Rossville Recreation Park GEOTECH Report.pdf

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING EVALUATION

Rossville Recreation Park Additions Salem Road, Rossville, GA 30741

Atlas Project No. 17983

PREPARED FOR:

Walker County

101 S. Duke Street, P.O. Box 445

LaFayette, Georgia 30728

PREPARED BY:

Atlas Technical Consultants LLC

3000 Northfield Place, Suite 1100

Roswell, Georgia 30076

May 8, 2024 ii

ATLAS Project No. 17983

May 8, 2024

Mr. Shannon Whitfield Chairman/CEO

Walker County

101 S. Duke Street

P.O. Box 445

LaFayette, GA 30728

Subject: Report of Subsurface Exploration and

Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

Rossville Recreation Park Additions

Salem Road

Rossville, Walker County, Georgia

Dear Mr. Whitfield:

Atlas Technical Consultants LLC (Atlas) is pleased to provide this report of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation for the referenced project. The field study and this report were accomplished in general accordance with Atlas Proposal No. 24-02521, dated March 29, 2024.

The following report will present a summary of our pertinent findings and recommendations followed by our understanding of the proposed construction, methods of exploration employed, site and subsurface conditions encountered, and conclusions and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the project.

Should you have any question regarding items discussed in this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Sincerely, Atlas Technical Consultants LLC

R. Ali Khan, PE John H. Fiely, PE

Registered Engineer Senior Registered Engineer

RAK/JHF/ew

Attachments iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE NUMBER

1.0 SUMMARY

2.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

3.0 METHODS OF EXPLORATION

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION, GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Site Description

4.2 Geology

4.3 Subsurface Conditions

4.3.1 Pavement

4.3.2 Topsoil

4.3.3 Previously Placed Fill

4.3.4 Residuum

4.3.5 Partially Weathered Rock

4.3.6 Groundwater

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Karst Activity

5.2 Site Preparation

5.3 Earthwork

5.4 Foundations

5.5 Soil Supported Slabs

5.6 Temporary and Permanent Slopes

5.7 Infiltration Testing

5.8 Pavement Evaluations and Recommendations

5.8.1 Full Depth Reclamation (FDR)

5.8.2 Full Replacement of Pavement

6.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX

Soil Test Boring Procedures

Correlation with Standard Penetration Test Results

Figure 1: Site and Boring Location Plan

Soil Classification Chart

Soil Boring Records (9)

1.0 SUMMARY

The following is a summary of our pertinent findings and recommendations. The reader is referred to the remaining text of this report for elaboration on these items.

1. The property appears generally suitable for the proposed additions from a geotechnical standpoint.

2. General subsurface conditions consist of previously placed fills which extended to depths ranging from 3 to 8 feet below the existing grades. Fill was underlain by residual soils. Partially weathered rock was encountered in boring B-4 with an initial contact depth of 13 feet below the existing grade.

Groundwater was encountered at the completion of drilling at a depth of 12 feet below the existing grade in boring B-4.

3. The lightly loaded structures may be supported by conventional shallow foundations or monolithic slabs, bearing on residual soil or structural fill, using a net allowable bearing pressure of 2000 psf. It should be anticipated that engineering subgrade evaluation at the time of construction may identify localized soft materials that will require remedial undercutting and replacement with structural fill or crushed stone.

4. The on-site residual soils and fill soils are visually suitable for reuse as structural fill. Drying of soils should be anticipated. If localized topsoil or debris is encountered in fill it should not be reused as structural fill and should be wasted.

5. Excavations to the depths explored can be accomplished using conventional earthmoving equipment.

6. Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) of the existing pavement is recommended. An alternative for removal and replacement is provided, but there is concern this approach may lead to the need for remedials subgrade preparation of the soil exposed after the pavement is removed. We do not recommend the existing pavement be remediated by an asphalt overlay.

2.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

We understand you are planning certain modifications to the existing Rossville Park. Planned construction will include a one-story restroom building, a splash pad, playground, utilities, and a reconstructed pavement area.

We anticipate the restroom building and splash pad will be constructed with a few feet of existing grade.

Structural details have not been provided but we assume the restroom building will be a lightly loaded building with the roof supported by walls with a maximum wall loads of about 2 kips per linear foot or less and a slab on grade. The Splash Pad is assumed to be a slab on grade with no significant held pool of water. We assume a slab load of less than about 200 pounds per square foot.

The existing parking lot will be reconstructed and enlarged slightly. A shallow pond, less than 2 feet deep is anticipated adjacent to the parking lot. Other improvements will be playgrounds, possibly with light play equipment and landscaping.

No other details of the proposed construction were available at the time this report was prepared.

3.0 METHODS OF EXPLORATION

To evaluate the subsurface conditions, the property was explored by a combination of a visual site reconnaissance and drilling nine soil test borings to depths ranging from 5 to 15 feet below the existing grade.

The borings were located in the field by measuring distances and estimating directions from identifiable site features. Therefore, their locations as shown on the Site and Boring Location Plan in the Appendix should be considered approximate.

The borings were advanced by twisting continuous hollow stem auger flights into the ground. At selected intervals, Standard Penetration Resistance Testing (SPT) was performed in general accordance with ASTM

Standard D-1586, and soil samples were collected for visual classification. The results of the penetration tests, when properly evaluated, provide an indication of the relative consistency of the soil being sampled, the potential for difficult excavation, and the soil's ability to support loads. A more detailed description of the drilling and sampling process is included in the Appendix of this report.

At borings C-1, C-2, and C-3, the boring was initially advanced through pavement and the thickness and conditions of the pavement materials was checked by a geotechnical engineer.

Soil samples recovered during the drilling process were returned to the office where they were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Detailed descriptions of the materials encountered at each boring location, along with a graphical representation of the Standard Penetration Test results, are shown on the Soil Boring Records in the Appendix.

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION, GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Site Description

The proposed park modifications will be on the southwestern side of the existing park located at 200 Elis

Road, Rossville, GA 30741. The proposed modification areas are currently developed as a ball field or landscape areas and an existing parking lot. The site is fairly flat. The asphalt exhibited extensive cracking.

4.2 Geology

The referenced project is in the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province of Georgia. The Valley and Ridge province is characterized by folded and thrust faulted strata of mostly unmetamorphosed sedimentary rocks.

The thrust faults and folds indicate that the rocks were compressed in the horizontal direction. Geologic mapping indicates the bedrock of the site is Shady Dolomite with the primary rock type being Dolostone.

The weathering profile usually results in fine grained clayey silts and silty clays. With increased depth the residual soils generally decrease in consistency. In this geology it is common to find very soft solutioned carbonate rock just above bedrock. Thick profiles of weathered rock are not as common in this geology.

4.3 Subsurface Conditions

4.3.1 Pavement

Borings C-1, C-2, C-3 and B-7 initially encountered 1 to 5 inches of asphalt, which was underlain by 3 to 4 inches of base stone. The base stone was relatively free of soil contamination.

4.3.2 Topsoil

Borings B2 through B-6 initially encountered 1 to 2 inches of topsoil and associated root zone.

4.3.3 Previously Placed Fill

Fill soils are those soils that have been placed or reworked in conjunction with past construction activities, grading or farming. Fill was encountered in all borings except B-3 to maximum depths of 6 feet. The fill was classified as clayey silt (ML) or silty sand (SM) with rock fragments and occasional traces of topsoil. The

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results range from 5 to 33 blows per foot (bpf). Some of the higher values obtained in fill were likely amplified somewhat by the sampler striking rock fragments in the fill. Based on the

SPT results and sample conditions, fill soil represented by these samples appears to be moderately compacted.

4.3.4 Residuum

Residuum, formed by in-place weathering of the parent rock, was encountered in the deeper borings below fill or topsoil. The residuum was classified as sandy clay, silty clay, silty sand, or sandy silt and were of moderate consistency. The soil frequently had rock or chert fragments. Standard Penetration Test results ranged from 8 to 29 blows per foot.

4.3.5 Partially Weathered Rock

Partially weathered rock (PWR) is defined as residual materials that can be penetrated by the augers but has

Standard Penetration Test of over 100 blows per foot. Partially weathered rock was encountered in boring B-4 with an initial contact depth of 13 feet below the existing grade.

4.3.6 Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered at the time of drilling in boring B-4 at depths of 12 feet below the existing grade. Stabilized groundwater levels will be somewhat higher.

Groundwater levels fluctuate with seasonal and climatic variation. Fluctuations of 5 feet or more are common in this geology.

The conditions described in the preceding paragraphs, and those shown in the Appendix, have been based on interpolation of the results of the previously described data using generally accepted principles and practices of geotechnical engineering. However, conditions in this geology may vary intermediate of the tested locations, and even more so on previously developed property.

Although individual soil test borings are representative of the subsurface conditions at the precise boring locations on the day drilled, they are not necessarily indicative of the subsurface conditions at other locations or other times. The nature and extent of variation between the borings may not become evident until the course of construction. If such variations are then noted, it will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this report after on-site observation of the conditions.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following conclusions and recommendations are based on the data gathered during this exploration, our understanding of the proposed construction, our experience with similar site and subsurface conditions and generally accepted principles and practices of geotechnical engineering. Should the proposed construction change significantly from that described in this report, we request that we be advised so that we may amend these recommendations accordingly. This report and the conclusions and recommendations provided herein are provided exclusively for the use of Walker County and are intended solely for the design of the referenced project.

5.1 Karst Activity

This evaluation did not find evidence of sinkhole activity on the site. The exploratory borings did not encounter shallow rock or indications of soil voids. A review of published topographic mapping did not find closed depressions or obvious signs of possible sinkhole formation within a half mile of the site. Walker County is underlain by limestone bedrock and cave formation and sinkhole activity in parts of the County are frequent.

Like all sites in Walker County there is bedrock that has a potential for subsurface voids that could in the future, open to the surface and result in sinkholes. We do not believe that the risk of sinkhole formation at this site is greater than any other site in the general vicinity and the planned construction is light and will result in minimal change to the subsurface.

5.2 Site Preparation

As an initial step in site preparation, any remaining trees and unwanted vegetation should be removed including stumps and the organic topsoil should be stripped. Asphalt pavement that will not be preserved should be stripped but the underlying base stone can remain. Existing utilities, if any, on the site should be relocated outside the footprint of the proposed structure or abandoned and removed.

All areas to receive fill or at grade construction should be evaluated prior to fill placement. The approval process should include proofrolling the subgrade with a fully loaded tandem axle dump truck (20 tons) during a period of dry weather and under the observation of the geotechnical engineer. Any areas which "pump" or

"rut" excessively under the weight of the proofrolling vehicle should be further evaluated and may require undercutting or other remediation. The proofrolling can occasionally detect pits where debris or loose soils may have been buried, or other areas where weak surface conditions exist. This evaluation is critical since previously placed fill exist in planned construction areas and there is no documentation of the initial placement of the fill.

The upper soils were moist. We recommend the initial subgrade preparation be performed during a period of dry weather. Drying and compaction of the upper soils may be required.

5.3 Earthwork

Structural fill should be free of organic material, have a plasticity index (PI) less than 30 and contain rock sizes no larger than 4 inches. If the onsite soils do not meet these criteria, then they should be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer at the time of the construction. The residual soils and previously placed fill encountered in the borings visually appear suitable for reuse as structural fill. Drying of soils should be anticipated.

All structural fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the soil's standard Proctor maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Standard D-698. The upper foot of fill which will support pavements or slabs should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the soil's standard Proctor maximum dry density for improved support. In areas which are at or above the finished grade, and which will support pavements or slabs, the upper 8 inches immediately below these systems should be scarified and recompacted to the 98 percent criteria.

Density testing should be performed by a soils technician to determine the degree of compaction and verify compliance with the project specifications. For underfloor areas, at least one field density test should be made per 5000 square feet of fill area for each two-foot lift. Testing frequency should be increased in confined areas. Areas which do not meet the compaction specifications should be recompacted to achieve compliance.

In confined areas, such as utility trenches, the use of portable compaction equipment and thin lifts of 3 to 4 inches may be required to achieve compaction.

Excavations to the depths of anticipated excavation at the locations explored can be accomplished using conventional earthmoving equipment. No grading plan is available to see if all areas of deep excavations have been explored. We note that weathered rock that could require ripping techniques to loosen was encountered at 12 in boring B-4 but we do not anticipate excavations will extend to this level.

5.4 Foundations

We recommend that the structures be supported on conventional shallow foundations or monolithic slabs bearing on the existing residual soil or new structural fill. Fill soils, if encountered in the proposed buildings, should be thoroughly evaluated by a geotechnical engineer at the time of construction. A design bearing pressure of 2000 psf is recommended. The recommended bearing pressure is based on correlations with the

Standard Penetration Test results. These correlations imply that a maximum total settlement of one inch is possible and a maximum differential settlement of half the total settlement is possible. Minimum foundation widths of 24 inches and 18 inches are recommended for individual column and strip footings, respectively, to preclude the possibility of localized soil bearing failures. Exterior foundations should bear at least 18 inches below external grades to prevent frost damage.

As with any construction, all foundation excavations should be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer, who will verify that the design bearing pressure is available intermediate of boring locations, and that foundations are not immediately underlain by worse conditions. If the engineer finds localized conditions of weak or organic soil below an individual footing, it should be undercut or a lower bearing pressure used, depending upon the actual conditions found. Since previously placed fills are anticipated in these areas, it should be anticipate the these evaluations could find localized soft materials that will require surficial undercutting and replacement with crushed stone.

5.5 Soil Supported Slabs

Floor slabs may be soil supported, subject to the subgrade preparation and earthwork recommendations contained in this report. At the start of final preparation for slabs, the exposed subgrade should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. Due to the clayey nature of the soils and moisture conditions, we recommend the slabs be underlain by a minimum 4-inch layer of free draining crushed stone.

5.6 Temporary and Permanent Slopes

Permanent and temporary slopes may be used to accommodate grade changes. If temporary slopes are used, they should be constructed no steeper than 1.5H: 1V for slopes less than 15 feet high. Permanent slopes should be constructed no steeper than 2H: 1V. These recommendations are based on our experience with similar conditions and no detailed slope stability analyses have been performed. All finished slopes should be suitably protected from erosion.

Buildings should be set back at least 10 feet from the top of slopes; a minimum 5-foot setback is considered sufficient for pavement areas.

5.7 Infiltration Testing

The resulting infiltration rates for the referenced test locations are presented in the table below.

Summary of Infiltration Rates

Test Location Depth of Test (in) Infiltration Rate

(in/hr)

I-1 24 0.40

I-2 12 <0.1

The infiltration rate may be different at other locations and depths and is dependent on soil properties at the specific location. If variations become evident during construction, it will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this letter after on-site observations of the conditions.

5.8 Pavement Evaluations and Recommendations

The testing performed within the existing parking lot encountered the following pavement material thicknesses:

Location Asphalt Thickness Base Stone Thickness

C-1 5 4

C-2 2 3

C-3 4 4

The subgrade soil below the pavement appeared to be moderately compacted but was noted to be wetter than the anticipated optimum moisture of the soil. The soil just below the base stone was noticeably wetter than the underlying soil. If this subgrade is exposed, we anticipate it will require drying and compaction to form a stable subgrade or undercutting and replacement with stabilization stone.

The condition of the asphalt surface is highly variable and poor. There are widespread areas of both alligator and block cracking.

Because there are substantial pavement materials in place and we anticipate the underlying subgrade will likely require fairly widespread subgrade remediation if disturbed or exposed, it is our opinion the parking lot is a good candidate for full depth reclamation (FDR) so the existing asphalt and base can be recycled and there will be minimum disturbance to the subgrade. An alternative which we believe has a risk of added cost associated with remedial subgrade preparation is full depth replacement. Based on the extensive cracking of the asphalt surface, we do not recommend simple application of an asphalt overlay. We anticipate that such an approach will be a very short-term fix and the existing cracking will reflect through the new asphalt.

The options are discussed below.

5.8.1 Full Depth Reclamation (FDR)

The FDR process is performed by adding cement and pulverizing the asphalt and base. The blended material is then compacted in place to form a new cemented base material. After compaction is accomplished and the cement has cured, hot mix asphalt is placed for a surface course. The actual amount of cement to be used should be based on a site-specific mix design. The purpose of the mix design is to determine the optimum cement application rate to provide both the structural adequacy needed and to limit shrinkage cracking to the extent practical. One consequence of a cement treated FDR is that the FDR will experience shrinkage cracks, some of which will ultimately "reflect" into the asphalt surface course. A mix with a heavier cement application will experience more shrinkage cracks but a lesser amount of cement might not produce the strength needed in the FDR. If shrinkage cracks are reflected onto the asphalt surface, they should be sealed to prevent water infiltration.

For the light duty parking lot, we recommend an FDR section as follows.

MINIMUM FDR THICKNESS RECOMMENDATIONS

Material Thickness (in)

Surface Course (12.5mm Topping) 2

Full Depth Reclamation Base 6

As previously mentioned, a mix design for the FDR is recommended. For budgeting purposes, you may use

5% (approximately 35 lbs/square yard) cement blend. This should be confirmed prior to pavement construction by the mix design.

Only an experienced contractor that has significant experience with this process and the proper equipment to perform the pulverization and cement application should be allowed to perform this work.

5.8.2 Full Replacement of Pavement

The existing asphalt and base can be removed to allow placement of a new asphalt pavement. The asphalt layer will likely require wasting offsite unless it can be recycled. The base stone can be used as structural fill.

Once the soil is exposed, the exposed subgrade should be evaluated by proofrolling with a 20 to 30 ton loaded dump truck. Any areas that rut or pump will require remediation. Based on the moisture of the samples recovered during testing and the indicated strength of the subgrade from the Standard Penetration Tests, we anticipate widespread areas will be unstable when evaluated. The unstable subgrade should initially be plowed and scarified, dried, and compacted in an initial attempt to form a stable subgrade. If this is not effective, it will be necessary to undercut the upper soil and replace it with crushed stone. Undercut and replacement depths of 1 ½ to 2 feet of stabilization stone may be required. The actual recommended depth should be based on engineering evaluation. Once the subgrade is stable, the basestone can be placed and compacted, and new asphalt placed.

For the parking lot we recommend the following sections. If there is a drive that will be subject to truck traffic of up to 10 trucks per day, we recommend the heavy-duty section be used.

MINIMUM REPLACEMENT PAVEMENT THICKNESS RECOMMENDATIONS

Material

Automobile Areas Heavy Duty

Thickness (in) Thickness (in)

Asphalt Topping (12mm) 1.5 2

Asphalt Binder (19mm) 2 2

Graded Aggregate Base (GAB) 6 8

The graded aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of the Modified Proctor Density

(ASTM D-1557). The surface of the base should be approved by proofroll prior to asphalt placement.

The life of flexible pavement is dependent on many factors, which include proper maintenance, asphalt aging characteristics, actual traffic loadings, and proper drainage. The pavement will and should be expected to deteriorate with time. Therefore, periodic maintenance of the pavement will be required during its design life.

Some cracks may develop in the first five years. These cracks should be filled to prevent the intrusion of surface water which can deteriorate the subgrade. These cracks left untreated could result in holes and general deterioration of the pavement gradually with time and result in the requirement of a new pavement system by the end or prior to the end of the design period.

We recommend that all subgrades, base, asphalt and concrete materials and construction procedures conform to Georgia DOT "Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges". In particular, sections 800, 801, 815, 828, 830 for materials and sections 310, 400, and 430 for construction procedures.

6.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

This evaluation of the geotechnical aspects of the proposed design and construction has been based on our understanding of the project and the data obtained during this study. The general subsurface conditions used in our evaluation were based on interpolation of the subsurface data between the borings. Regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface exploration, there is the possibility that conditions will differ between boring locations, that conditions are not as anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has modified the soil conditions. Therefore, experienced soil engineers and technicians should evaluate earthwork and foundation construction to verify that the conditions anticipated in design actually exist. Otherwise, we assume no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations.

The recommendations contained in this report have been developed on the basis of the previously described project characteristics and subsurface conditions. If project criteria change, we should be permitted to determine if the recommendations should be modified. The findings of such a review will be presented in a supplemental report. Even after completion of a subsurface study, the nature and extent of variation between borings may not become evident until the course of construction. If such variations then become evident, it will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this report after on-site observations of the conditions.

These professional services have been performed, the findings derived, and recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all warranties either expressed or implied. This company is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions or recommendations of others based on these data.

The scope of services does not include any environmental assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater, or surface water within or beyond the site. Any statements in this report or on the test boring records regarding odors, staining of soils, or other unusual conditions observed are strictly for general information only.

APPENDIX

SOIL TEST BORING PROCEDURES (ASTM D-1586)

The soil test borings were advanced by twisting continuous auger flights into the ground. At selected intervals, soil samples were obtained by driving a standard 1.4 inch I.D., 2.0 inch O.D., split tube sampler into the ground. The sampler was initially seated six inches to penetrate any loose cuttings created in the boring process. The sampler is then driven an additional 12 inches by blows of a 140 pound "hammer" falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final foot is designated the Standard Penetration Resistance.

The samples recovered were sealed in glass jars and were transported to the office where they were classified by an engineer in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System

(USCS).

CORRELATION OF STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE WITH

RELATIVE COMPACTNESS AND CONSISTENCY

Sand and Gravel

Standard Penetration Resistance Blows / Foot Relative Compactness

0 - 4 Very Loose 5 - 10 Loose

11 - 30 Medium Dense 31 - 50 Dense Over 50 Very Dense

Silt and Clay

Standard Penetration Resistance Blows / Foot Relative Compactness

0 - 1 Very Soft 2 - 4 Soft 5 - 8 Firm 9 - 15 Stiff

16 - 30 Very Stiff 31 - 50 Hard

Over 50 Very Hard

SOIL TEST BORING LOCATIONS

FIGURE 1: SITE AND BORING LOCATION PLAN

ROSSVILLE RECREATION PARK

SALEM ROAD

ROSSVILLE GEORGIA

3000 NORTHFIELD PLACE, SUITE 1100

ROSWELL, GEORGIA 30076

DRAWN BY: RK

APPROVED BY: JF

PROJECT NO.: 17983

DATE: MAY 2024

SCALE: AS SHOWN

NOTES:LEGEND

SOIL TEST BORING LOCATIONS

FIGURE 1: SITE AND BORING LOCATION PLAN

ROSSVILLE RECREATION PARK

SALEM ROAD

ROSSVILLE GEORGIA

3000 NORTHFIELD PLACE, SUITE 1100

ROSWELL, GEORGIA 30076

DRAWN BY: RK

APPROVED BY: JF

PROJECT NO.: 17983

DATE: MAY 2024

SCALE: AS SHOWN

NOTES:LEGEND

INFILTRATION TEST LOCATIONS

TEST LOCATIONS SHOWN ON

CLIENT PROVIDED PLAN FOR

INDICATION OF APPROXIMATE

TEST LOCATIONS ONLY

B-2 B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

C-1

C-2

C-3

I-2

I-1

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS

GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS

TYPICAL

SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC

PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

MATERIAL PLACED BY MANFILL

ALLUVIUM

CLAYS

AND

SILTS

GREATER THAN 50

LIQUID LIMIT

CLAYS

AND

SILTS

LESS THAN 50

LIQUID LIMIT

AMOUNT OF FINES)

(APPRECIABLE

FINES

SANDS WITH

4 SIEVE

PASSING ON NO.

COARSEFRACTION

MORE THAN 50%OF

SOILS

SANDY

AND

SAND

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

CLEAN SANDS

AMOUNT OF FINES)

(APPRECIABLE

WITH FINES

GRAVELS

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

GRAVELS

CLEAN

SIEVE

RETAINED ONNO. 4

COARSEFRACTION

MORE THAN 50%OF

SOILS

GRAVELLY

AND

GRAVEL

SOILS

GRAINED

COARSE

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PT

FILL

SOILS

GRAINED

FINE

200 SIEVE SIZE

LARGER THAN NO.

MATERIAL IS

MORE THAN 50%OF

MIXTURES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT

MIXTURES

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES

SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY-GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY

SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY

SLIGHT PLASTICITY

FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH

SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE

CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS

PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM

SOILS

DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH

WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS

ALLUVIUM, PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS

200 SIEVE SIZE

SMALLER THANNO.

MATERIAL IS

MORE THAN 50% OF

NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND

SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY- GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -

TOPSOIL: 1 inch FILL: Loose tan brown silty medium to fine SAND (SM), rock fragments

Medium dense tan orange brown silty SAND (SM), chert pieces

RESIDUUM: Very stiff to stiff multi-colored sandy CLAY (SC)

Boring terminated at 15 feet

4-3-2

4-8-13

6-18-9

4-8-12

5-5-6

PENETRATION (BLOWS PER FOOT)

ELEV. BLOW

COUNTS N

VALUE

REMARKS: No groundwater encountered at time of boring. SOIL BORING RECORD

Standard penetration test

Groundwater level at time of boring

Groundwater level - 24 hrs

Caved depth - 24 hrs

Undisturbed sample

BORING NUMBER

DATE DRILLED

PROJECT NUMBER

PAGE

B-2

4/25/2024

17983

Rossville City Park

(FT) 20 30 40 60 80100

DEPTH

DESCRIPTION

TOPSOIL: 2 inches RESIDUUM: Medium dense tan brown silty medium to fine SAND (SM), chert pieces

Medium dense multi-colored silty SAND (SM), chert pieces

No sample recovered

Stiff gray tan brown silty CLAY (MH)

Boring terminated at 15 feet

5-8-12

10-7-8

4-13-8

6-8-7

3-4-5

PENETRATION (BLOWS PER FOOT)

ELEV. BLOW

COUNTS N

VALUE

REMARKS: No groundwater encountered at time of boring. SOIL BORING RECORD

Standard penetration test

Groundwater level at time of boring

Groundwater level - 24 hrs

Caved depth - 24 hrs

Undisturbed sample

BORING NUMBER

DATE DRILLED

PROJECT NUMBER

PAGE

B-3

4/25/2024

17983

Rossville City Park

(FT) 20 30 40 60 80100

50/4"

TOPSOIL: 1 inch FILL: Dense white orange brown silty SAND (SM), rock fragments

RESIDUUM: Medium dense multi-colored silty SAND (SM), chert fragments

Stiff gray orange brown sandy CLAY (SC)

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK:

Sampled as very dense tan orange brown silty SAND (SM), rock fragments

Boring terminated at 15 feet

10-17-16

7-15-14

4-6-4

4-5-5

3-50/4"

PENETRATION (BLOWS PER FOOT)

ELEV. BLOW

COUNTS N

VALUE

SOIL BORING RECORD

Standard penetration test

Groundwater level at time of boring

Groundwater level - 24 hrs

Caved depth - 24 hrs

Undisturbed sample

BORING NUMBER

DATE DRILLED

PROJECT NUMBER

PAGE

B-4

4/25/2024

17983

Rossville City Park

(FT) 20 30 40 60 80100

DEPTH

TOPSOIL: 2 inches FILL: Dense to medium dense tan orange brown silty SAND (SM), rock fragments, chert pieces, trace topsoil

RESIDUUM: Stiff orange gray brown silty

CLAY (MH)

Boring terminated at 15 feet

9-13-19

5-10-14

5-5-8

7-4-5

3-4-7

PENETRATION (BLOWS PER FOOT)

ELEV. BLOW

COUNTS N

VALUE

REMARKS: No groundwater encountered at time of boring. SOIL BORING RECORD

Standard penetration test

Groundwater level at time of boring

Groundwater level - 24 hrs

Caved depth - 24 hrs

Undisturbed sample

BORING NUMBER

DATE DRILLED

PROJECT NUMBER

PAGE

B-5

4/25/2024

17983

Rossville City Park

(FT) 20 30 40 60 80100

TOPSOIL: 1 inch FILL: Medium dense tan brown silty medium to fine SAND (SM), rock fragments, chert pieces

RESIDUUM: Stiff gray orange brown silty

CLAY (MH)

Firm tan brown sandy CLAY (SC)

Boring terminated at 15 feet

5-8-12

3-7-8

5-5-6

4-6-3

4-2-6

PENETRATION (BLOWS PER FOOT)

ELEV. BLOW

COUNTS N

VALUE

REMARKS: No groundwater encountered at time of boring. SOIL BORING RECORD

Standard penetration test

Groundwater level at time of boring

Groundwater level - 24 hrs

Caved depth - 24 hrs

Undisturbed sample

BORING NUMBER

DATE DRILLED

PROJECT NUMBER

PAGE

B-6

4/25/2024

17983

Rossville City Park

(FT) 20 30 40 60 80100

ASPHALT: 1 inch G.A.B.: 3 inches FILL: Medium dense tan brown silty SAND (SM), rock fragments, chert fragments

RESIDUUM: Medium dense black white brown silty SAND (SM), chert pieces

Stiff black gray brown silty CLAY (MH)

Boring terminated at 15 feet

4-8-10

6-5-7

6-11-15

4-8-7

4-4-7

PENETRATION (BLOWS PER FOOT)

ELEV. BLOW

COUNTS N

VALUE

REMARKS: No groundwater encountered at time of boring. SOIL BORING RECORD

Standard penetration test

Groundwater level at time of boring

Groundwater level - 24 hrs

Caved depth - 24 hrs

Undisturbed sample

BORING NUMBER

DATE DRILLED

PROJECT NUMBER

PAGE

B-7

4/25/2024

17983

Rossville City Park

(FT) 20 30 40 60 80100

ASPHALT: 5 inches G.A.B. 4 inches FILL: Firm orange brown clayey SILT (ML)

Boring terminated at 5 feet

2-3-3

3-4-4

PENETRATION (BLOWS PER FOOT)

ELEV. BLOW

COUNTS N

VALUE

REMARKS: No groundwater encountered at time of boring. SOIL BORING RECORD

Standard penetration test

Groundwater level at time of boring

Groundwater level - 24 hrs

Caved depth - 24 hrs

Undisturbed sample

BORING NUMBER

DATE DRILLED

PROJECT NUMBER

PAGE

C-1

4/25/2024

17983

Rossville City Park

(FT) 20 30 40 60 80100

ASPHALT: 2 inches G.A.B.: 3 inches FILL: Firm red brown clayey SILT (ML)

RESIDUUM: Stiff white tan brown sandy SILT (ML), chert pieces

Boring terminated at 5 feet

3-3-3

5-5-10

PENETRATION (BLOWS PER FOOT)

ELEV. BLOW

COUNTS N

VALUE

REMARKS: No groundwater encountered at time of boring. SOIL BORING RECORD

Standard penetration test

Groundwater level at time of boring

Groundwater level - 24 hrs

Caved depth - 24 hrs

Undisturbed sample

BORING NUMBER

DATE DRILLED

PROJECT NUMBER

PAGE

C-2

4/25/2024

17983

Rossville City Park

(FT) 20 30 40 60 80100

ASPHALT: 4 inches G.A.B.: 4 inches FILL: Firm tan brown silty medium to fine SAND (SM), rock fragments, chert pieces

Boring terminated at 5 feet

3-3-3

4-4-11

PENETRATION (BLOWS PER FOOT)

ELEV. BLOW

COUNTS N

VALUE

REMARKS: No groundwater encountered at time of boring. SOIL BORING RECORD

Standard penetration test

Groundwater level at time of boring

Groundwater level - 24 hrs

Caved depth - 24 hrs

Undisturbed sample

BORING NUMBER

DATE DRILLED

PROJECT NUMBER

PAGE

C-3

4/25/2024

17983

Rossville City Park

(FT) 20 30 40 60 80100