ITB 2024_010 Addendum 1 Attachment B_ TUCKE_.pdf

625 Holcomb Bridge Road, Norcross, GA 30071 • 770-209-0029 • unitedconsulting.com

ADDENDUM

No. 1 For Mr. Rip Robertson City of Tucker

Test Pit Exploration Tucker Town Green Railroad Avenue & 2nd Street Tucker, DeKalb County, Georgia

Project No.: TUCKE-24-GA-07852-02

TUCKE-24-GA-07852-02

March 18, 2024

Mr. Rip Robertson CPRE, CPSI City of Tucker Parks and Recreation

Via Email: RRobertson@tuckerga.gov

RE: Addendum Report of Test Pit Exploration Tucker Town Green Railroad Avenue & 2nd Stret Tucker, DeKalb County, Georgia Project No.: TUCKE-24-GA-07852-02

Dear Mr. Robertson:

This addendum report should be read in conjunction to our Report of Geotechnical Exploration for this project (Project number TUCKE-24-GA-07852-02, dated October 23, 2023).

The purpose of the current exploration was to better evaluate the composition of existing fill materials encountered in the previous borings and to estimate the extent of the poor fill. During this round of work, ten (10) test pits (designated as TP-1 through TP-10) were excavated by our subcontracted excavator using a Takeuchi TB2150 excavator. The test pits were located in the field by our engineer using a handheld GPS device. The approximate test pit locations and the previous borings are shown on attached Figure 1 – Boring and Test Pit Location Plan.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS – TEST PIT EXPLORATION

Initially, a thin layer of topsoil with gravel was encountered in the majority of the test pits. Below the topsoil or at the ground surface, fill soils were encountered in the test pits to depths ranging from approximately 2 to 14 feet. The fill soils encountered generally consisted of clayey/silty sand or sandy clay with varying amounts of minor constituents including rock fragments, cobbles, boulders, and various debris such as concrete, asphalt, brick, metal wires, wood, roots, and other organics fragments. Test pits TP-3 and TP- 8 were terminated on possible gravel utility backfill at depths of approximately 14 and 5.5 feet, respectively, to avoid possible damage to the utilities.

Below the fill, alluvial soils were encountered in test pits TP-1, TP-2, and TP-4 through TP-7 to depths ranging from approximately 10 to 14 feet. The alluvium encountered generally consisted of silty/clayey sand or sandy clay with varying amounts of roots, mica, and rock fragments. Alluvial soils are deposited by flowing water and are often in a soft or loose condition.

Below the fill and alluvium, typical residual soils of the Piedmont Physiographic Province of Georgia were encountered in the test pits, except TP-3 and TP-8, to the termination depths ranging from approximately 6 to 18 feet. The residual soils encountered generally consisted of silty/clayey sand or sandy clay/silt with traces of roots and rock fragments.

mailto:RRobertson@tuckerga.gov

Groundwater was encountered at the time of excavation in test pits TP-3 and TP-8 at depths of approximately 12.5 and 5.5 feet, respectively. Moist / wet soils, which could be indicators of groundwater, were also encountered in test pits TP-1 through TP-4 and TP-6 through TP-9 at depths ranging from approximately 4 to 13 feet. Stabilized groundwater levels are often several feet shallower than those at the time of excavation. Groundwater levels will fluctuate based on yearly and seasonal rainfall variations and may rise in the future. This site is also susceptible to the formation of shallower perched water levels during periods of wet weather, especially within the fill layer.

For a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions encountered, please refer to the test pit logs in The Appendix. A test pit summary table is presented below:

Table 1: Summary of Test Pit Data

Test Pit No.

Approx. Existing Ground

Elevation (ft)*

Approx. Proposed Ground Elevation

(ft)* Fill Depth

(ft) Alluvium Depth (ft.)

Termination Depth (ft)

Groundwater Depth (ft)

TP-1 1094 1091 9 14 14 9***

TP-2 1091 1090 8 10 10 8***

TP-3 1091 1090 14 NE 14** 6*** / 12.5

TP-4 1091 1090 10 14 18 6***

TP-5 1090 1089 12 14 17 NE

TP-6 1090 1090 10 13 17 13***

TP-7 1091 1091 9 12 15 9***

TP-8 1091 1091 5.5 NE 5.5** 4*** / 5.5

TP-9 1097 1097 5 NE 10 5***

TP-10 1093 1092 2 NE 6 NE

NE – Not Encountered *Test Pit locations and elevations were not surveyed and are very approximate.

**Test pits were terminated in the fill to avoid possible damage to utilities.

***Inferred from moisture contents of the excavated soils.

EXISTING FILL

Fill soils were encountered in the test pits to depths ranging from approximately 2 to 14 feet. The fill soils encountered generally consisted of clayey/silty sand or sandy clay with varying amounts of minor constituents including rock fragments, cobbles, boulders, and various debris such as concrete, asphalt, brick, metal wires, wood, roots, and other organics fragments. Test pits TP-3 and TP-8 were terminated on possible gravel utility backfill at depths of approximately 14 and 5.5 feet, respectively, to avoid possible damage to the utilities. Based on the results of the test pits and previous borings, it appears the majority of the fill is in the eastern two-third area of the site. The presence and depth of fill were indicated on the Boring and Test Pit Location Plan by green numbers below the boring for visual estimation of the extent of the fill. As with any undocumented fill, it is possible that other areas of poor-quality fill, debris or other deleterious materials could be present intermediate of the boring and test pit locations.

Most of the existing fill, provided it is free of deleterious and organic materials, generally appears to be suitable for reuse as engineered fill. Large debris fragments and boulders should be removed as practical as possible. Some of the fill soils will be sensitive to changes in moisture content. If grading takes place during a period of wet weather, it may not be feasible to dry them using conventional aeration. If that is the case, they will need to be removed and replaced with drier soils or dried using chemical additives such as lime or cement.

The fill soils are not suitable for direct support of shallow foundations, floor slabs, or pavements and where not excavated during mass grading they would need to be removed and recompacted or replaced;

therefore, we recommend that contingency funds be included in the project budget for such remediation.

Our previous recommendation to remediate the fill has been changed. Remediation of the existing fill and low consistency soils to allow for the use of conventional shallow foundations for the proposed pavilion and restroom building should include removal and re-compaction or replacement of these materials with new engineered fill, within and at least 6 feet beyond the pavilion and restroom building footprints, to the depth of firm residual or alluvial soils or to a maximum depth that allows for at least 6 feet of new engineered fill below the planned foundation bearing elevations.

Remediation of the existing fill and low consistency soils to allow for the use of conventional shallow foundations for the proposed water fountain walls should include removal and re-compaction or replacement of these materials with new engineered fill, within and at least 4 feet beyond the structure footprints, to the depth of firm residual or alluvial soils or to a maximum depth that allows for at least 4 feet of new engineered fill below the planned foundation bearing elevations.

In addition, settlement monitoring should be performed in the structure areas where more than 2 feet of new fill will be placed to reach the proposed grades.

We recommend the fill in the pavement areas be further evaluated by proofrolling with a full-loaded tandem-axle dump truck at the time of construction. Localized stabilization prior to fill placement and at pavement subgrades using crushed stone, geosynthetics, or other methods may be required if low consistency soils are encountered near those grades, and funds for such remediation should also be included.

It should be noted that in any case where the undocumented fill remains below the foundation, slab, and pavement levels, there is an inherent risk of long-term settlement that can occur in the fill and the owner must be willing to accept the risk.

SETTLEMENT MONITORING

United Consulting anticipates that the new fill soils to reach the proposed finished floor elevations will cause general area settlement due to consolidation of the underlying soils in the areas. Therefore, in areas where more than 2 feet of new fill will be placed, settlement plates or surface monuments should be considered to monitor settlement due to the new fill prior to structure and pavement construction.

Once settlement ceases, the site should be re-graded as necessary and foundation construction, curb and gutter, pavement, etc. can commence in the engineered fill. We estimate that the majority of the anticipated settlement will occur during the placement of the fill and initial construction. Based on the type of soils encountered at the Project Site, we anticipate that the delay between completion of fill placement and initiation of foundation construction would be in the 4 to 6-week range.

Settlement plates should consist of 18-inch x 18-inch steel plates having a thickness of at least 3/8 inch or a 36-inch x 36-inch timber plates with a 1/

2-inch diameter rod or pipe attached at a 90-degree angle at the plate's center (see detail in Appendix). A 2.0-inch diameter PVC pipe should be placed around the settlement rod to prevent skin friction from interfering with settlement of the plates. Typical surface monuments would consist of concrete “pads” at least one-foot square with the bottom of the “pad” at least one foot below the fill surface. A survey pin or a piece of rebar is embedded within the concrete “pad” for shooting elevations. A diagram of a typical settlement plate configuration is included in The Appendix.

The benchmark should be at least 200 feet from the area being filled and should be protected from construction activities. Stakes and flagging should be placed around the settlement plates to protect them from construction equipment.

The following lists the procedures for documenting the rate of settlement and when the information needs to be forwarded:

1. An initial elevation (0 reading) should be taken by a Registered Surveyor to establish plate and rod elevations. These elevations should be read to the nearest one-hundredth of a foot.

2. Elevation readings should be taken immediately after the placement of all fill and any surcharge material, daily for the first week following completion, and weekly thereafter on the same day of the week until settlement ceases.

3. Settlement data should be sent to the author at ydang@unitedconsulting.com on a weekly basis for review by the Geotechnical Engineer.

GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS

Groundwater was encountered at the time of excavation in test pits TP-3 and TP-8 at depths of approximately 12.5 and 5.5 feet, respectively. Moist / wet soils, which could be indicators of groundwater, were encountered in test pits TP-1 through TP-4 and TP-6 through TP-9 at depths ranging from approximately 4 to 13 feet. The groundwater and indicators of groundwater were generally at shallower depths than those encountered in the previous borings. Based on the proposed construction, groundwater-related difficulties are anticipated to be encountered during construction, especially during the remediation of the existing fill and installation of the proposed underground detention units. Some of the site soils are susceptible to the formation of shallower perched water levels during periods of wet weather, especially within the fill layer. The contractor should be prepared to manage groundwater and perched water as needed. Groundwater should be lowered to depths of at least 2 feet below construction grades. In addition, a capillary break layer consisting of free draining granular material and a layer of vapor barrier should be installed below the pavilion and restroom building slabs.

mailto:ydang@unitedconsulting.com

CLOSURE

The result of this exploration does not indicate any further changes with regard to discussion and recommendations outlined in report of Geotechnical Exploration, dated October 23, 2023.

We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this project. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely, UNITED CONSULTING

Nhan “Yung” Dang, P.E. Chris L. Roberds, P.G.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer Senior Executive Vice President

YD/CLR/nj

Attachments: Figure 1 –Boring and Test Pit Location Plan Test Pit Logs (10) Test Pit Photographs

SP: Geotechnical Services/TUCKE-24-GA-07852-02- Addendum.docx

DUMP

S-(1)

P-(1)

S-(3)

S-(4)

P-(3)

S-(5)

P- (4

S-(8) P-(6)

S-(9)

P-(7)

S-(10)

P- (8

S-(12)

S-(13) S-(14)

DUMP

STAGE 1091.83

FFE 1092.30

10881088

1106.70

1106.70

1103.70

1101.00 1100.15

1100.17 1097.12

1098.12

1097.50 1094.20 1093.91 1089.90 1089.65 1089.31 1088.96 1088.29

1092.471092.23

1092.24

1092.24

1092.25

1097.05 T 1097.37 B 1096.87

1098.98 1088.22

1088.13

1088.14 1088.78

1091.69

1089.03

1094.20

1090.67

1092.29

1088.98

1099.12

1097.50

1090.33

1090.331090.33

1093.00

1092.87

1095.23

1094.68

1094.35

1095.87

1097.651099.161097.10

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA SA SA

W W

W W

SA

W

20' 40'

SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEET

10'20' 0'

TU

C

KE

R

T O

W N

G R

EE

N

P

AR

K C

IT

Y

O F

TU

C

KE

R

PROJ. NO.

C H

K.

D

R

D

AT

E D

ES

C

R

IP

TI

O

N R

EV

Copyright 2022, Barge Design Solutions, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

3r d

Av en ue S ou th

S ui te

N as hv ille , T en ne ss ee

PH

O N

E (6

) 2

-1

FA

X (6

) 2

-6

U

SE

R :T

LR

EE

D

FI

LE

:F

:\3 8\

8\

5\

_C

AD

\C

IV

L\

PL

O T\

5_

C 2.

G ra di ng

D ra in ag e

Pl an

.d w g

PL

O

TT

ED

:1 0/

/2

SA

VE

D :1

0/

/2

Know what'sbelow Callbefore you dig.

www.call811.com

Know what'sbelow Callbefore you dig.

www.call811.com

: 3801308

R

EV

IS

IO

N

IN

FO

R

M

AT

IO

N

C2.01

R

AI

LR

O

AD

A

VE

N

U E, T U

C

KE

R G

EO

R

G

IA

G R

AD

IN

G

D R

AI

N

AG

E

PL

AN

GRADING AND DRAINAGE NOTES

1. SEE SHEET C0.01 FOR ADDITIONAL GRADING AND

DRAINAGE NOTES.

2. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONS OF

EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO START OF

CONSTRUCTION.

3. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL STRUCTURE CASTINGS

FLUSH WITH FINISHED GRADE.

4. ROOF DRAIN DOWNSPOUTS SPLASH ON GRADE. SEE

ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR LOCATION AND

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

ABBREVIATIONS

FFE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION

HP HIGH POINT

IE INVERT ELEVATION

G GUTTER

T TOP OF CURB

B BOTTOM OF CURB

TW TOP OF WALL

BW BOTTOM OF WALL

FFE 1092.30

FFE 1091.83

LEGEND

PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR

PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR

PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION

EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR

EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR

ROCK DRAINAGE SWALE

UNDERGROUND

DETENTION UNIT

UNDERGROUND

DETENTION UNIT

AutoCAD SHX Text

JB

AutoCAD SHX Text

JB

AutoCAD SHX Text

JB

AutoCAD SHX Text

JB

AutoCAD SHX Text

TELEPHONE BOX

AutoCAD SHX Text 82094

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH SEWER TOP:1092.56 IE IN :1082.61 IE OUT:1082.56

AutoCAD SHX Text 247.84'

AutoCAD SHX Text 102.17'

AutoCAD SHX Text 188.09'

AutoCAD SHX Text S18°47'47"E

AutoCAD SHX Text 498.36'

AutoCAD SHX Text S71°47'10"W

AutoCAD SHX Text

10" PVC

AutoCAD SHX Text

10" PVC

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROX. DIRECTION

AutoCAD SHX Text

8" CIP A

AutoCAD SHX Text

8" CIP

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROX. DIRECTION

AutoCAD SHX Text

8" DIP

AutoCAD SHX Text

8" DIP

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROX. DIRECTION

AutoCAD SHX Text

18" CMP

AutoCAD SHX Text

10" PVC

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROX. DIRECTION A

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROX. DIRECTION

AutoCAD SHX Text

18" HDPE A

AutoCAD SHX Text

24" HDPE

AutoCAD SHX Text

18" CMP

AutoCAD SHX Text B

AutoCAD SHX Text B

AutoCAD SHX Text

8" CIP

AutoCAD SHX Text B

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROX. DIRECTION

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROX. DIRECTION

AutoCAD SHX Text

30" RCP

AutoCAD SHX Text

30" RCP

AutoCAD SHX Text

IE:1083.98

AutoCAD SHX Text

4" PVC

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROX. DIRECTION

AutoCAD SHX Text

JB TOP:1089.14 BOTTOM:1076.89 IE IN: 1076.79 IE OUT: 1076.59

AutoCAD SHX Text

IE:1079.09

AutoCAD SHX Text

STORM BOX BOTTOM:1091.95 IE IN A:1097.26 IE IN B:1094.97 IE OUT: 1092.13

AutoCAD SHX Text

STORM STRUCTURE IE:1102.10

AutoCAD SHX Text

D.I. TOP:1091.13 IE IN:1085.73 IE OUT:1085.48

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH SEWER TOP:1099.30 IE IN A:1091.45 IE IN B:1091.94 IE OUT:1091.33

AutoCAD SHX Text N19°01'45"W

AutoCAD SHX Text 145.20'

AutoCAD SHX Text N71°46'19"E

AutoCAD SHX Text

18' CMP

AutoCAD SHX Text

IE:1086.91

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH SEWER TOP:1093.22 IE IN :1081.76 IE OUT:1081.74

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH SEWER TOP:1086.39 IE IN A:1077.58 IE IN B:1077.58 IE OUT:1077.34

AutoCAD SHX Text N71°01'08"E

AutoCAD SHX Text

GRC INVESTMENTS LLC

AutoCAD SHX Text

D.B. 23001 PG.376

AutoCAD SHX Text N ~ F

AutoCAD SHX Text

GRC INVESTMENTS LLC

AutoCAD SHX Text

D.B. 17782 PG.340

AutoCAD SHX Text N ~ F

AutoCAD SHX Text

OUR GENERATIONS INC

AutoCAD SHX Text

D.B. 09887 PG.74

AutoCAD SHX Text N ~ F

AutoCAD SHX Text

FA TUCKER LLC

AutoCAD SHX Text

D.B. 28064 PG.139

AutoCAD SHX Text N ~ F

AutoCAD SHX Text N

AutoCAD SHX Text

PRELIMINARY

AutoCAD SHX Text

NOT FOR

AutoCAD SHX Text

CONSTRUCTION

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text C ecasey Ellipse ecasey Line ecasey Line ecasey Polygon ecasey Polygon ecasey Ellipse ecasey Line ecasey Line ecasey Polygon ecasey Polygon ecasey Ellipse ecasey Line ecasey Line ecasey Polygon ecasey Polygon ecasey Ellipse ecasey Line ecasey Line ecasey Polygon ecasey Polygon ecasey Ellipse ecasey Line ecasey Line ecasey Polygon ecasey Polygon ecasey Ellipse ecasey Line ecasey Line ecasey Polygon ecasey Polygon ecasey Ellipse ecasey Line ecasey Line ecasey Polygon ecasey Polygon ecasey Ellipse ecasey Line ecasey Line ecasey Polygon ecasey Polygon ecasey Ellipse ecasey Line ecasey Line ecasey Polygon ecasey Polygon ecasey Text Box B-1 ecasey Text Box B-2 ecasey Text Box B-3 ecasey Text Box B-4 ecasey Text Box B-5 ecasey Text Box B-6 ecasey Text Box B-7 ecasey Text Box B-8 ecasey Text Box B-9 ecasey Text Box

TP-1

ecasey Text Box

TP-2

ecasey Text Box

TP-3

ecasey Text Box

TP-4

ecasey Text Box

TP-5

ecasey Text Box

TP-6

ecasey Text Box

TP-7

ecasey Text Box

TP-8

ecasey Text Box

TP-9

ecasey Text Box

TP-10

ecasey Rectangle ecasey Text Box

LEGEND

SPT Boring

Test Pit Location

Approx. Depth of Existing Fill (ft.)

Approx. Depth of Alluvium (ft.)

Shallowest Groundwater Encountered (ft.)

***Based on saturation level of the excavated soils.

ecasey Ellipse ecasey Line ecasey Line ecasey Polygon ecasey Polygon ecasey Text Box 14'

13'

5.5' ecasey Text Box 9' 14' 9*** ecasey Text Box 8' 10' 8*** ecasey Text Box 10' 18' 6*** ecasey Text Box 12' 17' ecasey Text Box 10' 17' 13*** ecasey Text Box 9' 12' 9*** ecasey Text Box 5' 5*** ecasey Text Box 2' ecasey Text Box 5.5' 4*** 5.5' ecasey Text Box 14' 6*** 12.5' ecasey Text Box 1' ecasey Text Box 0.5' ecasey Text Box 12' ecasey Text Box 3' 6' ecasey Text Box 18' ecasey Text Box 6' 13' 23' ecasey Text Box 3' ecasey Text Box 6' 11.5'

YDang Text Box REFERENCE: Sheet C2.01 Grading & Drainage Plan (Preliminary), prepared by Barge Design Solutions, undated.

NOTES: Borings and test pits locations and elevations were not field-surveyed and are approximate. Borings and test pits were backfilled with soil cuttings.

YDang Text Box 8' 13'

YDang Rectangle

YDang Rectangle

YDang Rectangle

YDang Rectangle

YDang Rectangle

YDang Rectangle

YDang Rectangle

YDang Rectangle

YDang Rectangle

YDang Rectangle

YDang Rectangle

Railroad Avenue & 2nd Street, Tucker, Georgia

TP12

Client Name: City of Tucker Contractor: Arc One Logged By: Emily Casey Checked By: Yung Dang

Project No.: TUCKE24G20A278534274 Date: 7/1SS14G …urface9 'S7pGR Provosed9 S7pSR wemarks:

Test vitRs location and ele-ation xere not fieldbsur-eyed and are avvroMimate. Test vit xas ,ackfilled xith soil cuttings.

Wethod: Takeuchi TB4S37( GR Bucket

)ater Le-el At Time Of Drilling: N.E.

Ca-ebin At Time Of Drilling: N1A

Delayed )ater Le-el: Not9 Delayed )ater O,ser-ation Date: N1A

D ev th Vf t6

S7

El e-at io n Vf t6

S7p7

S753

S757

S783 ra vh ic

L og isual Classification and wemarks

7.4 p.7

Test Pit Terminated at 14 feet

SG.7

Tovsoil b some gra-el …and b clayey( trace rock fragments( reddish ,roxn xith tan Vfill6

Organic odor( trace lum,er( trace roots( dry to moist( grayish ,roxn to light gray

…and b silty( some clay( trace rock fragments( moist( orangish tan and gray Vallu-ium6

TP13

Client Name: City of Tucker Contractor: Arc One Logged By: Emily Casey Checked By: Yung Dang

Project No.: TUCKE24G20A278534274 Date: 7/1SS14G …urface9 'S7pSR Provosed9 S7p7R wemarks:

Test vitRs location and ele-ation xere not fieldbsur-eyed and are avvroMimate. Test vit xas ,ackfilled xith soil cuttings.

Wethod: Takeuchi TB4S37( GR Bucket

)ater Le-el At Time Of Drilling: N.E.

Ca-ebin At Time Of Drilling: N1A

Delayed )ater Le-el: Not9 Delayed )ater O,ser-ation Date: N1A

D ev th Vf t6

S7

El e-at io n Vf t6

S7p7

S753

S757

S783 ra vh ic

L og isual Classification and wemarks

7.4

5.7

Test Pit Terminated at 10 feet S7.7

Tovsoil b some gra-el …and b clayey( reddish ,roxn xith xhite Vfill6

Trace co,,les( trace roots( trace organics( trace ,rick fragments( grayish ,roxn( organic odor

Clay b sandy( trace roots( moist to xet( light gray Vallu-ium6

TP14

Client Name: City of Tucker Contractor: Arc One Logged By: Emily Casey Checked By: Yung Dang

Project No.: TUCKE24G20A278534274 Date: 7/1SS14G …urface9 'S7pSR Provosed9 S7p7R wemarks:

Test vitRs location and ele-ation xere not fieldbsur-eyed and are avvroMimate. Test vit xas ,ackfilled xith soil cuttings.

Wethod: Takeuchi TB4S37( GR Bucket

)ater Le-el At Time Of Drilling: S4.3R Ca-ebin At Time Of Drilling: N1A

Delayed )ater Le-el: Not9 Delayed )ater O,ser-ation Date: N1A

D ev th Vf t6

S7

El e-at io n Vf t6

S7p7

S753

S757

S783 ra vh ic

L og isual Classification and wemarks

7.4

.7

S/.3

Test Pit Terminated at 14 feet to Avoid Possible Damage to Utility

SG.7

Tovsoil b some gra-el …and b clayey( trace rock fragments( reddish ,roxn xith tan Vfill6

Trace roots( organic odor( grayish ,roxn

Clay b sandy( trace roots( trace rock fragments( moist to xet( grayish ,roxn and grayish tan

)et

Possi,le gra-el utility ,ackfill

TP15

Client Name: City of Tucker Contractor: Arc One Logged By: Emily Casey Checked By: Yung Dang

Project No.: TUCKE24G20A278534274 Date: 7/1SS14G …urface9 'S7pSR Provosed9 S7p7R wemarks:

Test vitRs location and ele-ation xere not fieldbsur-eyed and are avvroMimate. Test vit xas ,ackfilled xith soil cuttings.

Wethod: Takeuchi TB4S37( GR Bucket

)ater Le-el At Time Of Drilling: N.E.

Ca-ebin At Time Of Drilling: N1A

Delayed )ater Le-el: Not9 Delayed )ater O,ser-ation Date: N1A

D ev th Vf t6

S7

S3

El e-at io n Vf t6

S7p7

S753

S757

S783 ra vh ic

L og isual Classification and wemarks

7.4

.7

S7.7

SG.7

Test Pit Terminated at 18 feet S5.7

Tovsoil b some gra-el …and b clayey( trace rock fragments( reddish ,roxn Vfill6

Trace concrete fragments( trace asvhalt fragments( grayish ,roxn

Trace rock fragments( dark reddish ,roxn

Clay b sandy( trace rock fragments( trace co,,les( moist to xet( grayish ,roxn

…and b clayey( trace roots( xet( dark gray to grayish tan Vallu-ium6

…ilt b sandy( trace mica( xet( orangish tan and light gray Vresiduum6

TP16

Client Name: City of Tucker Contractor: Arc One Logged By: Emily Casey Checked By: Yung Dang

Project No.: TUCKE24G20A278534274 Date: 7/1SS14G …urface9 'S7p7R Provosed9 S75pR wemarks:

Test vitRs location and ele-ation xere not fieldbsur-eyed and are avvroMimate. Test vit xas ,ackfilled xith soil cuttings.

Wethod: Takeuchi TB4S37( GR Bucket

)ater Le-el At Time Of Drilling: N.E.

Ca-ebin At Time Of Drilling: N1A

Delayed )ater Le-el: Not9 Delayed )ater O,ser-ation Date: N1A

D ev th Vf t6

S7

S3

El e-at io n Vf t6

S7p7

S753

S757

S783 ra vh ic

L og isual Classification and wemarks

7.4

3.7

S4.7

SG.7

Test Pit Terminated at 17 feet S8.7

Tovsoil b some gra-el …and b clayey( trace rock fragments( reddish ,roxn Vfill6

…and b silty( trace ,rick( trace concrete( trace co,,les( trace ,oulders( trace asvhalt( trace xood( trace metal xire( organic odor( grayish ,roxn

Clay b some sand( trace concrete( trace co,,les( trace roots( trace organics( dark reddish ,roxn

…and b some clay( trace rock fragments( light gray to orangish tan Vallu-ium6

…ilt b sandy( trace mica( orangish tan and light gray Vresiduum6

TP17

Client Name: City of Tucker Contractor: Arc One Logged By: Emily Casey Checked By: Yung Dang

Project No.: TUCKE24G20A278534274 Date: 7/1SS14G …urface9 'S7p7R Provosed9 S7p7R wemarks:

Test vitRs location and ele-ation xere not fieldbsur-eyed and are avvroMimate. Test vit xas ,ackfilled xith soil cuttings.

Wethod: Takeuchi TB4S37( GR Bucket

)ater Le-el At Time Of Drilling: N.E.

Ca-ebin At Time Of Drilling: N1A

Delayed )ater Le-el: Not9 Delayed )ater O,ser-ation Date: N1A

D ev th Vf t6

S7

S3

El e-at io n Vf t6

S7p7

S753

S757

S783 ra vh ic

L og isual Classification and wemarks

S.7

3.7

S7.7

S/.7

Test Pit Terminated at 17 feet S8.7

Tovsoil b gra-elly

…and b clayey( trace rock fragments( light reddish ,roxn Vfill6

…and b some clay( trace rock fragments( trace concrete( trace co,,les( organic odor( grayish ,roxn

Clay b sandy( trace concrete( trace ,oulders( trace asvhalt fragments( dark reddish ,roxn

…and b clayey( light gray Vallu-ium6

Clay b sandy( moist( light gray and orangish tan Vresiduum6

TP18

Client Name: City of Tucker Contractor: Arc One Logged By: Emily Casey Checked By: Yung Dang

Project No.: TUCKE24G20A278534274 Date: 7/1SS14G …urface9 'S7pSR Provosed9 S7pSR wemarks:

Test vitRs location and ele-ation xere not fieldbsur-eyed and are avvroMimate. Test vit xas ,ackfilled xith soil cuttings.

Wethod: Takeuchi TB4S37( GR Bucket

)ater Le-el At Time Of Drilling: N.E.

Ca-ebin At Time Of Drilling: N1A

Delayed )ater Le-el: Not9 Delayed )ater O,ser-ation Date: N1A

D ev th Vf t6

S7

S3

El e-at io n Vf t6

S7p7

S753

S757

S783 ra vh ic

L og isual Classification and wemarks

7.4 p.7

S4.7

Test Pit Terminated at 15 feet S3.7

Tovsoil b some gra-el …and b clayey( trace rock fragments( trace co,,les( reddish ,roxn and tan Vfill6

Trace co,,les( trace roots( trace organics( trace xood fragments( dark reddish ,roxn to dark grayish ,roxn

…and b clayey( trace roots( xet( light gray Vallu-ium6

…and b silty( trace mica( moist to xet( tan Vresiduum6

TP19

Client Name: City of Tucker Contractor: Arc One Logged By: Emily Casey Checked By: Yung Dang

Project No.: TUCKE24G20A278534274 Date: 7/1SS14G …urface9 'S7pSR Provosed9 S7pSR wemarks:

Test vitRs location and ele-ation xere not fieldbsur-eyed and are avvroMimate. Test vit xas ,ackfilled xith soil cuttings.

Wethod: Takeuchi TB4S37( GR Bucket

)ater Le-el At Time Of Drilling: 3.3R Ca-ebin At Time Of Drilling: N1A

Delayed )ater Le-el: Not9 Delayed )ater O,ser-ation Date: N1A

D ev th Vf t6

El e-at io n Vf t6

S7p7

S753

S757

S783 ra vh ic

L og isual Classification and wemarks

S.7

G.7

3.7

Test Pit Terminated at 5.5 feet to Avoid Possible Damage to Utility 3.3

Tovsoil b some gra-el

…and b clayey( trace rock fragments( trace co,,les( trace roots( reddish ,roxn and tan Vfill6

Clay b sandy( moist to xet( tannish ,roxn

Possi,le gra-el utility ,ackfill

TP10

Client Name: City of Tucker Contractor: Arc One Logged By: Emily Casey Checked By: Yung Dang

Project No.: TUCKE24G20A278534274 Date: 7/1SS14G …urface9 'S7p8R Provosed9 S7p8R wemarks:

Test vitRs location and ele-ation xere not fieldbsur-eyed and are avvroMimate. Test vit xas ,ackfilled xith soil cuttings.

Wethod: Takeuchi TB4S37( GR Bucket

)ater Le-el At Time Of Drilling: N.E.

Ca-ebin At Time Of Drilling: N1A

Delayed )ater Le-el: Not9 Delayed )ater O,ser-ation Date: N1A

D ev th Vf t6

S7

El e-at io n Vf t6

S7p3

S7p7

S753

S757 ra vh ic

L og isual Classification and wemarks

3.7

Test Pit Terminated at 10 feet S7.7

…and b clayey( trace rock fragments( trace concrete( trace co,,les( trace ,oulders( dark reddish ,roxn Vfill6

Trace roots( trace asvhalt fragments( reddish ,roxn and tan( xith lenses of dark gray gra-elly sand at ,ottom and tov of layer

…ilt b some sand( trace mica( moist( orangish ,roxn Vresiduum6

…ilt b sandy( trace mica( moist( orangish ,roxn

TP12

Client Name: City of Tucker Contractor: Arc One Logged By: Emily Casey Checked By: Yung Dang

Project No.: TUCKE24G20A278534274 Date: 7/1SS14G …urface9 'S7p/R Provosed9 S7p4R wemarks:

Test vitRs location and ele-ation xere not fieldbsur-eyed and are avvroMimate. Test vit xas ,ackfilled xith soil cuttings.

Wethod: Takeuchi TB4S37( GR Bucket

)ater Le-el At Time Of Drilling: N.E.

Ca-ebin At Time Of Drilling: N1A

Delayed )ater Le-el: Not9 Delayed )ater O,ser-ation Date: N1A

D ev th Vf t6

El e-at io n Vf t6

S7p7

S753

S757

S783 ra vh ic

L og isual Classification and wemarks

7.4

4.7

Test Pit Terminated at 6 feet .7

Tovsoil b some gra-el Clay b sandy( reddish ,roxn Vfill6

…and b clayey( some silt( trace mica( reddish ,roxn and tan Vresiduum6

…and b silty( trace mica( reddish ,roxn and tan

Test Pit Photo Log – Tucker Town Green

Photo 1: Test Pit TP-1 Photo 2: Excavated soils of Test Pit TP-1

Photo 3: Side Wall of Test Pit TP-1 Photo 4: Side Wall of Test Pit TP-1

Photo 5: Test Pit TP-2 Photo 6: Excavated soils of Test Pit TP-2

Photo 7: Side Wall of Test Pit TP-2 Photo 8: Side Wall of Test Pit TP-2

Photo 9: Test Pit TP-3 Photo 10: Excavated soils of Test Pit TP-3

Photo 11: Side Wall of Test Pit TP-3 Photo 12: Side Wall of Test Pit TP-3

Photo 13: Test Pit TP-4 Photo 14: Excavated soils of Test Pit TP-4

Photo 15: Side Wall of Test Pit TP-4 Photo 16: Side Wall of Test Pit TP-4

Photo 17: Test Pit TP-5 Photo 18: Excavated soils of Test Pit TP-5

Photo 19: Side Wall of Test Pit TP-5 Photo 20: Side Wall of Test Pit TP-5

Photo 21: Test Pit TP-6 Photo 22: Excavated soils of Test Pit TP-6

Photo 23: Side Wall of Test Pit TP-6 Photo 24: Side Wall of Test Pit TP-6

Photo 25: Test Pit TP-7 Photo 26: Excavated soils of Test Pit TP-7

Photo 27: Side Wall of Test Pit TP-7 Photo 28: Side Wall of Test Pit TP-7

Photo 29: Test Pit TP-8 Photo 30: Excavated soils of Test Pit TP-8

Photo 31: Side Wall of Test Pit TP-8 Photo 32: Side Wall of Test Pit TP-8

Photo 33: Test Pit TP-9 Photo 34: Excavated soils of Test Pit TP-9

Photo 35: Side Wall of Test Pit TP-9 Photo 36: Side Wall of Test Pit TP-9

Photo 37: Test Pit TP-10 Photo 38: Excavated soils of Test Pit TP-10

Photo 39: Side Wall of Test Pit TP-10 Photo 40: Side Wall of Test Pit TP-10

GEOTECHNICAL

SERVICES

Subsurface Soil Investigations Geologic Investigations Foundation Investigations Rock Stability Analysis Rock Anchor/Bolt Design Dam Investigations/ Design Dam Breach Analysis Pile/Caisson/ Foundation Load Slope Stability Analysis Tunnel Design Soil Nailing Design Value Engineering Failure Investigations Pavement Evaluation/ Design Bridge Foundation Investigations Retaining Wall Foundation Investigations

ENVIRONMENTAL

SERVICES

Phase I Site Assessments Phase II Contamination Assessments Brownfield Assessment & Remediation Services Corrective Action Plans Asbestos, Lead- Based Paint, & Mold Consulting Services Indoor/Outdoor Air Quality Assessment & Analysis Groundwater/Surface Water Modeling & Analysis Landfill Services Health & Safety Services Soil and Groundwater Remedial Design & Implementation Hazardous Waste Site Assessment & Remediation Services Regulatory Liaison Services

SUBSURFACE

UTILITY

ENGINEERING

Quality Levels A, B, C, D Ground Penetrating Radar SUE Surveying/Surface Geophysics

AUTOMATED

INSTRUMENTATION

Vibration Monitoring Robotic Total Stations Inclinometers and SAAs Tiltmeters Piezometers Real-Time Website Monitoring & Alarming Pre-Post Construction Photographic Survey

GEOPHYSICAL

SERVICES

Geologic Mapping Earth Resistivity Geophysical Instrumentation Review of Blasting

Programs Earthquake Risk Assessment Shear Wave Analysis

INSPECTION

SERVICES

Property Condition Survey Replacement & Reserve Analysis Repair Cost Estimates Visual Documentation Plan & Spec Review Construction Draw Inspections Contract Administration Pre-acquisition Survey Construction Monitoring

MATERIALS

TESTING

Complete Mortar & Masonry Testing In-place Density Testing Foundation Testing Asphalt/Concrete Testing & Batch Plant

Inspections Magnetic Particle & Radiographic Testing Special Inspections Failure Investigations Monitoring Post- Tension Operations Floor Flatness & Levelness Determinations Moisture Testing Fire Proofing Testing

• Portland Based Cement

• Gypsum Based

Cementitous Spray

• Cellulose Insulation

ECOLOGICAL

SERVICES

Aquatic Resource Delineation Wetland/Stream Permitting Services Wildlife & Protected Species Surveys Mitigation Design, Implementation/ Monitoring NEPA Assessments

CORPORATE OVERVIEW

United Consulting is an engineering consulting firm headquartered in Georgia, specializing in environmental services, geotechnical engineering, geophysical services, automated instrumentation, special inspections, and construction materials testing since 1990. With over 180 employees, including 30 professionally registered engineers and geologists the firm has undertaken some of the most challenging projects in the country.

LICENSED TO OPERATE*

*Full Legal and Operational Requirements are met in these locations

CORPORATE OFFICE

UNITED CONSULTING LABORATORY

United Consulting’s Geotechnical and Materials Testing Laboratory occupies approximately 10,000 SF of space in our 60,000 SF, Norcross, Georgia headquarters. Our laboratory’s work and facilities meet or exceed the requirements set forth in ASTM E 329, C 1077, and D 3740. Additionally, our laboratory has been a validated U.S.

Army Corp of Engineers laboratory, since 2010.

LICENSED AND REGISTERED NATIONWIDE

United Consulting licensed and registered in 35 states and continues to grow, with offices in Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Texas, and California.