C8006_Geotechnical_Reports_May_&_August_2012.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

EXISTING BULKHEAD AT

U.S. COAST GUARD DILIGENCE MOORINGS

WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA

S&ME Project Number 1061-12-201

Prepared For:

10201 Fairfax Boulevard, Suite 530 Fairfax, VA 22030

Prepared By:

3006 Hall Waters Drive, Suite 100 Wilmington, North Carolina 28405

NC PE Firm License No. F-0176

May 11, 2012

Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1061-12-201 Coast Guard Bulkhead, Wilmington, NC May 11, 2012 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM

2.1 GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION

2.2 SOIL TEST BORINGS

3 LABORATORY TESTING

4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 AREA GEOLOGY

4.2 GPR

4.3 BORINGS

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSIONS

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

6 LIMITATIONS OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

APPENDIX

Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering Report Figure 1- Site Vicinity Map Figures 2 through 9- GPR Results Figure 10 – Boring Location Plan Figure 11 - Subsurface Profile Figures 12 through 13 – Subsurface Cross Sections Legend to Soil Classification and Symbols Boring Logs Laboratory Test Results

1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Ms. Liz Burkhart of Collins Engineers provided project information to S&ME. Ms. Burkhart provided S&ME with the U.S. Coast Guard Request for Proposal dated October 25, 2011, in addition to a 2007 Inspection Report , original bulkhead design drawings, bulkhead repair design drawings, and a recent survey prepared by McKim & Creed.

We understand that the U.S. Coast Guard has requested inspection and evaluation of the waterfront steel sheetpile bulkhead (approximately 500 linear feet including the north end return) and adjacent pavement and waterfront accessories at the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) Diligence Moorings in Wilmington, North Carolina. The site is at the approximate location shown on Figure 1.

The existing U.S. Coast Guard waterfront facilities were constructed around 1965. General settlement of the adjacent pavement area, settlement of adjacent cleats/bitts and utility pits, and sinkholes in the pavement along the bulkhead line have been ongoing issues since that time. In 2011, four sinkholes were discovered along the bulkhead. The deepest was approximately 7 feet deep. These were addressed by filling with a cement-slurry and patching the asphalt pavement. Also, there is no known load rating or available design criteria for the bulkhead.

The waterfront portion of the facility consists of a 499-foot steel sheet pile bulkhead with a concrete cap and a timber fender system. The bulkhead retains a 23-foot wide by 476-foot long asphalt covered wharf which services the CGC Diligence. The wharf holds the hardware used to moor the vessel and the utilities for the vessel when it is in port. The wharf is accessed by two concrete ramps located on the north and south ends of the bulkhead. The wharf is covered with asphalt pavement, as shown in Photo 1. (The wharf deck is shown as 6 inches of concrete pavement in the 1964, 1968, 1970, 1971, and 1977 drawings. The 1978, 1996, 1999, and 2005 drawings show the wharf deck covered with asphalt pavement.) The concrete was replaced with asphalt around 1978.) The sheetpile wall anchor system appears to consist of 66-foot long tie rods connected to pile-supported concrete deadman anchors.

Based on the original design drawings and borings performed by Froehling & Robertson in 1963, it appears that the soils underlying the wharf and retained by the bulkhead consist of approximately 5 to 15 feet of sandy fill placed during the bulkhead/wharf construction overlying up to 10 feet of rubble fill overlying 30 to 40 feet of organic silt with wood. These conditions are typical for the downtown Wilmington waterfront. The organic silt is typically very soft to soft, and contains organics such as pieces of wood. The 1964 original design drawings call for the pre-existing materials to be over-excavated and replaced with compacted select fill under the wharf to a depth of 27 feet below mean low water level.

Underground utilities at the wharf site include water, sewer, electrical, and stormwater. Two reinforced concrete pipes carry stormwater under the wharf and discharge it into the river. One of these is shown in Photo 2.

2 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM

2.1 Geophysical Exploration

On January 9, 2012, S&ME completed a ground penetrating radar survey behind the existing bulkhead to identify subsurface features potentially associated with voids. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) is an electromagnetic method that detects interfaces between subsurface materials with differing dielectric constants (ex. pavement/soil, soil/air, soil/saturated soil, etc.). GPR is commonly used to locate subsurface voids; however, certain limitations exist. A high enough contrast between dielectric constants must exist to produce a GPR reflection. In addition, if a void is present, it would have to be large enough and have propagated close enough to the surface to be detected with the given GPR antenna frequency used for the survey. For this project, we assumed that any potential void would be larger than several inches thick and located within in the upper 5 feet.

S&ME used a Geophysical Survey Systems (GSSI) SIR-3000 unit equipped with a 400 MHz antenna. A total of 66 GPR profiles were collected at the site and distributed between five sections. The approximate locations of the GPR profiles are located in Figures 2 through 7.

2.2 Soil Test Borings

S&ME’s subcontract driller advanced eight soil test borings (B-1 through B-3 and C-1 through C-5) to depths of 10 to 75 feet below the existing wharf asphalt surface between January 25 and 30, 2012. The boring locations are shown in Figure 10. (We originally proposed performing hand auger borings for C-1 through C-5, but chose to perform soil test borings at these locations.)

Because the borings were located in the field by our personnel by estimating right angles and approximating distances using existing site features, their locations should be considered approximate.

The ground surface elevations shown on the attached boring logs and profile were interpolated from the site spot elevations shown on the drawings provided to us.

The soil test borings were drilled using wash boring and/or tri-cone rotary drilling procedures with a trailer mounted CME-45 drill rig.

Within the deep borings (B-1 through B-3), samples of subsurface soils were generally taken at 2.5-foot intervals within the upper 10 feet, and at 5-foot intervals thereafter using a split-spoon sampler.Within the shallow borings (C-1 through C-5), continuous samples of subsurface soils were generally taken using a split-spoon sampler. Standard penetration testing (SPT) was performed in conjunction with split-spoon sampling in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

The SPT values given on the boring logs were measured using a standard safety hammer (i.e.

traditional rope and cathead hammer system).

S&ME’s subcontract driller attempted to obtain undisturbed Shelby tube samples of the organic clay stratum from Boring B-2A. Two of the tubes were damaged and samples were not recovered due to debris in the upper fill and wood in the organic silt. Three of the attempts recovered enough material for laboratory testing (ST-3, ST-4, and ST-5).

Representative portions of the split-spoon samples were returned to our laboratory for visual-manual classification in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

Boring logs containing soil descriptions, SPT N-values, and drilling observations are included with this report. Generalized Subsurface Profiles (Figures 3 and 4) presenting the subsurface information obtained at the soil test boring locations are also included in this report.

3 LABORATORY TESTING

S&ME performed moisture content tests, grain-size tests, Atterberg limits tests, and organic content tests on representative samples obtained from the borings. These tests were performed to confirm visual soil classifications and evaluate the variability in soil wetness. Also, we performed consolidation and triaxial shear strength testing on the recovered undisturbed samples. These tests were performed to estimate the engineering properties of the organic clay stratum.

The testing was done in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards. The test results are attached in the Appendix.

4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Area Geology

The site is located within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of North Carolina. The Coastal Plain Province is typically characterized by marine, alluvial, and eolian sediments that were deposited during periods of fluctuating sea levels and moving shorelines. The soils in this province are typical of those laid down in a shallow sloping sea bottom; sands, silts, and clays with irregular deposits of shells. Alluvial sands, silts, and clays are typically present near rivers and creeks. Deposits of peat, organic silt, and organic clay are also typically present in or near current or former tidal marsh areas in the lower portion of the Coastal Plain.

According to the 1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina, the site is underlain by the Peedee Formation. This Cretaceous formation consists of greenish gray to olive black, massive, glauconitic sand, clayey sand, and clay which is locally fossiliferous and calcareous. Patches of sandy muscollan-mold limestone can be present in the upper part of this formation.

4.2 GPR

The GPR survey identified eleven areas exhibiting negative, very high-amplitude reflectors which may be indicative of an air-filled void (Figures 3 and 6). The locations of each potential void are located in the table below and referenced from the southern end of the bulkhead.

Example GPR data are presented in Figures 8 and 9.

Table 1 – Potential Voids

Possible Void # Area # Line # Location (feet) Estimated Depth of Potential Void

(feet) 1 1 1 2.5 - 15 2 2 1 12 24 - 30 2 3 1 12 87 - 88 2.5 4 1 22 3 - 8 2 5 1 29 3 - 4 2 6 1 36 0 - 6 2 7 1 36 58 - 60 2 8 1 42 52.5 2 9 1 52 20 - 30 2 10 2 3 4 - 8 4 11 4 9 312 - 316 2

4.3 Borings

Some of the soil test borings (B-1, C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-5) were performed in areas of potential voids identified by the GPR survey, as shown in Figure 10. One of the borings (C-4) was performed at the location of an existing asphalt patch. None of these soil test borings exhibited rod drop, weight-of-hammer blow counts, nor any other indicators of air-filled or water-filled voids under the asphalt pavement.

The borings encountered 3 to 6 inches of asphalt at the surface, underlain by 6 to 12 inches of crushed stone or sand-gravel. Below these surficial materials, seven basic soil strata were encountered within the maximum boring termination depth of 74 feet. The strata are briefly described in the following table.

Table 2 – Generalized Subsurface Strata

Average Elevation (feet, NAVD88)

Stratum

From To

Description

1* 6 0 Fill: Medium Dense Sand (SP, SP-SM, SM) (N = 9 to 45 bpf, N-avg = 19 bpf)

2 0 -14 Fill: Loose Sand (SP, SW, SP-SM) (N = 0 to 10 bpf, N-avg = 6 bpf)

3* -14 -21 Debris Laden Fill: Loose Sand (SP-SM, SM) with debris (N = 4 to 9 bpf, N-avg = 7 bpf)

4* -21 -25 Loose Sand (SM, SC) (N= 3 to 4 bpf, N-avg = 4 bpf)

5 -25 -39 Organic Clay (OH) (N= 0 to 7 bpf, N-avg = 3 bpf)

6 -39 -47 Medium Dense Sand (SP, SM, SC) (N= 7 to 33 bpf, N-avg = 18 bpf)

7 -47 -68 PEEDEE FORMATION: Very Dense Sand (SP, SM) with Limestone Lenses (N= 50 to 100 bpf, N-avg = 95 bpfr)

Notes: N = Standard Penetration Test blow count bpf = Blows per foot avg = average

* = Not uniformly present across the site

Please note that some exceptions to this generalized profile were encountered. For example, C-4 did not encounter medium dense sand fill under the asphalt patch, consistent with loosening of the sandy fill due to past subsidence at this location. Also, B-3 encountered a layer of medium dense sand (SP) within the Stratum 5 organic clay. Additionally, N-values of >100 bpf were measured in some of the samples obtained from the Stratum 3 debris laden fill and Stratum 5 organic clay due to pieces of wood.

Groundwater levels were measured at depths ranging from 4 to 8 feet below the ground surface in the boreholes at the completion of drilling operations, corresponding approximately to elevations 2 to 6 feet.

A subsurface profile showing the subsurface conditions across the site is given on Figure 11 in the Appendix. The profile represents an estimate of how the soil strata vary across the site. The profile also shows the existing ground surface. Note how the top of the Peedee Formation increases in depth from north to south. Also, the total fill and organic clay thicknesses vary significantly at the three deep boring locations (B-1 through B-3).

Subsurface cross sections at each of the deep boring locations are shown in Figures 12 through 14.

The strata interfaces are assumed to be horizontal and are assumed to extend out in front of the bulkhead under the Cape Fear River. The locations and elevations of the existing site features (e.g., sheetpile bulkhead, mudline, retaining wall, timber piles, tie rods, deadmen, and H-piles) shown on the cross sections were estimated from drawings provided to us.

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Based on the project information provided to us, the subsurface data from the borings and laboratory testing, and the results our geotechnical engineering analyses, we conclude:

1) The GPR and subsequent borings did not find voids under the asphalt, but there are zones of loose sands under the asphalt pavement, which could have loosened from their originally placed density.

2) Based on our experience with other projects along the Cape Fear River Wilmington riverfront, it is unlikely that the sheet piling penetrates deeper than approximately 2 feet below the top of the Peedee Formation. Typically, refusal to steel sheet pile advancement occurs on the very dense sand, slightly cemented sand, or limestone lenses within the Peedee Formation with both vibratory and impact hammers. See Figures 12 to 13 for probable sheet pile tip elevations at the boring locations.

3) The historical asphalt settlement and sinkhole issues are probably due to one or more of the following factors:

a. Flow of sand by surface water infiltration and tidal fluctuation into gaps/holes in or along the stormwater pipes and/or gaps/holes in the sheetpiling. (We understand that visual, underwatering inspections of the sheetpiling will be performed by Collins Engineers. Also, camera inspection of the two stormwater pipes under wharf that discharge into the river is being performed by others.)

b. Downward flow of sand by surface water infiltration and tidal fluctuation into voids in the underlying debris laden fill. (This has happened on other riverfront facilities in Wilmington, such as the mechanical room in the Cape Fear Community College McLeod Building, located approximately 1,000 feet north of the Coast Guard bulkhead.)

c. Long-term secondary consolidation settlement of the soft organic clay. Based on the consolidation test results, we estimate that primary consolidation of the organic clay due to the original placement of the overlying fill materials would have resulted in a total settlement of up to approximately 3 to 6 feet over a period of 2 to 4 years, assuming all the overlying fill was originally placed at the same time. We also estimate that secondary, long-term consolidation of the organic clay has occurred and will continue to occur at a rate of approximately 1 to 2 inches every 50 years.

d. Excessive lateral deformation of the anchored sheet pile wall.

4) The soil properties given on the cross sections (Figures 12 through 14) can be used to develop static lateral earth pressures and evaluate the structural stability of the existing bulkhead/wharf system, based on known and estimated/assumed parameters. Please note that the recommended organic clay (Stratum 5) properties are different in front of and behind the bulkhead, because the organic clay under the river are not subject to the same overburden pressures as the organic clay behind the bulkhead overlain by sands and fill.

5) Excessive lateral deformation of the anchored sheet pile wall may have occurred in the past and could be due to:

1. Inadequate penetration of the sheetpile bulkhead below the mudline at the northern end of the wharf (near Boring B-1).

2. Potentially inadequate tie rod capacity.

3. Inadequate vertical and lateral load capacity of dead man piles.

4. Softening, scour, or past dredging of soils below the mudline.

5. Settlement load on the tie rods leading to overstress and breakage of the tie rods/connections at the bulkhead

Additional, detailed structural analyses of the bulkhead system should be performed by Collins Engineers using the detailed strata and soil properties given in Figures 12 through 14 to further evaluate these conclusions.

6.) Because of the presence of isolated zones of loose relatively clean sands below the water table at this site, we performed a seismic liquefaction analysis based on the design earthquake in accordance with the 2009 International Building Code (IBC). We recognize that a selection of codes and guidance documents are available to provide seismic design guidance for waterfront structures and that the project may not necessarily fall under the IBC. However, given the public access to the property and moderately low seismic hazard that likely does not differ much from other guidance documents, we believe that the IBC provides an appropriate seismic hazard. The IBC design earthquake hazard is two-thirds of the spectral acceleration associated with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in a 50 year period. This is equivalent to an earthquake that has the likelihood of occurring once every 2475 years.

The N-values measured in the soil test borings indicate a Seismic Site Class E. This results in a peak ground acceleration of 0.186g for the design seismic event (magnitude

7.25 earthquake). This value can be used to develop dynamic lateral earth pressures and evaluate the structural stability of the existing bulkhead/wharf system under the design earthquake.

For each of the deeper soil test borings, we calculated the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI), as presented in Iwasaki et al. (1982)1 and Toprak & Holzer (2003)2 , to quantify the consequences of the liquefaction. For this site, we estimated an LPI of > 15 for each of the deeper borings, indicating that severe liquefaction and foundation damage are likely for the IBC design earthquake at this site. Our analyses indicate that the liquefiable soils at this site are present at depths less than 10 feet below the existing ground surface, which could result in sand boils and loss of near-surface soil bearing capacity. We estimate potential liquefaction-induced surface settlement of 6 to 12 inches at the site.

1 Iwasaki, T., Tokida, K., Tatsuoka, F., Watanabe, S., Yasuda, S., and Sato, H. (1982). Microzonation for soil liquefaction potential using simplified methods.” Proc., 3rd Int. Earthquake Microzonation Conf., US National Science Foundation, Washington, DC., 1319–1330.

2 Toprak, S., and Holzer, T. L. (2003). “Liquefaction potential index: Field assessment.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.

Eng., 129 (4), 315-322.

5.2 Recommendations

Based on the geotechnical engineering findings and conclusions, we recommend that one of the following repair options be implemented:

1) Chemical grouting of the upper sand fill could be performed to mitigate the potential flow/migration of sand. However, the laboratory tests indicate that samples of the fill are silty and predominantly fine sand, which is more difficult to effectively chemical grout than clean medium sand. Also, chemical grouting of the debris laden fill would be difficult to achieve, as refusal to grout tube penetration into this material would be likely.

It is very difficult to accurately estimate how much grouting effort, materials, and cost would be required to completing grout the sandy upper fill. Also, any holes in or around the pipes and holes/gaps in the sheetpiles would have to be repaired and sealed first to prevent excessive loss of grout and/or grout flow into the river. Please note that long-term settlement of the wharf surface at a rate of 1 to 1.5 inches every 50 years would continue to occur due to secondary consolidation of the organic clay stratum even after grouting of the upper sandy fill.

2) To fix the asphalt surface problems permanently, a structural slab could be installed on the wharf between the bulkhead and the timber pile supported retaining wall. This would require new piles along the bulkhead sheetpiling for vertical capacity and underpinning of the retaining wall, since the timber piles appear to be “short” of a suitable pile bearing stratum. Underslab utilities (water, sewer, electric) should be connected to and supported by the structural slab to prevent excessive displacement due to long-term secondary consolidation settlement or underslab sinkhole development due to loss of sand.

3) If the detailed structural analyses by Collins Engineers indicate inadequate sheet pile penetration, inadequate tie rod capacity, and/or inadequate deadman pile capacities, than additional repairs/replacement of the bulkhead structural system should be performed.

4) If major renovations are implemented, the existing facility may need to be altered or improved to meet the current seismic design code requirements. If necessary, this would include mitigation of the liquefaction potential. Mitigation options include pre-fabricated vertical drains, stone columns/rammed aggregate piers, or a structural wharf deck supported by deep foundations bearing on or in the Peedee Formation. The design of new piles should include seismic forces and the effects of cyclic loading and potential liquefaction on the properties of the soils providing lateral pipe support.

6 LIMITATIONS OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

The conclusions submitted herein are based upon the data obtained from the non-invasive testing. As such, even within the surveyed area, the survey cannot be considered 100 percent accurate due to inherent method limitations, survey limitations, site features, and/or unforeseen site-specific conditions. Accordingly, the possibility exists that not all features have been located.

The location (or determination of the lack thereof) of subsurface objects is based on our review of provided information and of the interpretation of the GPR data. Under no circumstances does S&ME assume any responsibility for damages resulting from the presence of or damage to subsurface objects that may exist but were not identified by our survey.

The exploration locations given in this report should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used to determine them.

The exploration logs represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on the field logs and visual examinations of samples by a geotechnical engineer, in addition to tests of the field samples. The lines designating the interfaces between various strata may be gradual.

The generalized subsurface strata and profiles described in this report are intended to convey trends in subsurface conditions. The boundaries between strata are approximate and idealized.

They have been developed by interpretations of widely-spaced explorations. Therefore, actual subsurface conditions may vary from those given between exploration locations.

Groundwater levels have been measured or inferred in the explorations at the times and under the conditions stated on the exploration logs in this report. Changes in the groundwater conditions may occur due to variations in rainfall, evaporation, construction activity, surface water runoff, and other site specific factors.

The assessment of possible wetlands, site environmental conditions, and the determination of contaminants in the soil, rock, surface water, or groundwater of the site were beyond the scope of geotechnical engineering services provided for this project.

The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the project information given in this report and on our interpretation of the surface and subsurface data collected. We have made our recommendations based on our experience with similar subsurface conditions and similar projects. The recommendations apply to the specific project discussed in this report; therefore, any changes in the project information should be provided to us so we may review our conclusions and recommendations and make any appropriate modifications.

S&ME should be consulted for a general review of the design drawings and specifications to verify that geotechnical recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented.

Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical study, there is always a possibility that subsurface conditions will be different from those at the exploration locations where conditions will not be as anticipated by the designers or contractors, or that the construction process will alter soil conditions. Therefore, the geotechnical engineer's representative should observe the site preparation, earthwork, foundation construction, floor slab construction, pavement construction, and/or retaining wall construction to confirm that the conditions indicated by the geotechnical explorations actually exist. We recommend the owner retain S&ME for this service due to our familiarity with the project, the subsurface conditions at the site, and the intent of the recommendations and design.

This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice for specific application to this project. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon applicable standards of our practice in this geographic area at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

S&ME, INC. / 3006 Hall Waters Drive, Suite 100 / Wilmington, NC 28405 / p 910.799.9945 / www.smeinc.com

APPENDIX

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

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.

U.S. Coast Guard Diligence Bulkhead Wilmington, North Carolina Project #: 1061-12-201 Sheet 1 of 1

3006 Hall Waters Drive, Suite 100 Wilmington, North Carolina

D at e:

1/

8/

P ho to gr a ph er

T om

S ch ip po re it

Location / Orientation U.S. Coast Guard Diligence Wharf / Looking North

Remarks

D at e:

0/

/2

P ho to gr ap he r:

T om S ch ip po re it

Location / Orientation South end of U.S. Coast Guard wharf / Looking East

Remarks

STORMWATER

PIPE OUTLET

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: S&ME PROJECT NUMBER:

NOT TO SCALE

CHECKED BY: ADG

FIGURE

NUMBER

TMS

1061-12-2012/23/2012

SITE VICINITY MAP

USCG CUTTER DILIGENCE BULKHEAD

WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA

SITE

Note: Drawing obtained from Delorme Street Atlas

USA® 2009

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOB NO.: 1061-12-201

KDH

DDB

1-15-12

FIGURE NO.

GEOPHYSICAL LOCATION PLAN

USCG BULKHEAD

Wilmington, North Carolina

Area 1 Area 5Area 4Area 3Area 2

AS SHOWN

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOB NO.: 1061-12-201

KDH

DDB

1-15-12

FIGURE NO.

GEOPHYSICAL LOCATION PLAN – AREA 1

USCG BULKHEAD

Wilmington, North Carolina

AS SHOWN

Asphalt Patch

Graphic Scale

40’20’0’

GPR Profile

LEGEND

Asphalt Patch

Possible Void

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOB NO.: 1061-12-201

KDH

DDB

1-15-12

FIGURE NO.

GEOPHYSICAL LOCATION PLAN – AREA 2

USCG BULKHEAD

Wilmington, North Carolina

AS SHOWN

4 5

17 18

23 25

Shack

Stairs

3130 32

Graphic Scale

40’20’0’

GPR Profile

LEGEND

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOB NO.: 1061-12-201

KDH

DDB

1-15-12

FIGURE NO.

GEOPHYSICAL LOCATION PLAN – AREA 3

USCG BULKHEAD

Wilmington, North Carolina

AS SHOWN

Graphic Scale

40’20’0’

Asphalt Patch

GPR Profile

LEGEND

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOB NO.: 1061-12-201

KDH

DDB

1-15-12

FIGURE NO.

GEOPHYSICAL LOCATION PLAN – AREA 4

USCG BULKHEAD

Wilmington, North Carolina

AS SHOWN

GPR Profile

LEGEND

Graphic Scale

40’20’0’

Asphalt Patch

10 11

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOB NO.: 1061-12-201

KDH

DDB

1-15-12

FIGURE NO.

GEOPHYSICAL LOCATION PLAN – AREA 5

USCG BULKHEAD

Wilmington, North Carolina

AS SHOWN

Graphic Scale

40’20’0’

GPR Profile

LEGEND

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOB NO.:

FIGURE NO.

1061-12-201

KDH

DDB

1-15-12

EXAMPLE GPR PROFILES

USCG BULKHEAD

Wilmington, North Carolina

GPR Line 1

AS SHOWN

GPR Line 3 GPR Line 9 Potential

Void

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOB NO.:

FIGURE NO.

1061-12-201

KDH

DDB

1-15-12

EXAMPLE GPR PROFILES

USCG BULKHEAD

Wilmington, North Carolina

AS SHOWN

GPR Line 12

GPR Line 42

Potential Void

Potential Void

0’ 30’ 60’

GRAPHIC SCALE

LEGEND

REFERENCE:

DRAWING TITLED “EXISTING SITE PLAN, CGC DILIGENCE MOORINGS,

WILMINGTON, NC”, DATED 3/4/1999, PREPARED BY THE US COAST

GUARD CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIT. CLEVELAND, OH.

POTENTIAL VOID INDICATED BY GROUND PENETRATING RADAR

3006 HALL WATERS DRIVE

SUITE 100

WILMINGTON, NC 28405

PH: (910) 799-9945

WWW.SMEINC.COM

SCALE:

PROJECT NO:

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

AS SHOWN

1061-12-201

2/23/2012

TMS

BORING LOCATION PLAN

USCG CUTTER DILIGENCE BULKHEAD

WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA

FIGURE NO.

S&ME SOIL TEST BORINGS DRILLED 1/25/2012 THROUGH 1/30/2012.

ADG

B-3 B-2

B-2A

ASPHALT PATCH

C-4

C-2

B-1

C-1

C-3

C-5

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f e e t- M

S L

(V) 1" = 20' FIGURE

NO.

SCALE:

CHECKED BY: T. Schipporeit

DATE:

JOB NO: 1061-12-201

Fill

Asphalt

Aggregate Base Course

SW, Well-Graded Sand

SC, Clayey Sand

Wood

SM, Silty Sand

Slightly Silty Sand

N = Standard Penetration Test resistance value (blows per foot). The depicted stratigraphy is shown for illustrative purposes only. The actual subsurface conditions will vary between boring locations.

GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2/16/2012

Limestone

Poorly-Graded Sand

OH, High Plasticity Organic Silt or Clay

Water @ TOB

Bulkhead @ USCG Diligence Moorings Wilmington, North Carolina

3006 Hall Waters Drive Suite 100

Wilmington, NC 28405

(910) 799-9945

(910) 799-9958 fax www.smeinc.com

50/3"

50/6"

50/6"

50/6"

53/6"

N

B-1

50/6"

50/6"

N

B-2

50/5"

50/5"

50/5"

50/5"

N

B-3

NORTH SOUTH

7. PEEDEE FORMATION

1. MEDIUM DENSE FILL

3. DEBRIS LADEN FILL

5. ORGANIC CLAY

5. ORGANIC CLAY

6. SAND

7. PEEDEE FORMATION

SAND

2. LOOSE FILL

1. MEDIUM DENSE FILL

2. LOOSE FILL

3. DEBRIS LADEN FILL

4. SAND

5. ORGANIC CLAY

6. SAND

7. PEEDEE FORMATION

3006 HALL WATERS DRIVE

SUITE 100

WILMINGTON, NC 28405

PH: (910) 799-9945

WWW.SMEINC.COM

SCALE:

PROJECT NO:

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

AS SHOWN

1061-12-201

5/11/2012

TMS

SUBSURFACE CROSS SECTION AT BORING B-1

USCG CUTTER DILIGENCE BULKHEAD

WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA

FIGURE NO.

ADG

0’ 10’ 20’

HORIZONTAL SCALE

ELEVATION

(FEET, NAVD88)

-70

-10

-30

-20

-40

-60

-50

-10

-30

-20

-40

-60

-50

-70

DESIGN TIP EL -63

1. MEDIUM DENSE FILL (

= 120 pcf, ’ = 33o, c’ = 0 psf)

CAPE FEAR RIVER AT MEAN SEA LEVEL

ESTIMATED MUDLINE EL -28

WATER

2. LOOSE FILL (’ = 48 pcf, ’ = 30o, c’ = 0 psf)

5. ORGANIC CLAY

(’ = 23 pcf, ’ = 19o, c’ = 100 psf, Su = 500 psf)

4. SAND (’ = 38 pcf, ’ = 29o, c’ = 0 psf)

7. PEEDEE FORMATION (’ = 68 pcf, ’ = 37o, c’ = 100 psf)

6. DENSE SAND (’ = 68 pcf, ’ = 36o, c’ = 0 psf)

EL. 6

EL. 0

EL. -16

EL. -26

EL. -30

EL. -35

EL -40

PROBABLE TIP EL -42

EL. -13

1. MEDIUM DENSE FILL

(’ = 58 pcf, ’ = 33o, c’ = 0 psf)

2. DEBRIS LADEN FILL (’ = 48 pcf, ’ = 28o, c’ = 0 psf)

5. ORGANIC CLAY (ASSUMED)

(’ = 23 pcf, ’ = 19o, c’ = 0 psf, Su = 100 psf)

6. DENSE SAND (ASSUMED)

7. PEEDEE FORMATION (ASSUMED)

SHEETPILE BULKHEAD

ASPHALT

TIE ROD DEAD MAN

TIMBER PILE

H-PILES

WILMINGTON, NC 28405

PH: (910) 799-9945

WWW.SMEINC.COM

SCALE:

PROJECT NO:

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

AS SHOWN

1061-12-201

5/11/2012

TMS

SUBSURFACE CROSS SECTION AT BORING B-2

USCG CUTTER DILIGENCE BULKHEAD

WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA

FIGURE NO.

ADG

0’ 10’ 20’

HORIZONTAL SCALE

ELEVATION

(FEET, NAVD88)

-10

-30

-20

-40

-60

-50

-70

-10

-30

-20

-40

-60

-50

-70

DESIGN TIP EL -63

= 120 pcf, ’ = 34o, c’ = 0 psf)

ESTIMATED MUDLINE EL -28

WATER 2. LOOSE FILL (’ = 48 pcf, ’ = 30o, c’ = 0 psf)

5. ORGANIC CLAY

(’ = 23 pcf, ’ = 19o, c’ = 100 psf, Su = 500 psf)

4. SAND (’ = 38 pcf, ’ = 29o, c’ = 0 psf)

6. LOOSE SAND (’ = 48 pcf, ’ = 30o, c’ = 0 psf)

7. PEEDEE FORMATION (’ = 68 pcf, ’ = 37o, c’ = 100 psf)

6. MED. DENSE SAND (’ = 58 pcf, ’ = 33o, c’ = 0 psf)

6. LOOSE SAND (ASSUMED)

6. MED. DENSE SAND (ASSUMED)

7. PEEDEE FORMATION (ASSUMED)

EL. 6

EL. 0

EL. -15

EL. -21

EL. -30

EL. -37

EL -47

PROBABLE TIP EL -49

SHEETPILE BULKHEAD

TIMBER PILE

H-PILES

TIE ROD DEAD MAN

ASPHALT

5. ORGANIC CLAY (ASSUMED)

(’ = 23 pcf, ’ = 19o, c’ = 0 psf, Su = 100 psf)

WILMINGTON, NC 28405

PH: (910) 799-9945

WWW.SMEINC.COM

SCALE:

PROJECT NO:

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

AS SHOWN

1061-12-201

5/11/2012

TMS

SUBSURFACE CROSS SECTION AT BORING B-3

USCG CUTTER DILIGENCE BULKHEAD

WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA

FIGURE NO.

ADG

0’ 10’ 20’

HORIZONTAL SCALE

ELEVATION

(FEET, NAVD88)

-70

-10

-30

-20

-40

-60

-50

-10

-30

-20

-40

-60

-50

-70

DESIGN TIP EL -68

= 120 pcf, ’ = 34o, c’ = 0 psf)

ESTIMATED MUDLINE EL. -28

WATER

2. LOOSE FILL (’ = 48 pcf, ’ = 30o, c’ = 0 psf)

5. ORGANIC CLAY

(’ = 23 pcf, ’ = 19o, c’ = 100 psf, Su = 500 psf)

7. PEEDEE FORMATION (’ = 68 pcf, ’ = 37o, c’ = 100 psf)

MEDIUM DENSE SAND (’ = 58 pcf, ’ = 33o, c’ = 0 psf)

EL. 6

EL. 2

EL. -25

EL -40

PROBABLE TIP EL -57

EL. -12

2. LOOSE FILL

= 100 pcf, ’ = 29o, c’ = 0 psf)

3. DEBRIS LADEN FILL (’ = 48 pcf, ’ = 28o, c’ = 0 psf)

EL. 0

EL -46

6. MEDIUM DENSE SAND (’ = 58 pcf, ’ = 32o, c’ = 0 psf)

EL -52

EL -55

MEDIUM DENSE SAND (ASSUMED)

6. MEDIUM DENSE SAND (ASSUMED)

7. PEEDEE FORMATION (ASSUMED)

5. ORGANIC CLAY

(’ = 23 pcf, ’ = 19o, c’ = 100 psf, Su = 500 psf)

SHEETPILE BULKHEAD

ASPHALT

TIE ROD DEAD MAN

TIMBER PILE

H-PILES

5. ORGANIC CLAY (ASSUMED)

(’ = 23 pcf, ’ = 19o, c’ = 0 psf, Su = 100 psf)

5. ORGANIC CLAY (ASSUMED)

(’ = 23 pcf, ’ = 19o, c’ = 0 psf, Su = 100 psf)

Asphalt (6 inches) Crushed Stone (6 inches) FILL : Dense Moist Gray Gravelly Poorly-Graded

SAND (SP)

FILL : Medium Dense Wet Light Brown Poorly-Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) FILL : Medium Dense Saturated Gray Silty SAND

(SM)

% Fines = 13.1%, W = 19.5%

FILL : Loose Saturated Gray Well-Graded SAND

(SW)

DEBRIS-LADEN FILL : Loose Saturated Dark Gray Poorly-Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) with Gravel, Glass, Cinders, Wood, Concrete Fragments % Fines = 5.2%, W = 34.1%

Very Loose Saturated Dark Gray Silty SAND (SM) with Pieces of Wood % Fines = 20.1%, Organics = 8.2%, W = 67.8% Firm Saturated Dark Gray ORGANIC SILT (OH) LL = 109, PI = 64, Organics = 7.3%, W = 100.2%

Dense Saturated Gray Poorly-Graded SAND (SP)

PEEDEE FORMATION : Very Dense Saturated Gray Poorly-Graded SAND (SP) with Limestone Fragments and Layers

PEEDEE FORMATION : Limestone Lense PEEDEE FORMATION : Very Dense Saturated Gray Silty SAND (SM) with Cemented Sand Fragments % Fines = 22.0%, W = 25.6% PEEDEE FORMATION : Limestone Lense PEEDEE FORMATION : Very Dense Saturated Gray Poorly-Graded SAND (SP) with Limestone Fragments

Boring terminated at 74.0 feet.

50/ 3"

50/ 6"

50/ 6"

50/ 6"

53/ 6"

1.5

-3.5

-8.5

-13.5

-18.5

-23.5

-28.5

-33.5

-38.5

-43.5

-48.5

-53.5

-58.5

-63.5

-68.5

TEST BORING RECORD

N-Value

B-1

S A

M P

L E

N O

/T Y

P E

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f ee t)

NOTES:

1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE

NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH

THAT REPORT.

2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN

GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.

3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB.

HAMMER FALLING 30 IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER

1 FT.

4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.

5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.

BORING DEPTH:

WATER LEVEL:

DRILL RIG:

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

1/25/12

Wash Boring

T. Schipporeit

G. Bridger

PROJECT:

D E

P T

H

(f ee

t) NOTES: Boring location is approximate.

CME-45 Trailer

6.5 ft

74.0 ft

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

(blows/ft)

Bulkhead @ USCG Diligence Moorings Wilmington, North Carolina

DATE DRILLED:

DRILLING METHOD:

LOGGED BY:

DRILLER:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

1061-12-201

ELEVATION:

6 feet @ TOB

S

M E

C O

M P

A N

Y S

T A

N D

A R

-1 2-

1.

G P

J S

M

E .G

2/

/1

Crushed Stone (12 inches) FILL : Medium Dense Moist Light Brown and Gray Poorly-Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) with Trace Gravel FILL : Loose Wet Light Brown Poorly-Graded SAND

(SP)

FILL : Loose Saturated Gray Poorly-Graded SAND

(SP)

Very Loose Saturated Dark Gray Clayey SAND (SC)

Very Soft Saturated Dark Gray ORGANIC CLAY with Sand (OH) % Fines = 76.5%, LL = 165, PI = 106, W = 140.8%

LL = 148, PI = 92, Organics = 9.7%, W = 123.3%

Loose Saturated Gray Silty SAND (SM)

Medium Dense Saturated Gray Poorly-Graded SAND (SP) with Clay Lenses

PEEDEE FORMATION : Very Dense Saturated Gray Silty SAND (SM) with Limestone and Sandstone Fragments

Boring terminated at 59.0 feet.

50/ 6"

50/ 6"

1.3

-3.7

-8.7

-13.7

-18.7

-23.7

-28.7

-33.7

-38.7

-43.7

-48.7

-53.7

-58.7

-63.7

-68.7

TEST BORING RECORD

N-Value

B-2

S A

M P

L E

N O

/T Y

P E

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f ee t)

NOTES:

1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE

NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH

THAT REPORT.

2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN

GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.

3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB.

HAMMER FALLING 30 IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER

1 FT.

4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.

5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.

BORING DEPTH:

WATER LEVEL:

DRILL RIG:

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

1/27/12

Wash Boring

T. Schipporeit

G. Bridger

PROJECT:

D E

P T

H

(f ee

t) NOTES: Boring location is approximate.

CME-45 Trailer

6.3 ft

59.0 ft

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

(blows/ft)

Bulkhead @ USCG Diligence Moorings Wilmington, North Carolina

DATE DRILLED:

DRILLING METHOD:

LOGGED BY:

DRILLER:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

1061-12-201

ELEVATION:

8 feet @ TOB

S

M E

C O

M P

A N

Y S

T A

N D

A

-1 2-

1.

G P

J S

M

E .G

See Boring B-2 for Soil Descriptions.

20-22' : No Recovery. Shelby Tube Damaged by Wood

ORGANIC CLAY (OH)

27-29' : No Recovery. Wood and Concrete Clogged Shelby Tube.

Boring terminated at 35.0 feet.

1.3

-3.7

-8.7

-13.7

-18.7

-23.7

-28.7

-33.7

-38.7

-43.7

-48.7

-53.7

-58.7

-63.7

-68.7

TEST BORING RECORD

N-Value

B-2A

S A

M P

L E

N O

/T Y

P E

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f ee t)

NOTES:

1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE

NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH

THAT REPORT.

2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN

GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.

3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB.

HAMMER FALLING 30 IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER

1 FT.

4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.

5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.

BORING DEPTH:

WATER LEVEL:

DRILL RIG:

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

1/30/12

Wash Boring

T. Schipporeit

G. Bridger

PROJECT:

D E

P T

H

(f ee

t) NOTES: Boring location is approximate. Offset 5 feet horizontally from Boring B-2.

CME-45 Trailer

6.3 ft

35.0 ft

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

(blows/ft)

Bulkhead @ USCG Diligence Moorings Wilmington, North Carolina

DATE DRILLED:

DRILLING METHOD:

LOGGED BY:

DRILLER:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

1061-12-201

ELEVATION:

8 feet @ TOB

S

M E

C O

M P

A N

Y S

T A

N D

A

-1 2-

1.

G P

J S

M

E .G

/1

ST1

ST2

ST3

ST4

ST5

Asphalt (3 inches) Crushed Stone (9 inches) FILL : Medium Dense Moist Gray Gravelly Silty SAND (SM) with Petroleum Product Odor FILL : Very Loose to Loose Wet to Saturated Dark Gray Poorly-Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) with Petroleum Product Odor FILL : Loose Saturated Gray Poorly-Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) % Fines = 10.2%, W = 17.8%

DEBRIS-LADEN FILL : Very Loose to Loose Saturated Dark Brown Silty SAND (SM) with Wood, Brick, Glass, Gravel, Concrete Fragments

DEBRIS-LADEN FILL : Wood

Very Soft Saturated Dark Gray ORGANIC CLAY

(OH)

LL = 161, PI = 108, Organics = 10.8%, W = 168.9%

Very Soft Saturated Dark Gray ORGANIC CLAY (OH) with Wood

Very Soft Saturated Dark Gray ORGANIC CLAY

(OH)

Medium Dense Saturated Gray Poorly-Graded

SAND (SP)

Firm Saturated Dark Gray ORGANIC CLAY with Sand (OH) LL = 125, PI = 66, Organics = 14.1%, W = 103.6%

Medium Dense Saturated Dark Gray Clayey SAND

(SC)

% Fines = 24.1%, LL = 44, PI = 25, W = 43.8% PEEDEE FORMATION : Very Dense Saturated Gray Poorly-Graded SAND (SP)

Boring terminated at 70.0 feet.

50/ 5"

50/ 5"

50/ 5"

50/ 5"

0.8

-4.2

-9.2

-14.2

-19.2

-24.2

-29.2

-34.2

-39.2

-44.2

-49.2

-54.2

-59.2

-64.2

-69.2

TEST BORING RECORD

N-Value

B-3

S A

M P

L E

N O

/T Y

P E

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f ee t)

NOTES:

1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE

NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH

THAT REPORT.

2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN

GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.

3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB.

HAMMER FALLING 30 IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER

1 FT.

4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.

5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.

BORING DEPTH:

WATER LEVEL:

DRILL RIG:

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

1/25/12

Wash Boring

T. Schipporeit

G. Bridger

PROJECT:

D E

P T

H

(f ee

t) NOTES: Boring location is approximate.

CME-45 Trailer

5.8 ft

70.0 ft

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

(blows/ft)

Bulkhead @ USCG Diligence Moorings Wilmington, North Carolina

DATE DRILLED:

DRILLING METHOD:

LOGGED BY:

DRILLER:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

1061-12-201

ELEVATION:

6 feet @ TOB

S

M E

C O

M P

A N

Y S

T A

N D

A

-1 2-

1.

G P

J S

M

E .G

Sand and Gravel (6 inches) FILL : Medium Dense Moist Light Brown and Gray Poorly-Graded SAND with Gravel (SP) FILL : Loose Moist Light Brown Poorly-Graded

SAND (SP)

FILL : Loose Wet Light Brown Poorly-Graded SAND

(SP)

FILL : Very Loose Saturated Gray Poorly-Graded

SAND (SP)

Boring terminated at 10.0 feet.

1.7

-3.3

-8.3

-13.3

-18.3

-23.3

-28.3

-33.3

-38.3

-43.3

-48.3

-53.3

-58.3

-63.3

-68.3

TEST BORING RECORD

N-Value

C-1

S A

M P

L E

N O

/T Y

P E

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f ee t)

NOTES:

1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE

NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH

THAT REPORT.

2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN

GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.

3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB.

HAMMER FALLING 30 IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER

1 FT.

4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.

5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.

BORING DEPTH:

WATER LEVEL:

DRILL RIG:

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

1/30/12

Continuous Split Spoon

T. Schipporeit

G. Bridger

PROJECT:

D E

P T

H

(f ee

t) NOTES: Boring location is approximate.

CME-45 Trailer

6.7 ft

10.0 ft

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

(blows/ft)

Bulkhead @ USCG Diligence Moorings Wilmington, North Carolina

DATE DRILLED:

DRILLING METHOD:

LOGGED BY:

DRILLER:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

1061-12-201

ELEVATION:

5 feet @ TOB

S

M E

C O

M P

A N

Y S

T A

N D

A

-1 2-

1.

G P

J S

M

E .G

Asphalt (4 inches) Sand and Gravel (8 inches) FILL : Medium Dense Moist Light Brown Poorly-Graded SAND with Gravel (SP) FILL : Loose, Moist to Wet, Light Brown Poorly-Graded SAND (SP) FILL : Loose Saturated Gray Poorly-Graded SAND

(SP)

FILL : Very Loose Saturated Dark Gray Poorly-Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) Boring terminated at 10.0 feet.

1.8

-3.2

-8.2

-13.2

-18.2

-23.2

-28.2

-33.2

-38.2

-43.2

-48.2

-53.2

-58.2

-63.2

-68.2

TEST BORING RECORD

N-Value

C-2

S A

M P

L E

N O

/T Y

P E

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f ee t)

NOTES:

1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE

NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH

THAT REPORT.

2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN

GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.

3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB.

HAMMER FALLING 30 IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER

1 FT.

4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.

5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.

BORING DEPTH:

WATER LEVEL:

DRILL RIG:

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

1/30/12

Continuous Split Spoon

T. Schipporeit

G. Bridger

PROJECT:

D E

P T

H

(f ee

t) NOTES: Boring location is approximate.

CME-45 Trailer

6.8 ft

10.0 ft

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

(blows/ft)

Bulkhead @ USCG Diligence Moorings Wilmington, North Carolina

DATE DRILLED:

DRILLING METHOD:

LOGGED BY:

DRILLER:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

1061-12-201

ELEVATION:

4 feet @ TOB

S

M E

C O

M P

A N

Y S

T A

N D

A

-1 2-

1.

G P

J S

M

E .G

Asphalt (4 inches) Crushed Stone (8 inches) FILL : Medium Dense Moist Light Brown Poorly-Graded SAND (SP) FILL : Dense Moist Gray Poorly-Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) FILL : Medium Dense Wet Gray Poorly-Graded

SAND (SP)

FILL : Very Loose Saturated Gray Poorly-Graded

SAND (SP)

Boring terminated at 10.0 feet.

1.5

-3.5

-8.5

-13.5

-18.5

-23.5

-28.5

-33.5

-38.5

-43.5

-48.5

-53.5

-58.5

-63.5

-68.5

TEST BORING RECORD

N-Value

C-3

S A

M P

L E

N O

/T Y

P E

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f ee t)

NOTES:

1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE

NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH

THAT REPORT.

2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN

GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.

3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB.

HAMMER FALLING 30 IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER

1 FT.

4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.

5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.

BORING DEPTH:

WATER LEVEL:

DRILL RIG:

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

1/30/12

Continuous Split Spoon

T. Schipporeit

G. Bridger

PROJECT:

D E

P T

H

(f ee

t) NOTES: Boring location is approximate.

CME-45 Trailer

6.5 ft

10.0 ft

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

(blows/ft)

Bulkhead @ USCG Diligence Moorings Wilmington, North Carolina

DATE DRILLED:

DRILLING METHOD:

LOGGED BY:

DRILLER:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

1061-12-201

ELEVATION:

6 feet @ TOB

S

M E

C O

M P

A N

Y S

T A

N D

A

-1 2-

1.

G P

J S

M

E .G

Sand and Gravel (6 inches) FILL : Loose Moist Light Brown Poorly-Graded

SAND (SP)

FILL : Loose Wet Light Brown Poorly-Graded SAND

(SP)

FILL : Loose Saturated Gray Poorly-Graded SAND

(SP)

Boring terminated at 10.0 feet.

1.9

-3.1

-8.1

-13.1

-18.1

-23.1

-28.1

-33.1

-38.1

-43.1

-48.1

-53.1

-58.1

-63.1

-68.1

TEST BORING RECORD

N-Value

C-4

S A

M P

L E

N O

/T Y

P E

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f ee t)

NOTES:

1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE

NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH

THAT REPORT.

2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN

GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.

3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB.

HAMMER FALLING 30 IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER

1 FT.

4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.

5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.

BORING DEPTH:

WATER LEVEL:

DRILL RIG:

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

1/30/12

Continuous Split Spoon

T. Schipporeit

G. Bridger

PROJECT:

D E

P T

H

(f ee

t) NOTES: Boring location is approximate.

CME-45 Trailer

6.9 ft

10.0 ft

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

(blows/ft)

Bulkhead @ USCG Diligence Moorings Wilmington, North Carolina

DATE DRILLED:

DRILLING METHOD:

LOGGED BY:

DRILLER:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

1061-12-201

ELEVATION:

6 feet @ TOB

S

M E

C O

M P

A N

Y S

T A

N D

A

-1 2-

1.

G P

J S

M

E .G

Asphalt (5 inches) Crushed Stone (4 inches) FILL : Loose to Medium Dense Moist Light Brown Poorly-Graded SAND (SP) FILL : Medium Dense Wet Gray Poorly-Graded

SAND (SP)

FILL : Loose Saturated Gray Poorly-Graded SAND

(…