Atch_9_-_Geotechnical_Report,_Rpr_AVB_Post_4.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING REPORT

REPAIR ACTIVE VEHICLE BARRIERS, POST 4

JOINT BASE CHARLESTON, SC

PROJECT NUMBER: DKGV 13-2150

22 FEBRUARY 2017

Contract No.: FA4418-15-D-0007

Task Order: 0001

CEMS No.: 15-154C

Geotechnical Engineering Report DFP Replacement Bldg. 3210

Hanahan, South Carolina February 22, 2017

Terracon Project No. EN175021

Prepared for:

CEMS Engineering, Inc.

Ladson, South Carolina

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

North Charleston, South Carolina

DKGV 13-2150 REPAIR ACTIVE VEHICLE BARRIER POST 4 FA4418-15-D-0007-0001

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i

INTRODUCTION

PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

2.2 Site Location and Description

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Typical Soil Profile

3.2 Groundwater

GEOTECHNICAL SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Seismic Evaluation

4.2 Liquefaction Potential

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

5.1 Geotechnical Considerations

5.2 Site Preparation

5.3 Earthwork

Material Types Compaction Requirements

5.4 Foundation Recommendations

Design Recommendations Shallow Foundation Construction Considerations

5.5 Floor Slabs

Floor Slab Design Recommendations Floor Slab Construction Considerations

GENERAL COMMENTS

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Exhibit A-1 Site Location Exhibit A-2 Exploration Plan Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description Exhibit A-4 In Situ Test Log Exhibit A-5 Hand Auger Boring (HAB) Log

APPENDIX B – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit B-1 General Notes Exhibit B-2 Unified Soil Classification System

DFP Replacement Bldg. 3210 ■ Hanahan, South Carolina February 22, 2017 ■ Terracon Project No: EN175021

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation performed for the DFP Replacement Bldg. 3210 located in Hanahan, SC. Our geotechnical scope of work for this project included conducting geotechnical fieldwork, associated engineering analysis, and this geotechnical engineering report.

This report provides recommendations for foundation options, seismic considerations, site preparation, and the other geotechnical related conditions that might affect the proposed construction. The following geotechnical considerations were identified during our investigation:

n Assuming proper site preparation, the structure may be supported on a traditional shallow foundation system sized for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf), bearing on in situ soils or properly compacted Controlled Fill.

n Based on the procedures outlined in IBC 2015 and the results of our field testing, a seismic Site Class D will be available for this project. However, the structural engineer should verify that the site class exemption provided by this code is available for the proposed facility.

n We estimate that unmitigated total liquefaction-induced settlements from the design seismic event may range from 2 ½ to 3 inches with differential settlement 50% of the total.

n Total estimated static settlement for traditional shallow foundations is 1 inch or less, with differential settlement up to ½ inch per 30 feet.

This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

DFP REPLACEMENT BLDG. 3210

HANAHAN, SOUTH CAROLINA

Project No. EN175021 February 22, 2017

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services performed for the DFP Replacement Bldg. 3210 located in Hanahan, South Carolina. The project site was explored with one Seismic Cone Penetration Test (SCPT) to a depth of 43 feet below the existing ground surface. Adjacent to the in situ test, a Hand Auger Boring (HAB) was performed to a depth of 4 feet below the existing ground surface. The testing logs, field exploration description, and the exploration location diagram are included in Appendix A of this report. The purpose of the study is to provide subsurface information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

n subsurface soil conditions n foundation options n groundwater conditions n other geotechnical design parameters n seismic evaluation n site preparation

PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Proposed Improvements

The proposed improvements consist of a new single-story building that will replace the existing DFP Bldg. 3210. The existing building will be demolished and the new building will be relocated approximately 300 feet north along Perimeter Road.

Structural Loads

Based on conversations with CEMS Engineering, the following loading conditions were used in our analysis:

n Columns – 2 kips n Walls – 0.5 kips per linear foot If final loads vary from these assumptions, further review will be necessary.

Grading We will assume that up to 2 feet of fill will be placed to achieve finished grade.

February 22, 2017 ■ Terracon Project No: EN175021

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

2.2 Site Location and Description

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Site Location The project site is located on Perimeter Road in Hanahan, South Carolina. See Exhibit A-1 for site location and Figure 1 below for a picture of the project site.

Existing improvements The site of the new building is currently undeveloped and wooded.

Current Ground Cover Trees and shrubs.

Existing topography Based on visual observations, it appears that the site lies below the grade of the existing roadway.

Figure 1. Terracon rig at project site

February 22, 2017 ■ Terracon Project No: EN175021

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Typical Soil Profile

Based on the results of the field exploration, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows:

Description Approximate

Depth to Bottom of Stratum

Material Encountered1

Stratum 1 3 inches Topsoil

Stratum 2 9 feet Very loose to medium dense sand to silty sand

Stratum 3 11 feet Soft clay to silty clay

Stratum 4 30 feet Loose to dense sand to silty sand

Stratum 5 35 feet Very soft to firm clay to silty clay with interbedded sand layers

Stratum 6 43 feet2 Firm to stiff sandy silt (Cooper Marl Formation)3

1. Material descriptions are based on visual classification from HAB samples and correlations with in situ data.

2. Termination of deepest testing.

3. The Cooper Marl formation is a well-studied and uniform soil stratum consisting of sandy silt approximately 100 to 200 feet thick in the greater Charleston area.

Conditions encountered at each of the test locations are indicated on the individual logs. Details for each of the tests can be found on the records located in Exhibits A-4 and A-5 located in Appendix A of this report.

3.2 Groundwater

At the time of our exploration, the water table was estimated to be approximately 6 feet below the existing ground surface. The groundwater depth was estimated from CPT porewater pressure data. Groundwater was not observed in the CPT void or the HAB.

Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project. The groundwater surface should be checked prior to construction to assess its effect on site work and other construction activities.

February 22, 2017 ■ Terracon Project No: EN175021

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4

GEOTECHNICAL SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Seismic Evaluation

According to the International Building Code 2015 edition (IBC 2015), structures are required to avoid collapse during a design earthquake event. The design earthquake has a 50 year exposure period with a 2% probability of exceedance (i.e. a 2500 year design earthquake). The 2500 year design earthquake has a Moment Magnitude (Mw) of 7.3 and a design Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) of 0.92 g, as determined by data provided by the IBC 2015 Code and ASCE 7-10. The seismic evaluation of the site identified potentially liquefiable soils. According to the IBC (2015) and ASCE 7-10, this potential for liquefaction classifies the site as Site Class F.

ASCE 7-10 (Section 20.3.1) provides an exception to the Site Class recommendation for structure(s) with a fundamental period equal to or less than 0.5 seconds. This exception states that a site can be classified without considering liquefaction to determine spectral accelerations for structural design. The structural engineer should verify this exception. If the proposed structures meet the requirements of the exception, Seismic Site Class D would be applicable and the following seismic design parameters can be used for the site:

Code Used Site Classification 2015 International Building Code (IBC)1 D2

Seismic Design Parameter Value Fa 1.00

Fv 1.56

FPGA 1.00

SDS 0.91 g

SD1 0.46 g

PGAM 0.92 g

1. In general accordance with the 2015 International Building Code and ASCE 7-10 Table 20.3-1, and an average weighted shear wave velocity of 843 feet per second collected from in situ testing methods.

2. Based upon the fundamental period exception outlined in ASCE 7-10 Section 20.3.1

3. Based on procedures outlined in ASCE 7-10 for geotechnical hazards

4.2 Liquefaction Potential

Due to the high seismicity of the Charleston, South Carolina area, we performed a liquefaction potential analysis for the site to evaluate the stability of the subgrade soils. Ground shaking at the foundation of structures and liquefaction of the soil under the foundation are the principle seismic hazards to be considered in design of earthquake-resistant structures. Liquefaction occurs when a rapid buildup in water pressure, caused by the ground motion, pushes sand particles apart, resulting in a loss of strength and later densification as the water pressure

February 22, 2017 ■ Terracon Project No: EN175021

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5 dissipates. This loss of strength can cause bearing capacity failure while the densification can cause excessive settlement.

While the amount of settlement is dependent on the magnitude and distance from a seismic event, and geologic age of the soil deposit, we estimate that settlements from the design earthquake may range from 2 ½ to 3 inches. Differential settlement may be 50% of the total settlement depending on depth and amount of liquefaction, and location relative to a seismic event epicenter. Design under the IBC allows for buildings to sustain damage during the design earthquake event, but they must remain standing. Therefore, our liquefaction settlement estimate should be reviewed from the standpoint of risk of total collapse of the structure. While the project structural engineer should review our estimates, in our experience, the calculated liquefaction potential does not facilitate the need for liquefaction mitigation at the site.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

5.1 Geotechnical Considerations

The recommendations presented herein have been developed on the basis of the subsurface conditions encountered during field investigation and our understanding of the proposed construction. Based on the subsurface profile encountered in the soundings, the soils encountered are suitable for shallow foundation support assuming proper site preparation.

5.2 Site Preparation

The initial step in site preparation is to strip the proposed construction area of trees, organic material, topsoil, root balls, and other deleterious material from within the proposed building footprint. Stripping should extend a minimum of 5 feet outside the construction area footprint.

Voids remaining from the clearing/stripping operation should be backfilled with properly compacted Controlled Fill.

After stripping and subgrade repair is completed, the existing subgrade should be proofrolled with a loaded tandem axle dump truck or other similar approved construction equipment. A geotechnical engineer should monitor proofrolling operations. Areas that pump or rut excessively should be undercut and reworked or replaced with Controlled Fill. Fill placement may commence after the subgrade stability has been verified by the geotechnical engineer.

5.3 Earthwork

Material Types If onsite soils are used as fill they should meet the requirements outlined below. Controlled fill should meet the following soil property requirements:

February 22, 2017 ■ Terracon Project No: EN175021

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6

Fill Type1 USCS Classification Acceptable Location for Placement

Controlled/Imported Fill

SP, SP-SM, GP, GW, SW, SM

(Passing #200<12%)

All locations

Onsite Soil SM, SP-SM, SP (Passing #200<25%)

All locations

1. Controlled, compacted fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and other deleterious debris.

The near surface onsite sandy soils can likely be used as Controlled Fill. However, the grading contractor should provide samples of proposed fill soils prior to placement.

Compaction Requirements

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Fill Lift Thickness

When heavy, self-propelled compaction equipment is used, fill lifts shall have a maximum of 10 inches in loose thickness.

When hand-guided equipment (i.e. jumping jack or plate compactor) is used, fill lifts shall have a maximum of 2 to 4 inches in loose thickness.

Compaction Requirements1 95% of the material’s maximum Modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D1557)

Moisture Content – Controlled Fill or Onsite Soils2

Within the range of ±2% of optimum moisture content value as determined by the Modified Proctor test.

1. Fill should be tested for moisture content and compaction during placement. If the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.

2. Specifically, moisture levels should be maintained low enough to allow for satisfactory compaction to be achieved without the Controlled Fill material pumping when proofrolled.

5.4 Foundation Recommendations

The proposed structure can be supported by a shallow spread footing foundation bearing on in situ or compacted Controlled Fill provided site preparations are performed as described in Sections 5.2 and 5.3. Design recommendations for shallow foundations for the proposed structure are presented in the following paragraphs.

February 22, 2017 ■ Terracon Project No: EN175021

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7

Design Recommendations DESCRIPTION Column Wall

Allowable bearing pressure1 2,500 psf 2,500 psf

Minimum dimensions 24 inches 12 inches Minimum embedment below finished grade 12 inches 12 inches

Estimated total static settlement2 1 inch or less 1 inch or less

Estimated differential static settlement2 <1/2 inch between columns <1/2 inch over 30 feet

1. The recommended net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. This assumes any unsuitable fill, debris or soft soils, if encountered, will be undercut and replaced with Controlled Fill.

2. The settlement estimates are based on a maximum load of 2 kips for column footings and 0.5 kips per linear foot for strip footings and the above allowable bearing pressure. The foundation settlement will depend upon the variations within the subsurface soil profile, the structural loading conditions, the embedment depth and dimensions of the footings, the thickness of compacted fill, and the quality of the earthwork operations. These settlement magnitudes assume the foundation subgrade will be repaired as recommended in this report.

Shallow Foundation Construction Considerations The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water, debris and loose soil prior to placing concrete. Concrete should be placed soon after excavating to reduce bearing soil disturbance. Should the soils at bearing level become excessively dry, disturbed or saturated, the affected soil should be recompacted or removed prior to placing concrete. Place a lean concrete mud-mat over the bearing soils if the excavations must remain open over night or for an extended period of time. It is recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained to observe and test the soil foundation bearing materials.

If debris or unsuitable bearing soils are encountered in footing excavations, the excavation could be extended deeper to suitable soils and the footing could bear directly on these soils at the lower level or on lean concrete backfill placed in the excavations. As an alternative, the footings could also bear on properly compacted Controlled Fill extending down to the suitable soils. Overexcavation for compacted structural fill placement below footings should extend laterally beyond all edges of the footings at least 8 inches per foot of overexcavation depth below footing base elevation. The overexcavation should then be backfilled up to the footing base elevation with Controlled Fill material placed in lifts of 8 inches or less in loose thickness (6 inches or less if compacted with hand guided equipment) and compacted to at least 95 percent of the material's modified effort maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). The overexcavation and backfill procedure is described in the following figure.

February 22, 2017 ■ Terracon Project No: EN175021

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8

5.5 Floor Slabs

Floor Slab Design Recommendations Floor slabs can be supported by the in situ soils or properly compacted Controlled Fill if prepared as described in section 5.3 of this report. Concrete floor slabs constructed on grade can be designed using the modulus of subgrade reaction presented in the following table.

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Modulus of subgrade reaction1 225 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) for point loading conditions

1. Modulus of subgrade value is for a 1 ft by 1 ft area and should be adjusted for appropriate size

If a conventional slab and shallow foundation are used, the structural engineer should design the slab to limit differential movements between the slab and foundation to reduce the possibility of floor slab cracking. Where appropriate, saw-cut control joints and expansion joints should be placed in the slab to help control the location and extent of cracking. For additional recommendations refer to the ACI Design Manual. Floor slab subgrade should be compacted to 100% of its modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557).

The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade that will be covered with wood, tile, carpet or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the slab will support equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder, the slab designer and slab contractor should refer to ACI 302 and ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder/barrier.

Floor Slab Construction Considerations On most project sites, the site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase.

However as construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations, February 22, 2017 ■ Terracon Project No: EN175021

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9 construction traffic, desiccation, rainfall, etc. As a result, the floor slab subgrade may not be suitable for placement of subbase and concrete and corrective action may be required.

We recommend the area underlying the floor slab be rough graded and then thoroughly proofrolled with a loaded tandem axle dump truck prior to final grading and placement of subbase.

Particular attention should be paid to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier and to areas where backfilled trenches are located. Areas where unsuitable conditions are located should be repaired by removing and replacing the affected material with properly compacted fill.

All floor slab subgrade areas should be moisture conditioned and properly compacted to the recommendations in this report immediately prior to placement of the subbase and concrete.

GENERAL COMMENTS

The recommendations presented herein have been developed on the basis of the subsurface conditions encountered during the field investigation and our understanding of the proposed construction. Should changes in the project criteria occur or additional loading information becomes available, a review must be made by Terracon to determine if modifications to our recommendations will be required.

Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during site preparations and grading, and other earth-related construction phases of the project.

The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings/soundings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided.

The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. Terracon can perform these services on request.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical

February 22, 2017 ■ Terracon Project No: EN175021

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10 engineering practices. No warranties, either expressed or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Appendix A

APPENDIX A

Exhibit A-1 Site Location Plan Exhibit A-2 Exploration Plan Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description Exhibit A-4 In Situ Test Log Exhibit A-5 Hand Auger Boring (HAB) Log

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF

THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: LADSON, SC

(1/1/1979) and NORTH CHARLESTON, SC

(1/1/1998).

SITE LOCATION

DFP Replacement Bldg. 3210 Perimeter Road

Hanahan, SC 1450 Fifth St W

North Charleston, SC 29405-2326

EN175021

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY,

AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION

PURPOSES

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

ACL

WBW

BTS

ACL

N/A

2/22/2017

Project No.

File Name:

Date:

A-1

Exhibit

SITE

1”=2,000’ Scale:

EXPLORATION PLAN

1450 Fifth St W

North Charleston, SC 29405-2326

EN175021AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY

MICROSOFT BING MAPS

DFP Replacement Bldg. 3210 Perimeter Road

Hanahan, SC

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY,

AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION

PURPOSES

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

ACL

WBW

BTS

ACL

N/A

2/22/2017

Scale:

Project No.

File Name:

Date:

AS SHOWN

A-2

Exhibit

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit A-3

Field Exploration Description The test locations were selected and marked with flags in the field by CEMS personnel. The locations as shown in the exploration plan should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the means and methods used to define them.

The in situ tests consisted of one Seismic Cone Penetration Test (SCPT) to a depth of 43 feet below the existing ground surface. This test was advanced with a track mounted Pagani 220-73 rig. Adjacent to the in situ test, a Hand Auger Boring (HAB) was performed to a depth of 4 feet below the existing ground surface.

The driller’s logs were compiled and reviewed by the geotechnical engineer in order to produce the logs. The in situ tests and HAB logs are presented on Exhibit A-4 and A-5 in Appendix A. General notes and soil classification procedures for soundings are presented in Appendix B.

SITE: Perimeter Road Hanahan, South Carolina

4 Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay 5 Sand mixtures - silty sand to sandy silt 6 Sands - clean sand to silty sand

1 Sensitive, fine grained 2 Organic soils - clay 3 Clay - silty clay to clay

CPT LOG NO. SCPT-01

CLIENT: CEMS Engineering, Inc.

Ladson, SC

Project No.: EN175021

PROJECT: See Exhibit A-2DFP Replacement Bldg. 3210

Depth (ft)

7 Gravelly sand to dense sand 8 Very stiff sand to clayey sand 9 Very stiff fine grained

CPT Completed: 2/6/2017

Operator: BR

Dead weight of rig used as reaction force.

CPT sensor calibration reports available upon request.

TEST LOCATION:

Exhibit: A-4

Latitude:

Longitude:

32.907528° -79.979604°

Depth (ft)

1450 Fifth St W North Charleston, SC

CPT Started: 2/6/2017

Rig: Pagani TG73-200

Probe no. 3752 with net area ratio of 0.6 U2 pore pressure transducer location Manufactured by Geotech A.B.; calibrated 8/20/2014 Tip and sleeve areas of 10 cm2 and 150 cm2

Ring friction reducer with O.D. of 1.875 in

6 ft estimated water depth (used in normalizations and correlations;

see Appendix B)

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATION

See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures.

See Appendix B for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

5 10 15 20 Tip Resistance, qt

(tsf)

50 100 150 200

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T

C P

T R

E P

O R

T E

N

D F

P W

E A

P O

N S

S T

A T

IO

N

B U

IL

D

IN

G

.G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N _D

A T

A T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

/2

/1

Friction Ratio, Fr

2 4 6

Material Description

Normalized CPT Soil Behavior Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Hydrostatic Pressure

Pore Pressure, u2

(tsf)

-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 Sleeve Friction, fs

(tsf)

0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4

Shear Wave Velocity, Vs

(ft/sec)

250 500 750 1000

CPT Terminated at 42.7 Feet

0.3

4.0

TOPSOIL, 3" of Topsoil

SILTY SAND (SM), pale brown

Boring Terminated at 4 Feet

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T

G E

O S

M A

R T

L O

G -N

O W

E

LL

E N

D

F P

W E

A P

O N

S S

T A

T

IO

N B

U

IL

D

IN

G .G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/2

/1

DEPTH

LOCATION

Latitude: 32.907528° Longitude: -79.979604°

See Exhibit A-2

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

D E

P T

H

F t.)

Perimeter Road Hanahan, South Carolina

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Manual Hand Auger

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.

Notes:

Project No.: EN175021

Drill Rig: NA

Boring Started: 2/6/2017

BORING LOG NO. HAB at SCPT-01 CEMS Engineering, Inc.CLIENT:

Ladson, SC

Driller: BR

Boring Completed: 2/6/2017

Exhibit: A-5

See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures.

See Appendix B for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

PROJECT: DFP Replacement Bldg. 3210

1450 Fifth St W North Charleston, SC

Groundwater not encountered at time of test

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Appendix B

APPENDIX B

Exhibit B-1 General Notes Exhibit B-2 Unified Soil Classification System

PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

Term

< 15 15 - 29 > 30

Descriptive Term(s) of other constituents

Water Initially Encountered

Water Level After a Specified Period of Time

Major Component of Sample

Percent of Dry Weight

(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)

Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance

Includes gravels, sands and silts.

Hard

Unconfined Compressive Strength, Qu, tsf

Very Loose 0 - 3 0 - 6 Very Soft less than 0.25

7 - 18 Soft 0.25 to 0.50

10 - 29 19 - 58 0.50 to 1.00

59 - 98 Stiff 1.00 to 2.00

> 99 2.00 to 4.00

LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES

S A

M P

L

IN

G

F

IE

L D

T E

S T

S

(HP)

(T)

(b/f)

(PID)

(OVA)

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Descriptive Term (Density)

Non-plastic Low Medium High

Boulders Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay

10 - 18

> 50 15 - 30 19 - 42

> 30 > 42

Hand Penetrometer

Torvane

Standard Penetration Test (blows per foot)

Photo-Ionization Detector

Organic Vapor Analyzer

Water levels indicated on the soil boring logs are the levels measured in the borehole at the times indicated.

Groundwater level variations will occur over time. In low permeability soils, accurate determination of groundwater levels is not possible with short term water level observations.

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)

Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The accuracy of such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographic maps of the area.

Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.

Plasticity Index

1 - 10 11 - 30

> 30

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES

Descriptive Term(s) of other constituents

Percent of Dry Weight

< 5 5 - 12 > 12

Trace With Modifier

Water Level After a Specified Period of Time

GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGYRELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL

Trace With Modifier

Standard Penetration or N-Value

Blows/Ft.

Descriptive Term (Consistency)

Loose

Very Stiff

Standard Penetration or N-Value

Blows/Ft.

Ring Sampler Blows/Ft.

Ring Sampler Blows/Ft.

Medium Dense

Dense

Very Dense

0 - 1 < 3

4 - 9 2 - 4 3 - 4

Medium-Stiff

8 - 15

5 - 9

30 - 50

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

Auger

Shelby Tube

Ring Sampler

Grab Sample

Split Spoon

Macro Core

Rock Core

No Recovery

RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Particle Size

Over 12 in. (300 mm) 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm) 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm) #4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm Passing #200 sieve (0.075mm)

S T

R E

N G

T H

T E

R M

S

> 4.00

4 - 8

GENERAL NOTES

aclee Typewriter Exhibit B-1

Exhibit C-1

CPT GENERAL NOTES

CONE PENETRATION SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE

REFERENCES

atm = atmospheric pressure = 101 kPa = 1.05 tsf

NORMALIZED FRICTION RATIO, FR

100.1 1

N O

R M

A

LI

ZE

D

C O

N E

R E

SI

ST

AN

C

E , q t / a tm

4 Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay

5 Sand mixtures - silty sand to sandy silt

6 Sands - clean sand to silty sand

1 Sensitive, fine grained

2 Organic soils - clay

3 Clay - silty clay to clay

7 Gravelly sand to dense sand

8 Very stiff sand to clayey sand

9 Very stiff fine grained

Kulhawy, F.H., Mayne, P.W., (1997). "Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design," Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.

Mayne, P.W., (2013). "Geotechnical Site Exploration in the Year 2013," Georgia Institue of Technology, Atlanta, GA.

Robertson, P.K., Cabal, K.L. (2012). "Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering," Signal Hill, CA.

Schmertmann, J.H., (1970). "Static Cone to Compute Static Settlement over Sand," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 96(SM3), 1011-1043.

High ReliabilityLow Reliability

* improves with seismic Vs measurements

Reliability of CPT-predicted N60 values as commonly measured by the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is not provided due to the inherent inaccuracy associated with the SPT test procedure.

Effective Friction Angle, '

Relative Density, Dr

Permeability, k

Constrained Modulus, M

Unit Weight

Sensitivity, St

Over Consolidation Ratio, OCR

Small Strain Modulus, G0* and Elastic Modulus, Es*

Undrained Shear Strength, Su

DESCRIPTION OF GEOTECHNICAL CORRELATIONSDESCRIPTION OF MEASUREMENTS

AND CALIBRATIONS

REPORTED PARAMETERS

WATER LEVEL

RELATIVE RELIABILITY OF CPT CORRELATIONS

The groundwater level at the CPT location is used to normalize the measurements for vertical overburden pressures and as a result influences the normalized soil behavior type classification and correlated soil parameters. The water level may either be "measured" or "estimated:"

Measured - Depth to water directly measured in the field Estimated - Depth to water interpolated by the practitioner using pore pressure measurements in coarse grained soils and known site conditions While groundwater levels displayed as "measured" more accurately represent site conditions at the time of testing than those "estimated," in either case the groundwater should be further defined prior to construction as groundwater level variations will occur over time.

Relative Density, Dr Dr = (Qt / 350)0.5 x 100

Sand

Typically, silts and clays have high FR values and generate large excess penetration porewater pressures; sands have lower FRs and do not generate excess penetration porewater pressures.

Negative pore pressure measurements are indicative of fissured fine-grained material. The adjacent graph (Robertson et al.) presents the soil behavior type correlation used for the logs. This normalized SBT chart, generally considered the most reliable, does not use pore pressure to determine SBT due to its lack of repeatability in onshore CPTs.

Clay and Silt Sand

The estimated stratigraphic profiles included in the CPT logs are based on relationships between corrected tip resistance (qt), friction resistance (fs), and porewater pressure (U2). The normalized friction ratio (FR) is used to classify the soil behavior type.

1 2

Sand

Clay and Silt

Sand

Clay and Silt

Clay and Silt

Clay and Silt Sand

Sand

Clay and Silt Sand

Clay and Silt

Clay and Silt

CPT logs as provided, at a minimum, report the data as required by ASTM D5778 and ASTM D7400 (if applicable).

This minimum data include tip resistance, sleeve resistance, and porewater pressure. Other correlated parameters may also be provided. These other correlated parameters are interpretations of the measured data based upon published and reliable references, but they do not necessarily represent the actual values that would be derived from direct testing to determine the various parameters. The following chart illustrates estimates of reliability associated with correlated parameters based upon the literature referenced below.

Soil Behavior Type Index, Ic Ic = [(3.47 - log(Qt)

2 + (log(FR) + 1.22)2]0.5

Constrained Modulus, M M = M(qt - V0) For Ic > 2.2 (fine-grained soils) M = Qt with maximum of 14 For Ic < 2.2 (coarse-grained soils) M = 0.0188 x 10(0.55Ic + 1.68)

Hydraulic Conductivity, k For 1.0 < Ic < 3.27 k = 10(0.952 - 3.04Ic)

For 3.27 < Ic < 4.0 k = 10(-4.52 - 1.37Ic)

To be reported per ASTM D5778:

Where a is the net area ratio, a lab calibration of the cone typically between 0.70 and 0.85

Sleeve Friction, fs Frictional force acting on the sleeve divided by its surface area

Pore Pressure, U1/U2 Pore pressure generated during penetration U1 - sensor on the face of the cone U2 - sensor on the shoulder (more common)

Corrected Tip Resistance, qt Cone resistance corrected for porewater and net area ratio effects qt = qc + U2(1 - a)

Uncorrected Tip Resistance, qc Measured force acting on the cone divided by the cone's projected area

Shear Wave Velocity, Vs Measured in a Seismic CPT and provides direct measure of soil stiffness

Normalized Friction Ratio, FR The ratio as a percentage of fs to q t, accounting for overburden pressure

Elastic Modulus, Es (assumes q/qultimate ~ 0.3, i.e. FS = 3) Es (1) = 2.6 G0 where = 0.56 - 0.33logQt,clean sand Es (2) = G0 Es (3) = 0.015 x 10(0.55Ic + 1.68)(qt - V0) Es (4) = 2.5qt

Small Strain Shear Modulus, G0 G0 (1) = Vs2

G0 (2) = 0.015 x 10(0.55Ic + 1.68)(qt - V0)

To be reported per ASTM D7400, if collected:

SPT N60

N60 = (qt/atm) / 10(1.1268 - 0.2817Ic)

Normalized Tip Resistance, Qt Qt = (qt - V0)/ 'V0

Over Consolidation Ratio, OCR OCR (1) = 0.25(Qt)

1.25

OCR (2) = 0.33(Qt)

Unit Weight UW = (0.27[log(FR)]+0.36[log(qt/atm)]+1.236) x UWwater V0 is taken as the incremental sum of the unit weights

Effective Friction Angle, ' ' (1) = tan-1(0.373[log(qt/ 'V0) + 0.29]) ' (2) = 17.6 + 11[log(Qt)]

Sensitivy, St St = (qt - V0/Nkt) x (1/fs)

Undrained Shear Strength, Su Su = Qt x 'V0/Nkt Nkt is a geographical factor (shown on Su plot) aclee

Exhibit B-1

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A

Soil Classification

Group

Symbol Group Name

B

Coarse Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E

GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3

GP Poorly graded gravel

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G,H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H

Sands:

50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3

SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3

SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the

No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic:

PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line

J CL Lean clay

K,L,M

PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL

Organic clay

K,L,M,N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic:

PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH

Organic clay

K,L,M,P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve

B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name.

C

Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D

Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

DxD

)(D

If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,” whichever is predominant.

L

If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.

M

If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name.

N

PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O

PI 4 or plots below “A” line.

P

PI plots on or above “A” line.

Q

PI plots below “A” line.

aclee

Exhibit B-2