

Atterberg limits below “A” line or P.I. less than 4

G ra v e ls (M o re th a n h a lf o f c o a rs e fr a c ti o n is la rg e r th a n N o s ie v e s iz e

G ra v e ls w it h fi n e s

(A p p re c ia b le a m o u n t o f fi n e s

GC

Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures

Atterberg limits below “A” line or P.I. less than 7

Above “A” line with P.I.

between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols

SW

Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines

Cu = D60/D10 greater than 6 Cc = (D30)

/(D10xD60) between 1 and 3

C le a n s a n d s (L it tl e o r n o fi n e s

SP

Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines

Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW d

SM

a u

Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Atterberg limits above “A” line or P.I. less than 4

C o a rs e

-g ra in e d s o ils (M o re th a n h a lf o f m a te ri a l is la rg e r th a n

N o

S ie v e s iz e

S a n d s (M o re th a n h a lf o f c o a rs e fr a c ti o n is s m a lle r th a n

N o s ie v e s iz e

S a n d s w it h fi n e s

(A p p re c ia b le a m o u n t o f fi n e s

SC

Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures

D e te rm in e p e rc e n ta g e s o f s a n d a n d g ra v e l fr o m g ra in -s iz e c u rv e

D e p e n d in g o n p e rc e n ta g e o f fi n e s

(f ra c ti o n s m a lle r th a n

N o s ie v e s iz e c o a rs e -g ra in e d s o ils a re c la s s if ie d a s fo llo w s

L e s s th a n p e rc e n t

G W

G

P S

W S

P M o re th a n p e rc e n t G

M G

C S

M

S C to p e rc e n t B o rd e rl in e c a s e s re q u ir in g d u a l s y m b o ls b

Atterberg limits above “A” line with P.I. greater than 7

Limits plotting in CL-ML zone with P.I. between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols

ML

Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands, or clayey silts with slight plasticity

CL

Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean claysS ilt s a n d c la y s

(L iq u id lim it le s s th a n

OL

Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity

MH

Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts

CH

Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays

S ilt s a n d c la y s

(L iq u id lim it g re a te r th a n

OH

Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts

F in e -g ra in e d s o ils (M o re th a n h a lf m a te ri a l is s m a lle r th a n

N o

S ie v e

H ig h ly

O rg a n ic s o ils Pt Peat and other highly organic soils

Plasticity Chart

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Liquid Limit

Pl as tic ity

In de x

"A" line

CH

MH and OH

CL

ML and OL

CL-ML

a Division of GM and SM groups into subdivisions of d and u are for roads and airfields only. Subdivision is based on Atterberg limits; suffix d used when

L.L. is 28 or less and the P.I. is 6 or less; the suffix u used when L.L. is greater than 28.

b Borderline classifications, used for soils possessing characteristics of two groups, are designated by combinations of group symbols. For example:

GW-GC,well-graded gravel-sand mixture with clay binder. (From Table 2.16 - Winterkorn and Fang, 1975)

DE

PT

H (F

T)

SA

M

PL

E

N U

M

BE

R

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

ST

SA

M

PL

E

DI

ST

IN

RE

CO

VE

RY

(I N

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

Topsoil Thickness[6.00"] (SC) CLAYEY SAND, tan, moist, loose to very dense

(CL-ML) SANDY SILTY CLAY, tan, moist, rm

(SC) CLAYEY SAND, tan, moist, medium dense

END OF DRILLING AT 20.0 FT

W

AT

ER

L

EV

EL

S

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

T)

BL

O

W S/

6"

16-24-28 (52)

26-17-10 (27)

3-3-3 (6)

2-2-4 (6)

3-6-10 (16)

10-8-8 (16)

Plas c Limit Water Content Liquid Limit X─────────⚫─────────△

3.25

5.7

7.8

11.8

15.0

15.1

12.1

16.1

[39.3%]

[43.8%]

[51.5%]

[44.6%]

[17.2%]

CLIENT:

HCS Group

PROJECT NAME:

Chiller Replacement, Alexandria VA

PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.:

65:1112 B-1

DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:

ECS

SHEET:

SITE LOCATION:

2495 Shreveport Hwy, Pineville, Louisiana 71360

LOSS OF CIRCULATION

NORTHING:

1039681.3

EASTING:

2936033.4

STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION:

152.0

BOTTOM OF CASING

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL

WL (First Encountered)

WL (Comple on)

WL (Seasonal High Water)

WL (Stabilized)

BORING STARTED:

BORING

COMPLETED:

EQUIPMENT:

Truck

Sep 01 2021

Sep 01 2021

LOGGED BY:

NHB2

CAVE IN DEPTH:

HAMMER TYPE:

DRILLING METHOD:

Manual

Dry Auger

GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY

RQD

REC

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TON/SF

[FINES CONTENT] %

APPENDIX C – Laboratory Testing

Laboratory Test Results Summary

S-1 5.7

S-2 7.8 39.3

S-3 11.8 43.8

S-4 15 20 13 7 51.5

S-5 15.1 44.6

S-6 12.1 17.2

S-7 16.1

Project:

Client:

Laboratory Testing Summary

Sample Location Sample

Number

Depth

(feet)

^MC

Soil

Type

Atterberg Limits **Percent

Passing

No. 200

Sieve

Moisture - Density CBR (%)

#Organic

Content (%)

LL PL PI

<Maximum

Density (pcf)

<Optimum

Moisture (%)

0.1 in. 0.2 in.

B-1 0.5-2

B-1 2.5-4

B-1 4.5-6

B-1 6.5-8

B-1 8.5-10

B-1 13.5-15

B-1 18-20

Notes: See test reports for test method, ^ASTM D2216-19, *ASTM D2488, **ASTM D1140-17, #ASTM D2974-20e1 < See test report for D4718 corrected values

Definitions: MC: Moisture Content, Soil Type: USCS (Unified Soil Classification System), LL: Liquid Limit, PL: Plastic Limit, PI: Plasticity Index, CBR: California

Bearing Ratio, OC: Organic Content

Chiller Replacement, Alexandria VA Project No.: 65:1112

HCS Group Date Reported:

Office / Lab Address Office Number / Fax

ECS Southeast LLP - Baton Rouge

11115 Industriplex Blvd

Suite 200

Baton Rouge, LA 70809

(225)224-2583

(225)612-7062

Tested by Checked by Approved by Date Received jmlayton nburke jcobena 9/13/21

6.0 CLOSING