003132_Geotechnical_Engineering_Report.pdf

Salisbury VAMC Construct New Parking Garage Salisbury, NC 28144

Project No. 659-342

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

00 31 32 - 1

SECTION 00 31 32

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

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

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

2.2 Site Location and Description

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Site Geology

3.2 Typical Profile

3.3 Groundwater

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

4.2 Earthwork

4.2.1 Compaction Requirements

4.2.2 Construction Considerations

4.3 Deep Foundation Recommendations

4.4 Non-load Bearing Curtain Wall Foundations

4.5 Seismic Considerations

4.6 Ground Level Pavements

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Exhibit A-1 Site Location Plan

Exhibit A-2 Boring Location Plan

Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration / Laboratory Testing Description

Boring Logs B-1 through B-11

APPENDIX B – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit B-1 General Notes

Exhibit B-2 Unified Soil Classification

Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Parking Garage ■ VA Medical Center ■ Salisbury, North Carolina December 18, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. 70135144

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Terracon has completed the Geotechnical Engineering Report for the proposed parking garage for the Salisbury VA Medical Center located in Salisbury, North Carolina. Eleven soil test borings were performed in the proposed construction areas. The following geotechnical considerations were identified:

Based on the results of our borings and our understanding of the project, we recommend supporting the structure on a deep foundation system consisting of augered, cast-in-place (ACIP) piles terminating within the layer of dense/very stiff residual soil and partially weathered rock. For a 16-inch diameter ACIP pile installed using a non-displacement method, a design compressive capacity of 90 tons per pile can be achieved with 20 to 25 feet of penetration into the very stiff / dense residual materials or by reaching drilling refusal on partially weathered rock. Final tip elevations of the ACIP piles will vary significantly across the site due to variations in the thickness of the softer residual soil overburden.

For 16-inch diameter piles, we estimate a design lateral capacity of 7 tons for a “free-head” pile (rotation at the top of the pile is allowed) and an allowable lateral deflection of

½ inch. Higher lateral capacities can be achieved by allowing higher lateral deflection or by structurally “fixing” the top of the pile.

Before installation of test piles, we recommend a pre-installation meeting be held among the pile contractor, construction manager, structural engineer, and geotechnical engineer to discuss topics relevant to the test pile program.

We recommend two test piles be installed at the site at the start of pile construction to evaluate the piling contractor’s installation methods and to determine the axial compressive capacity of an installed pile. The two test pile locations should be selected to reflect subsurface conditions that will result in the shortest and the longest installed piles. The load tests for compression capacity should be conducted in accordance with

ASTM Standard D-1143, “Standard Method of Testing Piles under Axial Compressive

Load”.

Provided sub-grade preparation is performed as recommended in this report, we expect the site soils to be suitable for the support of ground level pavements. However, the near surface soils encountered in the borings are moderately moisture sensitive and will become unstable when wet. Due to the potential for unstable subgrades during wet weather, performing earthwork operations during warmer, drier periods of the year is preferable.

An IBC seismic site classification of “D” is appropriate for this site.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable ii

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

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE

SALISBURY VA MEDICAL CENTER

STATESVILLE BLVD. / BRENNER AVE.

SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA

Terracon Project No. 70135144

December 18, 2013

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Terracon has completed the Geotechnical Engineering Report for the proposed parking garage for the Salisbury VA Medical Center located near the intersection of Statesville Boulevard and

Brenner Avenue in Salisbury, North Carolina. This report presents information from our field investigation that included eleven soil test borings and provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations.

This report presents the complete findings of our field exploration and laboratory testing services and provides geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

subsurface soil conditions foundation design and construction groundwater conditions site preparation / earthwork seismic considerations pavement design and construction

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

Item Description

Structures

The project will consist of a reinforced concrete parking garage that will include three initial above-grade levels. Future vertical expansion will potentially add one level.

Building construction Precast or cast-in-place reinforced concrete.

Maximum loads

(With Future Vertical Expansion)

Edge Columns: 626 kips

Interior Columns: 1409 kips

Grading Unknown. Cut and fill depths for general site grading are expected to be less than 5 feet.

Slopes Assumed to be no steeper than 3H:1V (Horizontal to Vertical)

Retaining walls Planned to retain soil fill to create ramps from ground level to elevated level.

Proposed Parking Garage ■ VA Medical Center ■ Richmond, Virginia December 18, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. 70135143

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

If any of the project information outlined above is inconsistent with the proposed construction, or if the design changes, Terracon requests the opportunity to review our recommendations.

2.2 Site Location and Description

Item Description

Location

The proposed new parking deck is planned for a location within the

Salisbury VA Medical Center located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Statesville Boulevard and Brenner Avenue in

Salisbury, North Carolina. For further details regarding site location, refer to Exhibit A-1, Site Location Plan.

Current ground cover The project area is currently an asphalt-paved parking area with associated sidewalks and landscaped lawn.

Existing development

Nearby development includes existing medical and administration buildings, existing paved roads, parking, sidewalks, and maintained lawn areas.

Existing topography Not provided. Terrain is generally flat to gently undulating.

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Site Geology

Geologically, the project is located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. Piedmont soils are generally residual materials derived from the in-place chemical and physical weathering of ancient igneous and metamorphic parent rocks. The typical residual soil profile consists of clayey soils near the surface where soil weathering is more advanced, underlain by sandy silts / silty sands that generally become harder / denser with depth to the top of parent bedrock. In residual materials the transition from soil to rock can occur gradually. This transitional zone is termed

“partially weathered rock” (PWR) which is defined for engineering purposes as residual material that can be drilled with soil drilling methods and exhibits standard penetration test values in excess of 100 blows per foot.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

3.2 Typical Profile

Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions can be generalized as follows:

Description

Approximate Depth to Bottom of

Stratum

Material

Encountered

Generalized

Consistency/Density

Surface: Pavement or

Topsoil in Landscaped

Areas

6 to 7 inches Asphalt N/A

2 to 4 inches Topsoil

Residual

Materials

Soil

Medium Dense

/ Medium Stiff to

Stiff)

18 to 68 feet Silt and Silty Sand Medium Stiff to Stiff (Silt)

Medium Dense (Sand)

Very Stiff/

Dense

Soil

Partially

Weathered

Rock

Boring Termination

Silt, Sand, Partially

Weathered Rock

Very Stiff to Hard (Silt)

Dense to Very Dense (Sand)

The thickness of the upper zone of less dense / less stiff residual soil varies dramatically across the site overburden. Deep foundations will generally be installed with the intention of penetrating into the very stiff/dense residual materials. As a result the final lengths of deep foundations for the project can be expected to vary significantly to achieve equivalent axial capacities.

For a detailed description of the conditions encountered in the borings, refer to the boring logs in

Appendix A of this report. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual.

3.3 Groundwater

The borings were drilled using both mud rotary procedures which introduce drilling fluids into the borehole and hollow stem augers. The use of drilling fluids can obscure direct measurement of groundwater levels immediately following drilling. For hollow stem auger drilling, the open borehole left when the augers are withdrawn allows a direct measurement of groundwater inflow. Where delayed groundwater levels were measured in the open boreholes, groundwater was encountered at depths of 21 to 39 feet below the existing surface. Groundwater level fluctuations can occur due to seasonal and climatic variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff

December 18, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. 70135143

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4 and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. We recommend assumption of a groundwater table at depths of 20 feet for development of design and construction plans for the project.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

Based on the results of our borings and our understanding of the project, we recommend supporting the structure on a deep foundation system consisting of augured, cast-in-place

(ACIP) piles terminating within the dense/very stiff residual soils and PWR. For a 16-inch diameter ACIP pile installed using a non-displacement method, a design compressive capacity of 90 tons per pile can be achieved with 20 to 25 feet of penetration into very stiff/dense residual materials and partially weathered rock zone or by reaching drilling refusal.

Provided sub-grade preparation is performed as recommended in this report, we expect the site soils to be suitable for the support of ground level pavements. However, the near surface silt and silty sand is moisture sensitive and will become unstable when wet. Due to the potential for unstable subgrades during wet weather, performing earthwork operations during warmer, drier periods of the year is preferable. Performing site preparation and earthwork at other times of the year increases the potential for having to perform remedial work on the subgrade soils.

4.2 Earthwork

Site preparation should begin with stripping the existing asphalt pavement and topsoil from construction areas. We anticipate an average asphalt stripping depth of 2 to 4 inches for topsoil and 6 to 7 inches for asphalt, however, stripping depths may vary.

Existing utilities that are to be abandoned should be removed. In place abandonment creates the potential for obstructions to pile installation. The excavations resulting from removal of existing pavements and utilities should be properly backfilled with compacted structural fill as described below. Utilities that are to remain in service should be accurately located horizontally and vertically to minimize conflict with new foundation construction.

After site stripping, we recommend that the exposed subgrade be proofrolled in areas to receive fill or at the subgrade elevation in cut areas to detect soft or loose soils. Proofrolling should be performed with a loaded, tandem-axle dump truck or similar rubber-tired construction equipment with a minimum gross weight of 20,000 lb. The proofrolling operations should be observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer and should be performed after a suitable period of dry weather to

December 18, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. 70135143

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5 avoid degrading an otherwise acceptable subgrade and reduce the amount of undercutting required.

If excessive deflection or rutting is observed the geotechnical engineer should be contacted for remediation options. Remediation options are expected to include over-excavation and replacement of the existing soils.

The near surface soils are moisture sensitive and will become soft and unstable when wet. Due to the potential for unstable subgrades during wet weather, performing earthwork operations during warmer, drier periods of the year is preferable. Performing site preparation and earthwork at other times of the year increases the potential for having to perform remedial work on the subgrade soils. Construction traffic over wet subgrades should be avoided to the extent practical. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. If the subgrade should become desiccated, saturated, or disturbed, the affected material should be removed or these materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and re-compacted.

Engineered fill should meet the following material property requirements:

Fill Type

USCS Classification Acceptable Location for Placement

Imported Low- to

Moderate- Plasticity

Soil

CL, ML, SC or SM

> 18% silt/clay

All locations and elevations

Sand / Gravel with less than 10% fines

(silt and clay)

GW/GP, SW/SP

2 NCDOT CABC (crushed aggregate base course) may be used beneath pavements.

Near-surface on-site soils

SM, ML, MH

and

(LL < 60 & PI < 30)

Generally suitable when low to moderate plasticity requirement is met

1. Controlled, compacted fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris. A sample of each material type should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for evaluation.

2. “Clean” sand (less than 18% silt and clay) should not be used as general site fill in building and pavement areas to reduce risk of perched water developing in the surface fill as water infiltrating the surface zone becomes trapped above the less permeable sandy clay and clayey sand zone.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6

4.2.1 Compaction Requirements

Item Description

Fill Lift Thickness 9-inches or less in loose thickness (4” to 6” lifts when hand-operated equipment is used)

Compaction Requirements

Minimum of 98% of the materials maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D698)

Moisture Content – Cohesive Soil

Within the range of -3% to +3% of optimum moisture content as determined by the standard Proctor test at the time of placement and compaction

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

4.2.2 Construction Considerations

During construction, grades should be sloped to promote runoff away from the construction area.

Final surrounding grades should be sloped away from the structure to prevent ponding of water.

The subgrade soils should be protected from becoming frozen, excessively wet or excessively disturbed.

Temporary excavations should be sloped or braced as required by Occupational Health and

Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations to provide stability and safe working conditions.

Temporary excavations may be required during grading operations. The grading contractor, by his contract, is usually responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope or bench the sides of the excavations as required, to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should comply with applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety

Standards.

The geotechnical engineer should be retained during the construction phase of the project to observe earthwork and to perform necessary tests and observations during subgrade preparation, subgrade evaluation, placement and compaction of controlled compacted fills, and backfilling of excavations.

4.3 Deep Foundation Recommendations

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the anticipated column loads, deep foundations are appropriate for the support of the structure. We recommend the use of 16-inch diameter augured cast-in-place (ACIP) piles extending into the very stiff/dense residual soils and partially weathered rock. For this project, very stiff/dense residual soils are defined as residual materials with Standard Penetration Resistance (N-Values) averaging greater than 30 blows per

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7 foot. ACIP piles are a type of concrete pile constructed by rotating a drilling tool into the ground.

Once at the desired tip elevation, cement grout is then pumped through the center of the drilling tool as the tool is gradually withdrawn from the excavation. The result is a continuous grout column in the ground. Installation can be either by non-displacement or displacement methods.

In the non-displacement methods, soil cuttings are carried to the ground surface by the auger flights. In the displacement method, soil cuttings are pushed outward and compact the soils adjacent to the pile grout column. For this project, we recommend ACIP piles be installed using the non-displacement method of installation to improve the ability to penetrate into the denser residual materials.

The successful performance of ACIP piles is highly dependent on the quality of installation. In soft/loose ground conditions, there is a risk of soil inclusions or “necking” of the grout column that can significantly reduce the structural capacity of the grout column. We recommend that the pile installation contractor for the project be pre-selected on a qualification basis and an installation price negotiated rather than relying on open bidding.

For a 16-inch diameter ACIP pile installed using a non-displacement installation method, a design compressive capacity of 90 tons per pile can be achieved with 20 to 25 feet of penetration into the very stiff/dense residual materials or by reaching drilling refusal on PWR / hard rock. Preliminary estimates of tip bearing elevations are provided in the table below.

Estimated Elevations of Soil Strata and Pile Tip Elevations (feet)

Boring Surface

Elevation

Top of

Dense/Hard

Residual Zone

PWR

Elevation

Estimated Pile

Tip Elevation

B-1 719 708 694 694 – 688

B-2 719 --- --- ---

B-3 718 688 684 678

B-4 718 698 675 670

B-5 719 691 --- 671

B-6 719 684 647 647

B-7 719 --- --- ---

B-8 718 666 650 648

B-9 718 --- --- ---

B-10 720 --- --- ---

B-11 718 663 660 648

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8

The estimated pile tip elevations are provided for use in preliminary budget estimates and preparation of bid documents. Final tip elevations will be established at the time of pile installation based on the results of the pile load tests and monitoring of drilling resistance during installation.

These design values are based on static analysis procedures using the FHWA design methodology for drilled shafts, the assumed installation techniques, and our experience with the general soil conditions of the area. The capacities embody a factor of safety of at least two.

Actual capacities should be verified through a test pile and load test program as described later in this section.

A minimum center-to-center spacing of three pile diameters should be maintained to limit the possibility of damage to adjacent piles during installation. The compressive stresses in the piles should not exceed 25% of the grout’s 28-day compressive strength and steel reinforcement should meet the structural requirements of the pile as determined by the structural engineer.

Typically, a minimum set time of 18 hours should be provided prior to installation of adjacent piles.

The noted capacities are for individual piles. Organization of the piles in the pile group and the pile group efficiency, will determine the actual load carrying capacity of the pile cap. Depending on the spacing of the piles, this value can be substantially less than the sum total of the individual pile capacities. Using a center-to-center pile spacing of at least three pile diameters significantly reduces this group effect.

The LPile software program was used to estimate the lateral capacity of a 16-inch diameter pile bearing within weathered rock. For 16-inch diameter piles, we estimate a design lateral capacity of 7 tons for a “free-head” pile (rotation at the top of the pile is allowed) and an allowable lateral deflection of ½ inch. Higher lateral capacities can be achieved by allowing higher lateral deflection or by structurally “fixing” the top of the pile (top is allowed to translate laterally, but not rotate). When piles are used in groups, the lateral capacities of the piles in the second and third rows of the group should be reduced to 50% of the capacity of a single, independent pile.

We recommend two test pile be installed at the site at the start of pile construction to evaluate the piling contractor’s installation methods and to determine the axial compressive capacity of an installed pile. The test pile locations should be selected to reflect the subsurface conditions that will likely result in the shortest installed pile lengths (the vicinity of Boring B-1) and the subsurface conditions that will result likely result in the longest installed pile lengths (the vicinity of Boring B-8). The test piles should be installed in locations clear of proposed production pile locations. The load test for compression capacity should be conducted in accordance with

ASTM Standard D-1143, “Standard Method of Testing Piles under Axial Compressive Load”.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9

The reaction frame and hydraulic jack by which a compressive load will be applied to the pile should have a capacity equivalent to 2.5 times the design compressive capacity of the piles.

Before installation of the test pile(s), we recommend a pre-installation meeting be held among the pile contractor, construction manager, structural engineer, and geotechnical engineer to discuss topics relevant to the test pile program. Topics to be discussed should include at a minimum:

Locations of the test piles, The contractor’s equipment and installation practices, Load test set-up and testing procedures, including the loading apparatus and instrumentation.

Preliminary pile installation criteria for the test pile, and

Protocol should unforeseen conditions arise during the installation activities.

We recommend a Terracon representative monitor the installation of the test and reaction piles, the load test program, and evaluate the load test data.

During production installation of the piles, acceptance of the individual pilings is dependent on a number of criteria, including installation time, penetration into partially weathered rock, refusal of the drilling equipment, withdrawal rate during pumping, grout take, tested compressive strength of the grout, etc. Each pile should contain a minimum of 115% of the theoretical “neat-line” volume of grout for its individual length. Each pile must be evaluated separately because of the anticipated variables at the site.

The quality of the contractor’s equipment and the expertise of his personnel are critical to successful installation of the piling system. We recommend that as a minimum the contractor’s personnel have at least 5 years of total experience in the piling industry. All personnel and equipment should be subject to the review of the geotechnical engineer.

The project documents should address the procedures that should be followed in the event of a questionable pile or encountering an obstruction. Provisions for relocating a pile within a cap and possible redesign of the cap should be in the place prior to the start of production pile installation. The final installed pile lengths are expected to vary significantly across the site. As a result, bidding should be based on the expected number of piles, estimated combined length of the piles, and provisions for addition/deduction of pile footage. The bid documents should also provide a line item for drilling holes that are not used for installed piles.

Field monitoring of the pile installation is a direct extension of the design process. Pile installation techniques must be observed, weighed against load test data, and evaluated to determine the acceptance of each pile. Understanding of the subsurface conditions and pile design requirements are necessary to make the routine engineering judgments required during

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10 installation. Therefore, the preceding foundation recommendations should be considered valid only if we are given the opportunity to monitor the pile installation.

4.4 Non-load Bearing Curtain Wall Foundations

We anticipate that the proposed parking deck may include non-load bearing curtain walls. We expect that non-load bearing walls can be supported with shallow foundations consisting of strip footings. Non-load bearing walls should be structurally independent of structural elements of the proposed parking deck.

Design recommendations for a shallow foundation system are presented in the following table and paragraphs.

Description Value

Net allowable bearing pressure 2,000 psf

Minimum embedment below lowest adjacent finished grade for frost protection and protective embedment 24 inches

Minimum width for continuous wall footings 16 inches

Approximate total settlement Up to 1 inch

Estimated differential settlement Less than 3/4 inch over 40 feet

1. The recommended net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation.

2. The actual magnitude of settlement that will occur beneath the foundations will depend upon the site earthwork phase, careful evaluation of foundation bearing conditions at the time of construction and the structural loading conditions. The estimated total and differential settlements listed assume that the foundation related earthwork and the foundation design are completed in accordance with our recommendations.

The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose soil prior to placing concrete. Concrete should be placed soon after excavating to reduce bearing soil disturbance.

Should the soils at bearing level become excessively disturbed or saturated, the affected soil should be removed prior to placing concrete.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11

4.5 Seismic Considerations

Item Seismic Parameters

2012 International Building Code (IBC)

Seismic Site Classification D

Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration

Parameters

SS = 0.200g and S1 = 0.092g

SMS = 0.321 and SM1 = 0.221

Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters SDs = 0.214g and SD1 = 0.147g

1. The 2012 IBC site class definition is based on a site soil profile determination extending a depth of

100 feet. The scope of work authorized did not include a boring to a depth of 100 feet. The recommended seismic site classification is based on the assumption that the dense residual materials encountered below depths of 18 to 68 feet continue to a depth of 100 feet. This is a reasonable assumption based on our experience in the region and the geology of the area.

Terracon’s geotechnical proposal included provisions for performing shear wave velocity testing and a site specific seismic assessment. Based on the conditions indicated by the borings, it is our opinion that performing additional shear wave velocity testing is unlikely to allow a change in seismic site classification from D to C. The site specific seismic assessment will potentially result in lower ground motions and seismic design loads for the structure. If elected, shear wave velocity testing will be required in support of the site specific seismic assessment.

4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures

Parallel walls retaining soil fill will be used to create ramps from the ground level to the elevated levels. The "at-rest" condition assumes no wall movement and should be used if the walls will be structurally tied to the concrete pavement slab between the walls. Using the “active” condition assumes wall movement is acceptable. Designing for the active earth pressure condition may result in gaps forming between the concrete pavement slab and the retaining walls. Recommended values are provided for using the on-site silt and silty sand as backfill.

Lower at-rest and active pressures can be achieved if higher quality, granular fill is used as the fill material. The recommended design lateral earth pressures do not include a factor of safety and do not provide for possible hydrostatic pressure on the walls.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12

EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS

Earth Pressure

Conditions

Coefficient for Backfill

Type

Equivalent Fluid

Density (psf/ft)

Surcharge

Pressure, p1 (psf)

Earth

Pressure, p2 (psf)

At-Rest (Ko)

Clean Sand / Gravel -

0.50

Silt / Silty Sand –

0.60

(0.50)S

(0.60)S

(60)H

(69)H

Active (Ka)

Clean Sand / Gravel –

0.31

Silt / Silty Sand-

0.43

(0.31)S

(0.43)S

(37)H

(49)H

Passive

Silt / Silty Sand –

2.78

(2.78)S

(320)H

Applicable conditions to the above include:

Uniform surcharge, where S is surcharge pressure

In-situ soil backfill weighs a maximum of 115 pcf for silt and silty sand, 120 pcf for clean sand / gravel

Horizontal backfill, compacted between 95 and 98 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density

Loading from heavy compaction equipment not included

No hydrostatic pressures acting on wall

No dynamic loading

No safety factor included in soil parameters

Heavy equipment should not operate within a distance closer than the exposed height of retaining walls to prevent lateral pressures more than those provided.

Drainage behind the walls should be provided by a vertical drainage blanket of washed, crushed stone or clean medium coarse sand separated from the adjacent soils by a suitable filter fabric.

The drainage blanket should be 2 feet thick and tied into a gravity drain system at the base of the wall.

Backfill placed against structures should consist of granular soils or low plasticity cohesive soils.

Granular soils should have less than 15% low plasticity fines. To calculate the resistance to sliding, a value of 0.35 should be used as the ultimate coefficient of friction between the footing and the underlying soil.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 13

4.7 Ground Level Pavements

We anticipate ground level concrete pavements will be incorporated into the project. When prepared as outlined in this report the site should be suitable for support of the proposed pavements.

Pavement thickness design is dependent upon:

the anticipated traffic conditions during the life of the pavement;

subgrade and paving material characteristics; and climatic conditions of the region.

We have assumed that traffic will mainly consist of light cars and pickup trucks. Recommended pavement sections are listed in the table below:

Pavement Type Material Layer Thickness (inches)

Rigid

Portland Cement Concrete 6

Crushed Aggregate Base Course

(NCDOT CABC)

Recommendations for pavement construction presented depend upon compliance with recommended material specifications. To assess compliance, observation and testing should be performed under the direction of the geotechnical engineer.

Base course materials should conform to the North Carolina Department of Transportation

(NCDOT) Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. Concrete pavement should be air-entrained and have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi after 28 days of laboratory curing per ASTM C-31.

The performance of all pavements can be enhanced by minimizing excess moisture which can reach the subgrade soils. The following recommendations should be considered a minimum:

site grading at a minimum 2 percent grade away from the pavements;

subgrade and pavement surface with a minimum 1/4 inch per foot slope to promote proper surface drainage; and installation of joint sealant to seal cracks immediately.

Preventative maintenance should be planned and provided for through an ongoing pavement management program to enhance future pavement performance. Preventative maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration and to preserve the pavement

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 14 investment. Preventative maintenance, which consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack and joint sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing), is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment for pavements.

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

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

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

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

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604

PH. (919) 873-2211 FAX. (919) 873-9555 A-1

EXHIBIT SITE LOCATION PLAN Project Mngr.

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

RLD

TRB

TRB / RLD

RLD

70135044

Project No.

Approx. Scale:

File Name:

Date:

NTS

N

A1-70135044

SUBJECT SITE

DEC 2013

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE

SALISBURY VA MEDICAL CENTER , 1601 BRENNER AVE

SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604

PH. (919) 873-2211 FAX. (919) 873-9555 A-2

EXHIBIT BORING LOCATION PLAN Project Mngr.

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

RLD

TRB

TRB / RLD

RLD

70135044

Project No.

Approx. Scale:

File Name:

Date:

NTS

N

A2-70135044

DEC 2013

Approximate Boring Location

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY.

B-8

B-1

B-2

B-3 B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE

SALISBURY VA MEDICAL CENTER , 1601 BRENNER AVE

SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA

LEGEND

B-9

B-10

B-11

PROPOSED NEW PARKING

GARAGE FOOTPRINT

0.3

24.5

26.0

TOPSOIL

SILTY SAND (SM), gray-green, medium dense to dense, (sapprolitic)

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK

SILTY SAND (SM), gray-green, medium dense to dense, (sapprolitic)

7-10-15 N=25

12-17-24 N=41

9-15-17 N=32

9-11-16 N=27

10-16-22 N=38

13-21-29 N=50

24-43-50/5" N=50/5"

8-12-13 N=25

13-16-24 N=40

718.5

694.5

See Exhibit A-2

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

LOCATION

DEPTH

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

SITE:

39ft @ 24hrs

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Advancement Method:

Advanced 3-1/4 inch hollow stem augers

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with soil cuttings

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, North Carolina

Notes:

Project No.: 70135144

Drill Rig: 975

Boring Started: 11/5/2013

BORING LOG NO. B-1

Guidon Design, Inc.CLIENT:

Driller: C. Fredrychowski

Boring Completed: 11/5/2013

A-1

See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any).

Exhibit:

See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures.

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

Salisbury, NC

PROJECT: Salisbury VA Parking Garage

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T

G

E O

L O

G -D

E P

T H

T O

B O

T T

O M

O F

P A

G E

LO

G S

.G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N _S

T D

_T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

6/

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

T E

S T

T Y

P E

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H

(t sf

S T

R A

IN

STRENGTH TEST

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL-PL-PI

ELEVATION (Ft.)

Surface Elev.: 719 (Ft.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

D E

P T

H

F t.)

44.0

52.5

53.5

58.5

60.0

SILTY SAND (SM), gray-green, medium dense to dense, (sapprolitic) (continued)

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK

SILTY SAND (SM), gray-green, medium dense to dense, (sapprolitic)

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK

SILTY SAND (SM), gray-green, very dense, (sapprolitic) Boring Terminated at 60 Feet

14-19-28 N=47

33-50/5" N=50/5"

50/5" N=50/5"

42-50/4" N=50/4"

21-31-42 N=73

666.5

665.5

660.5

See Exhibit A-2

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

LOCATION

DEPTH

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

SITE:

39ft @ 24hrs

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Advancement Method:

Advanced 3-1/4 inch hollow stem augers

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with soil cuttings

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, North Carolina

Notes:

Project No.: 70135144

Drill Rig: 975

Boring Started: 11/5/2013

BORING LOG NO. B-1

Guidon Design, Inc.CLIENT:

Driller: C. Fredrychowski

Boring Completed: 11/5/2013

A-2

See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any).

Exhibit:

See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures.

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

Salisbury, NC

PROJECT: Salisbury VA Parking Garage

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

O

L O

G -D

E P

T H

T O

B O

T T

O M

O F

P A

G E

LO

G S

.G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N _S

T D

_T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

6/

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

T E

S T

T Y

P E

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H

(t sf

S T

R A

IN

STRENGTH TEST

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL-PL-PI

ELEVATION (Ft.)

Surface Elev.: 719 (Ft.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

D E

P T

H

F t.)

0.6

5.0

15.0

ASPHALT

CLAYEY SILT (MH), red brown, stiff

SILT (MH), tan orange, medium stiff to stiff

SILT (MH), gray white olive, medium stiff to stiff

4-5-8 N=13

3-6-8 N=14

3-5-7 N=12

3-4-4 N=8

2-3-3 N=6

2-3-5 N=8

3-3-5 N=8

2-2-3 N=5

3-4-9 N=13

46-37-9

718.5

See Exhibit A-2

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

LOCATION

DEPTH

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

SITE:

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Advancement Method:

Rotary Wash

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with soil cuttings

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, North Carolina

Notes:

Project No.: 70135144

Drill Rig: 975

Boring Started: 11/7/2013

BORING LOG NO. B-2

Guidon Design, Inc.CLIENT:

Driller: C. Fredrychowski

Boring Completed: 11/7/2013

A-7

See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any).

Exhibit:

See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures.

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

Salisbury, NC

PROJECT: Salisbury VA Parking Garage

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

O

L O

G -D

E P

T H

T O

B O

T T

O M

O F

P A

G E

LO

G S

.G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N _S

T D

_T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

6/

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

T E

S T

T Y

P E

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H

(t sf

S T

R A

IN

STRENGTH TEST

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL-PL-PI

ELEVATION (Ft.)

Surface Elev.: 719 (Ft.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

D E

P T

H

F t.)

40.0

SILT (MH), gray white olive, medium stiff to stiff (continued)

Boring Terminated at 40 Feet

3-4-9 N=13

See Exhibit A-2

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

LOCATION

DEPTH

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

SITE:

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Advancement Method:

Rotary Wash

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with soil cuttings

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, North Carolina

Notes:

Project No.: 70135144

Drill Rig: 975

Boring Started: 11/7/2013

BORING LOG NO. B-2

Guidon Design, Inc.CLIENT:

Driller: C. Fredrychowski

Boring Completed: 11/7/2013

A-8

See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any).

Exhibit:

See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures.

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

Salisbury, NC

PROJECT: Salisbury VA Parking Garage

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

O

L O

G -D

E P

T H

T O

B O

T T

O M

O F

P A

G E

LO

G S

.G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N _S

T D

_T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

6/

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

T E

S T

T Y

P E

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H

(t sf

S T

R A

IN

STRENGTH TEST

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL-PL-PI

ELEVATION (Ft.)

Surface Elev.: 719 (Ft.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

D E

P T

H

F t.)

0.5

18.0

34.0

ASPHALT

SANDY SILT (ML), olive brown, stiff to very stiff

SANDY SILT (ML), green, gray, white, very stiff, (sapprolitic)

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK

2-4-6 N=10

5-7-10 N=17

6-10-13 N=23

5-6-10 N=16

4-6-9 N=15

5-7-13 N=20

6-7-10 N=17

8-13-16 N=29

19-50/5" N=50/5"

717.5

See Exhibit A-2

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

LOCATION

DEPTH

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

SITE:

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Advancement Method:

Rotary Wash

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with soil cuttings

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, North Carolina

Notes:

Project No.: 70135144

Drill Rig: 975

Boring Started: 11/7/2013

BORING LOG NO. B-3

Guidon Design, Inc.CLIENT:

Driller: C. Fredrychowski

Boring Completed: 11/7/2013

A-9

See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any).

Exhibit:

See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures.

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

Salisbury, NC

PROJECT: Salisbury VA Parking Garage

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

O

L O

G -D

E P

T H

T O

B O

T T

O M

O F

P A

G E

LO

G S

.G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N _S

T D

_T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

6/

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

T E

S T

T Y

P E

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H

(t sf

S T

R A

IN

STRENGTH TEST

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL-PL-PI

ELEVATION (Ft.)

Surface Elev.: 718 (Ft.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

D E

P T

H

F t.)

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK (continued)

Boring Terminated at 40 Feet

35-50/4" N=50/4"678

See Exhibit A-2

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

LOCATION

DEPTH

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

SITE:

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Advancement Method:

Rotary Wash

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with soil cuttings

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, North Carolina

Notes:

Project No.: 70135144

Drill Rig: 975

Boring Started: 11/7/2013

BORING LOG NO. B-3

Guidon Design, Inc.CLIENT:

Driller: C. Fredrychowski

Boring Completed: 11/7/2013

A-10

See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any).

Exhibit:

See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures.

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

Salisbury, NC

PROJECT: Salisbury VA Parking Garage

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

O

L O

G -D

E P

T H

T O

B O

T T

O M

O F

P A

G E

LO

G S

.G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N _S

T D

_T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

6/

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

T E

S T

T Y

P E

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H

(t sf

S T

R A

IN

STRENGTH TEST

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL-PL-PI

ELEVATION (Ft.)

Surface Elev.: 718 (Ft.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

D E

P T

H

F t.)

4.0

24.0

35.0

FILL: CONSISTING OF SAND SILT, tan brown, medium stiff, trace gravel

SANDY SILT (ML), tan brown, stiff to hard

SILTY FINE SAND (SM), dark brown, very dense

SILTY SAND (SM), brown gray, dense

3-2-3 N=5

2-6-13 N=19

14-19-29 N=48

7-9-13 N=22

3-4-10 N=14

12-19-24 N=43

10-12-19 N=31

13-24-29 N=53

13-14-17 N=31

See Exhibit A-2

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

LOCATION

DEPTH

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

SITE:

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Advancement Method:

Rotary Wash

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with soil cuttings

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, North Carolina

Notes:

Project No.: 70135144

Drill Rig: 975

Boring Started: 11/7/2013

BORING LOG NO. B-4

Guidon Design, Inc.CLIENT:

Driller: C. Fredrychowski

Boring Completed: 11/7/2013

A-11

See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any).

Exhibit:

See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures.

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

Salisbury, NC

PROJECT: Salisbury VA Parking Garage

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

O

L O

G -D

E P

T H

T O

B O

T T

O M

O F

P A

G E

LO

G S

.G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N _S

T D

_T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

6/

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

T E

S T

T Y

P E

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H

(t sf

S T

R A

IN

STRENGTH TEST

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL-PL-PI

ELEVATION (Ft.)

Surface Elev.: 718 (Ft.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

D E

P T

H

F t.)

43.0

65.0

SILTY SAND (SM), brown gray, dense (continued)

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK

Boring Terminated at 65 Feet

9-15-18 N=33

12-30-50/5" N=50/5"

18-37-50/4" N=50/4"

50/2" N=50/2"

21-39-50/5" N=50/5"

50/2" N=50/2"

See Exhibit A-2

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

LOCATION

DEPTH

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

SITE:

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Advancement Method:

Rotary Wash

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with soil cuttings

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, North Carolina

Notes:

Project No.: 70135144

Drill Rig: 975

Boring Started: 11/7/2013

BORING LOG NO. B-4

Guidon Design, Inc.CLIENT:

Driller: C. Fredrychowski

Boring Completed: 11/7/2013

A-12

See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any).

Exhibit:

See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures.

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

Salisbury, NC

PROJECT: Salisbury VA Parking Garage

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

O

L O

G -D

E P

T H

T O

B O

T T

O M

O F

P A

G E

LO

G S

.G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N _S

T D

_T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

6/

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

T E

S T

T Y

P E

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H

(t sf

S T

R A

IN

STRENGTH TEST

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL-PL-PI

ELEVATION (Ft.)

Surface Elev.: 718 (Ft.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

D E

P T

H

F t.)

28.0

TOPSOIL

SILT (MH), gray green, medium stiff to very stiff

SILTY FINE SAND, tan brown, dense to very dense

3-4-4 N=8

3-4-4 N=8

3-4-5 N=9

3-7-7 N=14

11-13-15 N=28

4-7-7 N=14

3-3-5 N=8

18-40-38 N=78

14-20-21 N=41

5728 43-38-5

718.5

See Exhibit A-2

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

LOCATION

DEPTH

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

SITE:

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Advancement Method:

Rotary Wash

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with soil cuttings

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, North Carolina

Notes:

Project No.: 70135144

Drill Rig: 975

Boring Started: 11/6/2013

BORING LOG NO. B-5

Guidon Design, Inc.CLIENT:

Driller: C. Fredrychowski

Boring Completed: 11/6/2013

A-13

See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any).

Exhibit:

See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures.

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

Salisbury, NC

PROJECT: Salisbury VA Parking Garage

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

O

L O

G -D

E P

T H

T O

B O

T T

O M

O F

P A

G E

LO

G S

.G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N _S

T D

_T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

6/

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

T E

S T

T Y

P E

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H

(t sf

S T

R A

IN

STRENGTH TEST

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL-PL-PI

ELEVATION (Ft.)

Surface Elev.: 719 (Ft.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

D E

P T

H

F t.)

SILTY FINE SAND, tan brown, dense to very dense (continued)

Boring Terminated at 40 Feet

29-29-26 N=55679

See Exhibit A-2

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

LOCATION

DEPTH

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

SITE:

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Advancement Method:

Rotary Wash

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with soil cuttings

2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, North Carolina

Notes:

Project No.: 70135144

Drill Rig: 975

Boring Started: 11/6/2013

BORING LOG NO. B-5

Guidon Design, Inc.CLIENT:

Driller: C. Fredrychowski

Boring Completed: 11/6/2013

A-14

See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any).

Exhibit:

See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures.

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

Salisbury, NC

PROJECT: Salisbury VA Parking Garage

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

O

L O

G -D

E P

T H

T O

B O

T T

O M

O F

P A

G E

LO

G S

.G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N _S

T D

_T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

6/

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

T E

S T

T Y

P E

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H

(t sf

S T

R A

IN

STRENGTH TEST

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL-PL-PI

ELEVATION (Ft.)

Surface Elev.: 719 (Ft.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

D E

P T

H

F t.)

18.0

TOPSOIL

SANDY SILT (ML), red brown, medium stiff to stiff

SILT (MH), tan-orange white, medium stiff to hard, (sapprolitic)

2-4-4 N=8

3-4-5 N=9

5-5-7 N=12

7-4-…