8578_Final_Soils_Report_(003).pdf

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

DOBBINS ARB - RAMP STADIUM LIGHTING POLES

MARIETTA, GEORGIA

FOR

TOLAND-MIZELL ARCHITECTS

SEPTEMBER 11, 2015

ECS PROJECT NO. 10:8578

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

DOBBINS ARB – RAMP STADIUM LIGHTING POLES

MARIETTA, GEORGIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION 1

General 1 Project Information 1 Purposes of Exploration 2

FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 2

Subsurface Exploration 2 Laboratory Testing Program 3

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3

Regional Geology 3 Soil Conditions 4 Groundwater Conditions 5

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5

Design Implications of Undocumented Fill 5 Traffic Signal Pole Foundation Design – Drilled Shafts 6 Soil Parameters 6

CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 6

Fill Placement 6 Additional Considerations 7

CLOSING 8

APPENDIX

I. Figure 1 - Site Location Diagram

Figure 2 - Boring Location Plan

II Signal Pole Foundation Calculations (1)

III. Unified Soil Classification System

Reference Notes for Boring Logs

Boring Logs (4)

Laboratory Testing Summary

IV. ASFE Information about Geotechnical Reports

INTRODUCTION

General

This report presents the results of a geotechnical exploration for the Dobbins ARB Ramp

Stadium Lighting Poles project in Marietta, Georgia. The work was completed in general accordance with ECS Proposal No. 10:11336r2 as authorized by Mr. Alan Toland with Toland-

Mizell Architects on July 20, 2015.

Project Information

This section is based on information provided and our site reconnaissance. The site is located at the Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia. A Site Location Diagram is included in the Appendix as Figure 1.

We understand new “Stadium” lighting will be constructed along the north side of the C-130 parking areas and along the east side of the Transient aircraft parking area. These aircraft parking areas are located on the north side of the east end of the main runway. The area just to the north and east of the aircraft parking are developed with several buildings and pavements.

The new light poles will be placed within grassed areas between the aircraft parking and the existing buildings.

The new lighting will include approximately 7 to 8 new light poles which will be approximately 85 feet tall. We understand that existing light poles in the same area are supported by concrete 36-inch diameter drilled shaft foundations that range from 22 to 35 feet deep. Similar foundations are anticipated for the new Stadium light poles.

The overall site is relatively flat. Although the surface elevations were not available, we anticipate that site grades will remain generally the same. Minimal cuts of less than 2 feet are expected.

The following loading conditions were provided for the new light poles:

Loading Conditions

Maximum Resultant Moment (ft-lbs.) 187310

Shear (lbs.) 3154

Factored Axial Load (lbs.) 3495

The attached Boring Location Plan (Figure 2) presents the proposed location of the light poles at the time of this report. If any of the information presented is incorrect or has changed, please advise ECS so that we may reevaluate our recommendations in the light of changes in the present project concept.

Dobbins ARB – Ramp Stadium Lighting Poles ECS Project No. 10:8578

Purposes of Exploration

The purposes of this exploration were to explore the soil and groundwater conditions at the site and to develop engineering recommendations to guide design and construction of the proposed project.

We accomplished the purposes of the study by:

1. Reviewing the available publications concerning local geology of the site and performing a general site reconnaissance.

2. Drilling borings to explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions.

3. Performing laboratory tests on selected representative soil samples from the borings to evaluate pertinent engineering properties.

4. Evaluating the field and laboratory data to develop appropriate engineering recommendations.

FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

Subsurface Exploration

To explore the subsurface conditions at this site, a total of 4 soil test borings were performed at the specified locations along the general Stadium lighting alignment. Borings B-1 to B-4 were performed to depths of 50 feet below existing grade.

Boring locations were determined in the field by our representative who measured distances and estimated right angles from existing site features. As these methods are not precise, the boring locations shown on the attached Boring Location Plan (Figure 2) should be considered approximate.

The soil test borings were performed with an ATV mounted drill rig, which utilized hollow stem augers to advance the boreholes. No water or drilling fluid was introduced during the process.

Representative soil samples were obtained by means of the split-barrel sampling procedure in general accordance with ASTM Specification D-1586 with an automatic drive hammer. In this procedure, a 2-inch O.D., split-barrel sampler is driven into the soil a distance of 18 inches by a

140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through a 12-inch interval is termed the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-value and is indicated for each sample on the boring logs. This value can be used as a qualitative indication of the in-place relative density of cohesionless soils. In a less reliable way, it also indicates the consistency of cohesive soils.

The drill crew prepared a field log of the soils encountered in the borings. After recovery, each sample was removed from the sampler and visually classified by the field crew. Representative portions of each sample were then sealed and brought to our laboratory in Marietta, Georgia for further visual examination and laboratory testing by ECS.

Laboratory Testing Program

Representative soil samples were selected and tested in our laboratory to check visual classifications and to determine pertinent engineering properties. The laboratory testing program included visual classifications of soil samples as well as gradation analysis and natural moisture content testing on selected soil samples.

A geotechnical engineer/geologist classified each soil sample on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The group symbols for each soil type are indicated in parentheses followed by the soil descriptions on the boring logs.

The geotechnical engineer/geologist grouped the various soil types into the major zones noted on the boring logs. The stratification lines designating the interfaces between earth materials on the boring logs and profiles are approximate; in-situ, the transitions may be gradual.

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

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Regional Geology

The site is located in the Piedmont Region of Georgia. According to the Geology of the Greater

Atlanta Region (1984), the site is in the Powers Ferry Formation with underlying bedrock consisting of gneiss, amphibolite, and schist. The natural soils at the site consist primarily of residual materials formed from the in-place physical and chemical weathering of the underlying parent bedrock. The relative density of the residual soils is primarily dependent upon the degree of weathering, surface disturbance, groundwater action, and residual mineral bonding.

The shear strength of residual soils is anisotropic and exhibits great variations from point to point. Soils with the flaky minerals oriented parallel to the potential shear plane and the slickenside surfaces have lower shear strengths.

The boundary between soil and rock is not clearly defined. A transitional zone called partially weathered rock (PWR) is normally found above the parent rock. PWR is defined for engineering purposes, as residual material with standard penetration resistances in excess of

100 blows per foot. Weathering is facilitated by fractures, joints, and the presence of less resistant rock types. Consequently, PWR and hard rock profiles are irregular and zones of

PWR or rock may occur within the soil mantle well above the general bedrock level. In some cases, boulders can be found in the upper soil matrix.

The natural geology in portions of the site has been modified in the past by grading that included the placement of fill materials. The quality of man-made fills can vary significantly, and it is often difficult to assess the engineering properties of existing fills. Furthermore, there is no specific correlation between N-values from Standard Penetration Tests performed in soil test borings and the degree of compaction of existing fill soils; however, a qualitative assessment of existing fills can sometimes be made based on the N-values obtained and observations of the materials sampled in the test borings.

Groundwater levels are irregular in the Piedmont Region. The surface of the groundwater table is largely dependent on the topography and is generally parallel to the ground surface. It can exhibit some distortions due to differences in vertical and horizontal permeability. The groundwater table can fluctuate several feet with seasonal rainfall.

Soil Conditions

Data from the soil test borings is included in the Appendix. The subsurface conditions discussed in the following paragraphs and those shown on the boring logs represent an estimate of the subsurface conditions based on interpretation of the boring data using normally accepted geotechnical engineering judgments. We note that the transition between different soil strata is usually less distinct than those shown on the boring logs.

Topsoil

Topsoil is a dark-colored surficial material with a high organic content and is generally unsuitable for structural support. Approximately 2 to 4 inches of topsoil was observed in the borings performed. Some variation in thicknesses should be expected across the site.

Fill Materials

Fill may be any material that has been transported and deposited by man.

Undocumented fill is considered any man placed materials with no moisture-density records from the time it was originally placed. Materials described as undocumented fill and/or possible fill were encountered in Borings B-1, B-2, and B-4 to depths of approximately 3 to 8 feet below the existing ground surface. The fill material generally consisted of very loose to medium dense clayey Sand (SC). Standard Penetration resistances (N-Values) ranged from 4 to 18 blows per foot (bpf). Although unsuitable materials were not visually observed in the recovered soil samples, it is possible that unsuitable materials may exist in the undocumented fill and remain undetected in the widely spaced borings.

Residual Soils

Residual soil, formed by in-place weathering of the parent rock, was encountered in the borings below the ground surface and/or fill materials. The residual soil was generally described as very loose to medium dense silty Sand (SM) and loose clayey Sand (SC).

N-Values ranged from 4 to 22 bpf.

Partially Weathered Rock

Partially weathered rock (PWR) is a transitional material between soil and rock, which retains the relic structure of the rock and exhibits Standard Penetration resistances greater than 100, but still can be penetrated by the power auger. PWR was not encountered in the borings performed to termination depths.

Auger Refusal Materials

Refusal is a designation applied to any material which cannot be further penetrated by the power auger and is normally indicative of a very hard or very dense material, such as boulders, rock lenses, or the upper surface of bedrock. Auger refusal was not encountered in the borings performed to termination depths.

Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater seepage was observed in the open bore holes at depths ranging from 24 to 30 feet below existing grade during our fieldwork activities. Observations for groundwater were made during sampling and upon completion of the drilling operations at each boring location. In auger drilling operations, the groundwater position can often be determined by observing water flowing into or out of the boreholes. Furthermore, visual observation of the soil samples retrieved during the auger drilling exploration can often be used in evaluating the groundwater conditions.

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Design Implications of Undocumented Fill

As previously noted, existing undocumented fill materials were encountered in the borings.

Visual examination of the soil samples did not show evidence of extraneous or unsuitable materials, such as organics and debris. However, the presence and depth (up to 8 feet) of these undocumented fill and possible fill materials presents a problem in quantifying the risk that unsuitable materials/soils may exist within the area of any of the planned light poles. If thick zones or pockets of debris, organics, stumps, etc., exist within the fill, then localized excessive lateral deflections of the pole foundations could occur in response to lateral structural loads. It is important that the foundation construction be observed by ECS during drilling to confirm that the existing fill soils at each light pole foundation are similar to the soil conditions encountered at ECS’s soil test borings.

Lighting Pole Foundation Design – Drilled Shafts

We understand that the light poles we be supported by drilled shafts. We analyzed the foundation support based on the provided loading conditions, the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the site and various drilled shaft diameter and depths. Based on our analysis we recommend drilled shafts with a minimum diameter of 30 inches and a minimum embedment depth of 25 feet. Complete design calculations are provided in Appendix II.

Soil Parameters

Advanced soil laboratory testing was not performed for this project. However, based on local experience and the site specific borings, the following soil parameters have been estimated for the silty/clayey sand (SM, SC) encountered at the site:

• Coefficient of Earth Pressure “At Rest” (Kο) = 0.53

• Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure (Ka) = 0.36

• Coefficient of Passive Earth Pressure (Kp) = 2.77

• Moist Unit Weight of Soil = 120 pcf

• Angle of Internal Friction (φ) = 28 degrees

• Sliding Friction Resistance (concrete on soil) 0.45 x N *

*Where N is the vertical force component of the foundation system per linear foot.

CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

Fill Placement

The placement of structural fills are not anticipated for this project site. However, the following guidelines and recommendations are provided for possible use of the excavated soils at this project site if necessary, or other Dobbins ARB locations.

Fill materials should consist of an approved material free of organic matter and debris, with rocks less than 6 inches and a Liquid Limit less than 40 and a Plasticity Index less than 20.

Unacceptable fill materials include topsoil, organic materials, lightweight material with a maximum dry density less than 95 pcf, and highly plastic silts and clays. Unsuitable materials removed during grading operations should be either stockpiled for later use in landscaped areas, or placed in approved disposal areas either on site or off site.

In general, the existing fill materials and residual soils appear generally suitable for re-use as structural fill if they are free from deleterious materials, such as organics and debris. Existing and off-site fill materials should be tested by ECS prior to use as structural fill.

Fill materials should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness and moisture conditioned to within +/- 3 percent of the optimum moisture content to facilitate proper compaction. Controlled fill soils should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density obtained in accordance with ASTM Specification D-698, Standard Proctor

Method.

The upper one foot of soil supporting structures, pavements, slabs-on-grade, sidewalks, should be “firm and unyielding” and any new fill compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of the maximum dry density obtained in accordance with ASTM Specification D-698, Standard Proctor

Method.

Additional Considerations

Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the caisson foundation bearing level if the foundation excavations remain open for too long a time. Therefore, signal pole foundation concrete should be placed the same day that the drilled shafts are performed. If surface water intrusion or exposure softens the bearing soils, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation excavation bottom immediately prior to placement of concrete. If the excavation must remain open overnight, or if rainfall becomes imminent while the bearing soils are exposed, we recommend that the foundations be covered or otherwise protected.

Where unacceptable materials are encountered, they must be evaluated and may need to be undercut and replaced or improved by recompaction. On a previously filled site, the contractor must be especially alert for the possible existence of poor soil conditions that may become apparent during construction.

The surface of the site should be kept properly graded in order to enhance drainage of the surface water away from the proposed structure areas during the construction phase. We recommend that an attempt be made to enhance the natural drainage without interrupting its pattern.

The surficial soils contain fines, which are considered moderately erodible. Erosion and sedimentation shall be controlled in accordance with Best Management Practices and current

County and State NPDES requirements. At the appropriate time, we would be pleased to provide a proposal for conducting construction materials testing and NPDES services.

CLOSING

This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No warranty is expressed or implied. The evaluations and recommendations presented in this report are based on the available project information, as well as on the results of the exploration. ECS should be given the opportunity to review the final drawings and site plans for this project to determine if changes to the recommendations outlined in this report are needed.

Because undocumented fill is present on this site, the Owner must assess the relative risk that unacceptable material could have been buried in the proposed development area which was not detected in the widely spaced borings. It is critical that ECS be retained to perform foundation observations and testing. If ECS is not retained for this extension of the field exploration, we can not be responsible for the performance of the foundations or site improvements. We would be pleased to provide an estimated cost for these services at the appropriate time.

This report is provided for the exclusive use of Toland-Mizell Architects and their project specific design team. This report is not intended to be used or relied upon in connection with other projects or by other third parties. ECS disclaims liability for any such third party use or reliance without express written permission.

Appendix I

Figure No.

Appendix II

Notes the potential accuracy limitations and examines the reasonableness of the results with engineering knowledge and experience.

There are no expressed or implied warranties.

Elev = 0.00 ft

Elev = -25.00 ft

25 ft

25 ft30 inch diameter

Drilled Pier

Elevations

Miscellaneous Properties

Pr = in in

Groundwater Table (GWT) Elevation =

Elev = 0.00 ft kips kcf ksi ft ft ft

0 ft

3 kips

Design Scour (DSE) Elevation = v

Drilled Pier Information

N

(bpf) (2)

RMR

(2)

RQD

3.1Maximum Factored Axial Load (Pr) =

Number of Drilled Piers per Bent =

Layer

No.

SPT Hammer Energy Efficiency Rating (ER) =

Unit Weight of Water (γw) =

Diameter of Column (dColumn) = 0

Diameter of Drilled Pier (dDP) = 30

Compressive Strength of Concrete (f 'c) = 4.000 ft

0 inch diameter

Column kcf qu

(ksf)

-20.00

-5.00

Ei

(ksi) ft ft

-25.00 ft

Cohesionless Soil (Silty Sand)TIP (3)

-30.00 0.110 6-25.00

Permanent Casing Elevation will be ignored.

Resistance from subsurface layers above the Bottom of Column Elevation, Drilled Pier Design Scour Elevation, and

Input the subsurface information for the soil / rock at the base of the drilled pier to a distance of 2 pier diameters below the base of the drilled pier.

Tip Resistance Method for Hard Rock (if applicable)

ECS Southeast, LLC

1281 Kennesstone Circle

Suite 200

Marietta, GA 30066

Bottom

(ft)

Total γ

(kcf)

60.110-5.00

Soil and Rock Information

-25.00Cohesionless Soil (Silty Sand)

Material Description

Layer Elevations

Top (1)

(ft)

Bottom of Permanent Casing Elevation = N/A

Drilled Pier Tip Elevation =

DISCLAIMER: The application of this spreadsheet is the responsibility of the user. It is imperative that the user understands

09/10/15

COUNTY

DATE: STR. NO.:

PROJECT:

SUBJECT:

Ramp Stadium Lighting

Drilled Pier Axial Resistance Calculations

Dobbins ARB - Lighting

PREPARED BY: DRC DATE: STATION:

Cobb County, GA

PAGE: 1 OF 5CHECKED BY:

Hard rock layers with poor or very poor quality rock mass (RMR < 44 or GSI < 30) will be modeled as weathered rock.

Is Permanent Casing Required?

0.00

Top of Pier/Bottom of Column Elevation =

Bottom of Cap (BOC) Elevation =

Natural Ground / Finished Grade Elevation =

0.00

0.00

0.0624

Unit Weight of Concrete (γc) = 0.150

80 %

1.

2.

3.

Figure shows typical drilled pier (not drawn to scale)

Yes / Maybe No

AASHTO Eqn. 10.8.3.5-3

AASHTO Eqn. 10.8.3.5.2b-1

AASHTO Eqn. 10.8.3.5.2b-2

AASHTO Eqn. 10.8.3.5.2b-3

AASHTO Eqn. 10.8.3.5.2b-4

AASHTO Eqn. 10.8.3.5.2b-3 where z = depth from the ground surface to the mid point of the soil layer (ft) vertical effective stress at the mid point of the soil layer (ksf) for Sandy Soils, where 0.25 ≤ b ≤ 1.2 for Gravelly Sands and Gravels, where 0.25 ≤ b ≤ 1.8 load transfer coefficientβ = unit side resistance for soil layer (ksf)

(β)(σ’v) ≤ 4.0 ksf qs =

∆z = effective thickness of the soil layer (ft) diameter of drilled pier (2.5 ft)

98Total Side Resistance in Cohesionless Soil =

SUBJECT: Drilled Pier Axial Resistance Calculations

Ramp Stadium Lighting

DATE: 09/10/15 STATION:

CHECKED BY: DATE: OF2

PREPARED BY: DRCSuite 200

ECS Southeast, LLC PROJECT:

1281 Kennesstone Circle

Side Resistance in Cohesionless Soil (Sand / Gravel with N160 ≤ 50) σ'v =

B = area of drilled pier side resistance (ft

(π)(B)(∆z)

As =

(As)(qs)Rs =

Top

(ft)

Bottom

(ft) σ'v (ksf)

0.62710.00-5.00 -25.00

Dobbins ARB - Lighting COUNTY Cobb County, GA

1.100 qs

(ksf)

As

(ft

PAGE:Marietta, GA 30066

N60

STR. NO.:

∆z

(ft) β

0.57

Layer Elevations z

(ft)

20.00 157.08

N160 Layer

No.

Material

Type

Sand

Rs

(kips) for N60 ≥ 15, β = 1.5 � 0.135 � for N60 < 15, β =

1.5� 0.135 � for N60 < 15, β =

1.5� 0.135 � for N60 ≥ 15, β = 2.0 � 0.06 �

Tip Resistance in Cohesionless Soil (Sand / Gravel)

Rp = (Ap)(qp) AASHTO Eqn. 10.8.3.5-2

Ap = area of drilled pier tip resistance (ft

= (π)(B )/4

B = qp = unit tip resistance (ksf)

= 1.2(N60) For N60 ≤ 50 AASHTO Eqn. 10.8.3.5.2c-1 q p ≤ 60 ksf per AASHTO 10.8.3.5.2c

= For N60 > 50 AASHTO Eqn. 10.8.3.5.2c-2

N60 = SPT-N value corrected for hammer efficiency (Limited to 100 bpf per AASHTO) pa = atmospheric pressure (2.12 ksf) σ'v = vertical effective stress at the tip elevation of the drilled pier taken from the design scour elevation (ksf)

Summary of Nominal and Factored Side Resistance

* The Resistance Factors have been reduced by 20% because the bent has only 1 pier. See AASHTO 10.5.5.2.4.

Summary of Total Nominal and Factored Tip Resistance

Total Nominal Tip Resistance = kips the drilled pier is bearing on Cohesionless Soil

Tip Resistance Factor = for Cohesionless Soil, see AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.4-1.

Total Nominal Tip Resistance = kips

* The Resistance Factor has been reduced by 20% because the bent has only 1 pier. See AASHTO 10.5.5.2.4.

1.888

Material Type

Nominal Side

Resistance

(kips)

Resistance Factor from AASHTO

Table 10.5.5.2.4-1

Factored Side

Resistance

(kips)

Percentage of Side

Resistance produced by

Material Type

Cohesive Soil 0 0.36 0 0%

Cohesionless Soil 98 0.44

IGM 0 0.48 0 0%

Weathered Rock 0 diameter of drilled pier (B = 2.5 ft)

Marietta, GA 30066 CHECKED BY: DATE: STR. NO.:

Tip

Elevation

(ft)

N60 σ'v

(ksf) qp

(ksf)

Ap

(ft

Rp

(kips)

PAGE:

AASHTO

Equation

9.600 4.28 41

100%

10.8.3.5.2c-1-25.00 8

Suite 200 PREPARED BY: DRC DATE: 09/10/15 STATION:

ECS Southeast, LLC PROJECT: Dobbins ARB - Lighting COUNTY Cobb County, GA

SUBJECT: Drilled Pier Axial Resistance Calculations

1281 Kennesstone Circle Ramp Stadium Lighting

0.48 0 0%

0.40

Hard Rock 0 0.44 0 0%

Total 98 43 100%

Required Factored Resistance

Rreq = Pr + γDC(WColumn + WPier) - γWAWWater - γDCWSoil/Rock ≥ Pr Required Factored Resistance

Pr = Maximum Factored Axial Load Reported by Structure Design γDC = Factor for Permanent Dead Loads, from AASHTO Table 3.4.1-2 γWA = Factor for Water Loads, from AASHTO Table 3.4.1-1

WColumn = (AColumn)(LColumn)(γc) Unfactored Weight of Column

AColumn = Area of Column

LColumn = Length of Column γc = Unit Weight of Concrete

WPier = (APier)(LPier)(γc) Unfactored Weight of Drilled Pier

APier = Area of Drilled Pier

LPier = Length of Drilled Pier γc = Unit Weight of Concrete

WWater = (APier)(zw)(γw) Unfactored Weight of Water Displaced by Drilled Pier

APier = Area of Drilled Pier zw = Depth from water surface to the drilled pier tip γw = Unit Weight of Water

WSoil/Rock = (APier)(σ'vo) Unfactored Effective Weight of Soil / Rock that will be displaced

APier = Area of Drilled Pier σ'vo = Vertical Effective Stress (taken from the DSE) at the Drilled Pier Tip

WSoil/Rock =

Rreq =

Load Transfer of Side and Tip Resistance

3 kips + 1.25(0 kips + 18 kips) -1.00(2 kips) -1.25(9 kips) = 12 kips

The drilled pier tip is bearing on Cohesionless Material, use AASHTO Figure 10.8.2.2.2.4 to predict the normalized load transfer for tip resistance.

The majority of the side resistance is produced by Cohesionless Material, use AASHTO Figure 10.8.2.2.2.3 to predict the normalized load transfer for side resistance.

3 kips

9 kips

2 kips

1.25

0 kips

18 kips

0 ft^2

0 ft

1.00

4.91 ft^2

0.150 kcf

0.150 kcf

25 ft

4.91 ft^2

5 ft

0.0624 kcf

4.91 ft^2

1.888 ksf

SUBJECT: Drilled Pier Axial Resistance Calculations

ECS Southeast, LLC PROJECT: Dobbins ARB - Lighting

PREPARED BY: DRC DATE: 09/10/15

COUNTY Cobb County, GA

1281 Kennesstone Circle Ramp Stadium Lighting

54 OF

STATION:

Marietta, GA 30066 CHECKED BY: DATE: PAGE:

Suite 200

STR. NO.:

Load Transfer of Side and Tip Resistance (continued)

∆z / D = total settlement / drilled pier diameter

Rsd / Rs = developed side resistance / total nominal side resistance

Rpd / Rp = developed tip resistance / total nominal tip resistance

Developed Factored Resistance, (Rrd) ϕqsRs = total factored side resistance ϕqpRp = total factored tip resistance ϕqsRsd = developed factored side resistance

= (Rsd/Rs)(ϕqsRs) ϕqpRpd = developed factored tip resistance

= (Rpd/Rp)(ϕqpRp)

Developed Factored Side Resistance =

Developed Factored Tip Resistance =

Developed Factored Total Resistance =

0.0

12 YES

48 12 YES

16 0.20 3

30 0.09 43 0.70 30 16 0.10 2

320.3%

47 12 YES

1.3%

48 12 YES

Drilled Pier Axial Resistance Calculations

∆z / D

Normalized Side Transfer Normalized Tip Transfer

Rsd / Rs Rpd / Rp

1.0 0.97 0.30

SUBJECT:

0.3

0.00

Axial Resistance

Requirement SatisfiedD Rs Rp

Dobbins ARB - Lighting

5 OF

12 YES

43 12 YES

Use the normalized load transfer values along with the total factored side and tip resistance values to calculate the developed side and tip resistance at different vertical displacements. The developed factored resistance must be greater than or equal to the required axial resistance, (Rrd ≥ Rreq).

0.70 0.10

0.6 0.94 0.20

5.0 0.75 0.98

0.6% 30 0.18 43 0.94

0.00

D

(in)

STATION:

Marietta, GA 30066 CHECKED BY: DATE: STR. NO.: PAGE:

Suite 200 PREPARED BY: DRC DATE: 09/10/15

1281 Kennesstone Circle Ramp Stadium Lighting

ECS Southeast, LLC PROJECT: COUNTY Cobb County, GA

∆z

1.3

∆z

(in) ϕqsRs

(kips)

Rsd ϕqsRsd

(kips) ϕqpRp

(kips)

Rpd ϕqpRpd

(kips)

Rrd

(kips)

Rreq

(kips)

0.96 0.38

1.6 0.95 0.47

2.0 0.90 0.56

AASHTO Figure 10.8.2.2.2.3 AASHTO Figure 10.8.2.2.2.4

12 YES

1.0% 30 0.30 43 0.97 42 16 0.30

30 0.39 43 0.96 41 16 0.38 6 47

2.0% 30 0.60 43 0.90 39 16 0.56

The axial resistance requirement is satisfied at an estimated vertical displacement of 0.09 inches.

30 kips

2 kips

32 kips

1.6% 30 0.48 43 0.95 41 16 0.47 8 49

5.0% 30 1.50 43 0.75 32 16 0.98 16

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00%

Lo a d T ra n sf e r

U lt im a te L o a d T ra n sf e r

Settlement / Drilled Pier Diameter (%)

Normalized Load Transfer vs Settlement

Side Resistance

Tip Resistance

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

F a ct o re d

R e si st a n ce k ip s)

Settlement (in)

Developed Factored Resistance vs Settlement

Factored Side Resistance Factored Tip Resistance

Total Factored Resistance Required Factored Resistance

Lateral Deflection (inches) D ep th

(f t)

-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

Case 1

Dobbins ARB - Ramp Stadium Lighting Poles

*Based on general soil conditions encountered at Borings B-1 to B-4

Bending Moment (in-kips) ep th

(f t)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

Case 1

Shear Force (kips) ep th

(f t)

-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

Case 1

Appendix III

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2487)

Major Divisions

Group Symbols

Typical Names Laboratory Classification Criteria

GW

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

Cu = D60/D10 greater than 4 Cc = (D30)

2/(D10xD60) between 1 and 3

C le an g ra ve ls

(L itt le o r no fin es

GP

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

Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW d

GMa u

Silty gravels, gravel-sand mixtures

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

G ra

(M or e th an h al f o f c oa rs e fr ac tio n is la rg er th an

N o.

s ie ve s iz e)

G ra ve ls w ith fi ne s (A pp re ci ab le a m ou nt o f fin es

GC

Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures

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

Above “A” line with P.I.

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

SW

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

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

2/(D10xD60) between 1 and 3

C le an s an ds

(L itt le o r no fin es

SP

Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines

Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW d

SMa u

Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures

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

C oa rs e-g ra in ed s oi e th an h al f o f m at er ia l i s la rg er th an N o.

S ie ve s

S ds e th an h al f o f c oa rs e fr ac tio n is sm al le r th an

N o.

s ie ve s ds w ith fi ne s

(A pp re ci ab le a m ou nt o f fin es

SC

Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures

D et er m in e pe rc e nt ag es o f s an d a nd g ra ve l f ro m g ra in -s iz e cu rv e.

ep en di ng o n p e rc en ta ge o f f in es fr ac tio n sm al le r th an

N o.

s ie ve s iz e)

, c oa rs e-g ra in ed s oi ar e cl as si fie d as fo llo w s:

Le ss th an p er ce nt

W

G

P

S W

, S P

M e th an pe rc en t

M

G C

S

M , S

C to pe rc en t

B de rli ne c as es r eq ui rin g du al s ym bo b

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

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

ML

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

CL

Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays ilt s an d cl ay s (L iq ui d lim it le ss t ha n

OL

Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity

MH

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

CH

Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays ilt s an d cl ay s (L iq ui d lim it gr ea te r th an

0)

OH

Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts

F in e-gr ai ne d so ils e th an h al f m at er ia l i s sm al le r th an

N o.

S ie

H ig h ly

O rg a ni c so ils

Pt

Peat and other highly organic soils

Plasticity Chart

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Liquid Limit

P la st ic it y

In de x

"A" line

CH

MH and OH

CL

ML and OL

CL-ML

a Division of GM and SM groups into subdivisions of d and u are for roads and airfields only. Subdivision is based on Atterberg limits; suffix d used when L.L. is 28 or less and the P.I. is 6 or less; the suffix u used when L.L. is greater than 28.

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

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

REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS

I. Drilling Sampling Symbols

SS Split Spoon Sampler ST Shelby Tube Sampler RC Rock Core, NX, BX, AX PM Pressuremeter DC Dutch Cone Penetrometer RD Rock Bit Drilling BS Bulk Sample of Cuttings PA Power Auger (no sample) HSA Hollow Stem Auger WS Wash sample REC Rock Sample Recovery % RQD Rock Quality Designation %

II. Correlation of Penetration Resistances to Soil Properties

Standard Penetration (blows/ft) refers to the blows per foot of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch OD split-spoon sampler, as specified in ASTM D 1586. The blow count is commonly referred to as the N-value.

A. Non-Cohesive Soils (Silt, Sand, Gravel and Combinations)

Density Relative Properties Under 4 blows/ft Very Loose Adjective Form 12% to 49% 5 to 10 blows/ft Loose With 5% to 12%

11 to 30 blows/ft Medium Dense 31 to 50 blows/ft Dense Over 51 blows/ft Very Dense

Particle Size Identification

Boulders 8 inches or larger Cobbles 3 to 8 inches Gravel Coarse 1 to 3 inches Medium ½ to 1 inch Fine ¼ to ½ inch Sand Coarse 2.00 mm to ¼ inch (dia. of lead pencil) Medium 0.42 to 2.00 mm (dia. of broom straw) Fine 0.074 to 0.42 mm (dia. of human hair) Silt and Clay 0.0 to 0.074 mm (particles cannot be seen)

B. Cohesive Soils (Clay, Silt, and Combinations)

Blows/ft Consistency Unconfined

Comp. Strength Qp (tsf)

Degree of Plasticity

Plasticity Index

Under 2 Very Soft Under 0.25 None to slight 0 – 4 3 to 4 Soft 0.25-0.49 Slight 5 – 7 5 to 8 Medium Stiff 0.50-0.99 Medium 8 – 22

9 to 15 Stiff 1.00-1.99 High to Very High Over 22 16 to 30 Very Stiff 2.00-3.00 31 to 50 Hard 4.00–8.00 Over 51 Very Hard Over 8.00

III. Water Level Measurement Symbols

WL Water Level BCR Before Casing Removal DCI Dry Cave-In WS While Sampling ACR After Casing Removal WCI Wet Cave-In WD While Drilling Est. Groundwater Level Est. Seasonal High GWT

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

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

Topsoil Depth [2"] (SC FILL) CLAYEY SAND, Contains Mica, Brown, Moist, Loose

(SC POSSIBLE FILL) CLAYEY SAND, Brown to Orange, Moist, Very Loose to Loose

(SC) CLAYEY SAND, Contains Mica, Tan to Brown, Moist, Loose

(SM) SILTY SAND, Contains Mica, Gray, Moist, Very Loose to Loose to Medium Dense

CLIENT

Toland-Mizell Architects

JOB #

10:8578

BORING #

B-1

SHEET

PROJECT NAME

Dobbins ARB - Ramp Stadium Lighting Poles

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER

SITE LOCATION

Marietta, GA

NORTHING EASTING STATION

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE.

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

WL 30' WS WD BORING STARTED 07/31/15 CAVE IN DEPTH

WL(BCR) WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED 07/31/15 HAMMER TYPE Auto

WL RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN D.D. DRILLING METHOD HSADRILLING METHOD HSA

D E

P T

H

F T

S A

M P

L E

N O

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

S A

M P

L E

D

IS

T

(I N

R E

C O

V E

R Y

IN

SURFACE ELEVATION

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L S

E L E

V A

T

IO

N

F T

B L O

W S

/6

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS

BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT2

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY

RQD% REC.%

STANDARD PENETRATION

BLOWS/FT

S-9

S-10

S-11

S-12

SS

SS

SS

SS

(SM) SILTY SAND, Contains Mica, Gray, Moist, Very Loose to Loose to Medium Dense

END OF BORING @ 50'

CLIENT

Toland-Mizell Architects

JOB #

10:8578

BORING #

B-1

SHEET

PROJECT NAME

Dobbins ARB - Ramp Stadium Lighting Poles

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER

SITE LOCATION

Marietta, GA

NORTHING EASTING STATION

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

WL 30' WS WD BORING STARTED 07/31/15 CAVE IN DEPTH

WL(BCR) WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED 07/31/15 HAMMER TYPE Auto

WL RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN D.D. DRILLING METHOD HSADRILLING METHOD HSA

D E

P T

H

F T

S A

M P

L E

N O

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

S A

M P

L E

D

IS

T

(I N

R E

C O

V E

R Y

IN

SURFACE ELEVATION

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L S

E L E

V A

T

IO

N

F T

B L O

W S

/6

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS

BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT2

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY

RQD% REC.%

STANDARD PENETRATION

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

Topsoil Depth [4"] (SC FILL) CLAYEY SAND, Contains Mica, Brown, Moist, Medium Dense

(SC POSSIBLE FILL) CLAYEY SAND, Brown, Moist, Medium Dense

(SM) SILTY SAND, Contains Mica, Orange to Tan to Red, Moist, Loose to Medium Dense

(SM) SILTY SAND, Contains Mica, Red to Brown to Gray, Moist to Wet, Loose to Medium Dense

15 18.0

CLIENT

Toland-Mizell Architects

JOB #

10:8578

BORING #

B-2

SHEET

PROJECT NAME

Dobbins ARB - Ramp Stadium Lighting Poles

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER

SITE LOCATION

Marietta, GA

NORTHING EASTING STATION

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE.

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

WL 28' WS WD BORING STARTED 07/31/15 CAVE IN DEPTH

WL(BCR) WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED 07/31/15 HAMMER TYPE Auto

WL RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN D.D. DRILLING METHOD HSADRILLING METHOD HSA

D E

P T

H

F T

S A

M P

L E

N O

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

S A

M P

L E

D

IS

T

(I N

R E

C O

V E

R Y

IN

SURFACE ELEVATION

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L S

E L E

V A

T

IO

N

F T

B L O

W S

/6

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS

BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT2

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY

RQD% REC.%

STANDARD PENETRATION

S-9

S-10

S-11

S-12

SS

SS

SS

SS

(SM) SILTY SAND, Contains Mica, Red to Brown to Gray, Moist to Wet, Loose to Medium Dense

END OF BORING @ 50'

CLIENT

Toland-Mizell Architects

JOB #

10:8578

BORING #

B-2

SHEET

PROJECT NAME

Dobbins ARB - Ramp Stadium Lighting Poles

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER

SITE LOCATION

Marietta, GA

NORTHING EASTING STATION

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

WL 28' WS WD BORING STARTED 07/31/15 CAVE IN DEPTH

WL(BCR) WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED 07/31/15 HAMMER TYPE Auto

WL RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN D.D. DRILLING METHOD HSADRILLING METHOD HSA

D E

P T

H

F T

S A

M P

L E

N O

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

S A

M P

L E

D

IS

T

(I N

R E

C O

V E

R Y

IN

SURFACE ELEVATION

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L S

E L E

V A

T

IO

N

F T

B L O

W S

/6

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS

BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT2

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY

RQD% REC.%

STANDARD PENETRATION

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

Topsoil Depth [2"] (SM) SILTY SAND, Orange, Moist, Loose

(SC) CLAYEY SAND, Contains Mica, Orange to Tan to Gray, Moist, Loose

(SM) SILTY SAND, Contains Mica, Gray, Moist, Very Loose to Loose to Medium Dense

CLIENT

Toland-Mizell Architects

JOB #

10:8578

BORING #

B-3

SHEET

PROJECT NAME

Dobbins ARB - Ramp Stadium Lighting Poles

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER

SITE LOCATION

Marietta, GA

NORTHING EASTING STATION

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE.

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

WL 24' WS WD BORING STARTED 07/31/15 CAVE IN DEPTH

WL(BCR) WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED 07/31/15 HAMMER TYPE Auto

WL RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN D.D. DRILLING METHOD HSADRILLING METHOD HSA

D E

P T

H

F T

S A

M P

L E

N O

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

S A

M P

L E

D

IS

T

(I N

R E

C O

V E

R Y

IN

SURFACE ELEVATION

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L S

E L E

V A

T

IO

N

F T

B L O

W S

/6

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS

BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT2

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY

RQD% REC.%

STANDARD PENETRATION

S-9

S-10

S-11

S-12

SS

SS

SS

SS

(SM) SILTY SAND, Contains Mica, Gray, Moist, Very Loose to Loose to Medium Dense

END OF BORING @ 50'

CLIENT

Toland-Mizell Architects

JOB #

10:8578

BORING #

B-3

SHEET

PROJECT NAME

Dobbins ARB - Ramp Stadium Lighting Poles

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER

SITE LOCATION

Marietta, GA

NORTHING EASTING STATION

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

WL 24' WS WD BORING STARTED 07/31/15 CAVE IN DEPTH

WL(BCR) WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED 07/31/15 HAMMER TYPE Auto

WL RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN D.D. DRILLING METHOD HSADRILLING METHOD HSA

D E

P T

H

F T

S A

M P

L E

N O

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

S A

M P

L E

D

IS

T

(I N

R E

C O

V E

R Y

IN

SURFACE ELEVATION

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L S

E L E

V A

T

IO

N

F T

B L O

W S

/6

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS

BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT2

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY

RQD% REC.%

STANDARD PENETRATION

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

Topsoil Depth [2"] (SC FILL) CLAYEY SAND, Tan to Brown to Gray, Moist, Loose to Medium Dense

(SC) CLAYEY SAND, Orange to Tan to Brown, Moist, Loose

(SM) SILTY SAND, Contains Mica, Tan to Brown to Gray, Moist, Loose to Medium Dense

CLIENT

Toland-Mizell Architects

JOB #

10:8578

BORING #

B-4

SHEET

PROJECT NAME

Dobbins ARB - Ramp Stadium Lighting Poles

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER

SITE LOCATION

Marietta, GA

NORTHING EASTING STATION

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE.

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

WL 24' WS WD BORING STARTED 07/31/15 CAVE IN DEPTH

WL(BCR) WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED 07/31/15 HAMMER TYPE Auto

WL RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN D.D. DRILLING METHOD HSADRILLING METHOD HSA

D E

P T

H

F T

S A

M P

L E

N O

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

S A

M P

L E

D

IS

T

(I N

R E

C O

V E

R Y

IN

SURFACE ELEVATION

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L S

E L E

V A

T

IO

N

F T

B L O

W S

/6

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS

BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT2

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY

RQD% REC.%

STANDARD PENETRATION

S-9

S-10

S-11

S-12

SS

SS

SS

SS

(SM) SILTY SAND, Contains Mica, Tan to Brown to Gray, Moist, Loose to Medium Dense

END OF BORING @ 50'

CLIENT

Toland-Mizell Architects

JOB #

10:8578

BORING #

B-4

SHEET

PROJECT NAME

Dobbins ARB - Ramp Stadium Lighting Poles

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER

SITE LOCATION

Marietta, GA

NORTHING EASTING STATION

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

WL 24' WS WD BORING STARTED 07/31/15 CAVE IN DEPTH

WL(BCR) WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED 07/31/15 HAMMER TYPE Auto

WL RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN D.D. DRILLING METHOD HSADRILLING METHOD HSA

D E

P T

H

F T

S A

M P

L E

N O

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

S A

M P

L E

D

IS

T

(I N

R E

C O

V E

R Y

IN

SURFACE ELEVATION

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L S

E L E

V A

T

IO

N

F T

B L O

W S

/6

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS

BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT2

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY

RQD% REC.%

STANDARD PENETRATION

B-2

S-3 6.00 - 7.50 18.0 SM 47.5

Laboratory Testing Summary

Notes: 1. ASTM D 2216, 2. ASTM D 2487, 3. ASTM D 4318, 4. ASTM D 1140, 5. See test reports for test method, 6. See test reports for test method

Definitions: MC: Moisture Content, Soil Type: USCS (Unified Soil Classification System), LL: Liquid Limit, PL: Plastic Limit, PI: Plasticity Index, CBR: California Bearing Ratio, OC: Organic Content (ASTM D 2974)

Project No. 10:8578

Project Name: Dobbins ARB - Ramp Stadium Lighting Poles

PM:

PE:

Printed On: Friday, September 11, 2015

Sample Source

Sample Number

Depth (feet)

MC1

Soil

Type2 LL

Atterberg Limits3

PL PI

Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve4

Maximum Density

(pcf)

Moisture - Density (Corr.)5

Optimum Moisture

CBR

Value6 Other

Appendix IV

Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes

The following information is provided to help you manage your risks.

Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specifi c Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specifi c needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfi ll the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geo-technical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without fi rst conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one - not even you - should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.

Do not read selected elements only.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specifi c Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specifi c factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and confi guration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engi-neer who conducted the study specifi cally indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:

• not prepared for you,

• not prepared for your project,

• not prepared for the specifi c site explored, or

• completed before important project changes were made.

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect:

• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an offi ce building, or from alight industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse,

• elevation, confi guration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure,

• composition of the design team, or

• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes - even minor ones - and request an assessment of their impact.

Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.

Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natu-ral events, such as fl oods, earthquakes, or groundwater fl uctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.

Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifi es subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review fi eld and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ-sometimes signifi cantly from those indi-cated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

A Report’s Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your re-port. Those recommendations are not fi nal, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can fi nalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engi-neer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical engineer-ing reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifi cations. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation.

Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare fi nal boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of fi eld logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.

Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal.