B420 Geotechnical Report.pdf

GEOServices, LLC, 2561 Willow Point Way Knoxville, TN Phone 37931 (865) 573-6130 Fax (865) 573-6132

January 10, 2019

C2RL Engineers, Inc.

240 West Bessemer Street

Alcoa, Tennessee 37701

ATTENTION: Ms. Becky Bowe P.E.

bbowe@c2rl.com

Reference: REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

134th Building B420 Improvements

Alcoa, Blount County, Tennessee

GEOServices Project No. 21-18900

Dear Ms. Bowe:

At your request, GEOServices, LLC (GEOS) has completed the limited geotechnical exploration for the subject site. Our services were proposed in general accordance with our Proposal No. 11-

18497B, dated October 30, 2018. The purpose of our services was to explore the site subsurface conditions and provide geotechnical recommendations for the project.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

The project site is located at the Tennessee Air National Guard (TANG) Base just northwest of

McGhee Tyson Airport in Alcoa, Tennessee. More specifically, the project site is located at

Building B420. Project information was provided by you via emails and communication which included an aerial image of the site indicating the areas of proposed construction. It is our understanding that it is proposed to construct a new elevator on the southern side of Building B420.

We have not been provided information regarding foundation loads associated with the elevator;

however, we anticipate the elevator walls will be constructed using CMU blocks supported by a shallow foundation. Additionally, we have observed settlement and cracking of the exterior walls and concrete floor slab in various rooms within the western portions of Building B420. We were mailto:bbowe@c2rl.com

Report of Limited Geotechnical Exploration GEOServices Project No. 21-18900

134th Building B420 Improvements – Alcoa, Tennessee January 10, 2019 requested to perform a geotechnical exploration to explore both the area of proposed elevator and the area within the building where the floor slab distress was observed.

FIELD EXPLORATION & LABORATORY TESTING

The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling two (2) soil test borings on the exterior of the building. Boring B-3 was drilled in the southeastern area of the building near the proposed elevator while boring B-4 was drilled in the southwestern area near the area of the distressed floor slab/exterior wall movement. The subsurface conditions in the area of the distressed floor slab on the interior of the building were also explored by drilling two (2) hand auger borings. The borings were located in the field by GEOServices personnel. Drilling of soil test borings was performed on November 29, 2018 and the hand auger borings were performed on December 5, 2018. The soil test borings were advanced using 3.25-inch inside diameter hollow stem augers (HSA) with a

CME55 track-mounted drill rig.

Within each soil test boring, standard penetration testing (SPT) and split-spoon sampling were performed at 2.5 feet intervals in the upper 10 feet and at 5 feet intervals thereafter. The drilling was performed in accordance with ASTM D 6151 (hollow stem auger drilling). SPT and split-spoon sampling were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1586.

In split–spoon sampling, a standard 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler is driven into the bottom of the boring with a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler the last 12 inches of the standard 18 inches of total penetration is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance (N-value). These N-values are indicated on the boring logs at the testing depth and provide an indication of consistency of cohesive materials.

The floor slab at the hand auger boring locations was first cored using a 4-inch diameter thin wall bit. The hand auger boring was advanced by manually twisting a sharpened steel auger into the ground. The subsurface materials encountered were identified, in the field, from cuttings brought to the surface by the augers. At selected intervals, the auger was removed, and the soil consistency measured using a Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP). The conical point was first seated to penetrate loose cuttings, then driven additional increments of 1-3/4 inches with blows from a 15-pound hammer falling 20 inches. The number of hammer blows required to achieve this penetration was recorded and is an index to the soil consistency. The interior borings were backfilled using crushed aggregate removed from the boring and the concrete slab patched.

The depths in this report reference the existing ground surface at the site that existed at the time of the exploration. The approximate locations of the borings performed on site are referenced in

Figure 2. Detailed logs for soil test borings can be found attached to this report.

After completion of the field drilling and sampling phase of this project, the soil samples were returned to our laboratory where they were visually classified in general accordance with the

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS – ASTM D 2487) by a GEOServices geotechnical professional. Select samples were then tested for moisture content (ASTM D 2216) and Atterberg limits testing (ASTM D 4318). The laboratory test results can be found attached to this report.

GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

The project site, and most of East Tennessee, lies in the Appalachian Valley and Ridge

Physiographic Province. The Province is characterized by elongated, northeasterly-trending ridges formed on highly resistant sandstones and shales. Between ridges, broad valleys and rolling hills are formed primarily on less resistant limestones, dolomites and shales.

Published geologic information indicates that the project site is underlain by bedrock from the

Chepultepec Dolomite formation of the Knox Group. This formation is primarily composed of light-gray, fine-grained, and well-bedded dolomite with minor amounts of limestone and quartz sandstone. The Chepultepec Dolomite formation typically weathers to produce a thick residual clay overburden. Silica in the form of chert is resistant to weathering and is typically scattered throughout the residuum.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The following subsurface description is of a generalized nature to highlight the subsurface stratification features and material characteristics at the boring locations. The boring logs included in Appendix A of this report should be reviewed for specific information at each boring location.

Information on actual subsurface conditions exists only at the specific boring locations and is relevant only to the time that this exploration was performed. Variations may occur and should be expected at the site.

Surficial

The borings were drilled in the lawn areas on the exterior of the building and encountered 4 inches of topsoil at the ground surface. The hand auger borings located inside the building revealed the slab to be approximately 3 inches thick and underlain by approximately 3 inches of basestone.

Fill Soils

Underlying the topsoil and basestone layers, existing fill soils were encountered in each boring to depths ranging from 1 to 8 feet beneath the existing ground surface. Fill refers to materials that have been moved and placed by man. The fill generally consisted of varying shades of brown fat clays (CH) with trace organics. Underlying the interior concrete slab, each hand auger boring was terminated at 1 foot without penetrating the existing fill, therefore, fill in these areas could extend beyond this depth.

The SPT N-values of the existing fill, used to evaluate the consistency of subsurface soils, ranged from 5 to 13 blows per foot (bpf), indicating a relative soil consistency of firm to stiff. Additionally, the DCPT N-values resulted in a range of 8 to 14 blows per interval (bpi), indicating a relative consistency of firm to stiff.

Residual Soil

Residual soils were encountered underlying the fill in each of the exterior borings (B-3 and B-4)to depths of 40 and 50 feet, respectively. Residual soils are formed from the in-place weathering of underlying parent bedrock. The residual soil generally consisted of orangish brown, light brown, and reddish-brown fat (CH) to lean (CL) clays with varying amounts of sand and chert fragments.

The SPT N-values used to evaluate the consistency of the residual soil ranged from 2 to 12 blows per foot (bpf) indicating a relative soil consistency ranging from very soft to stiff. However, the soft soils were isolated to a zone in boring B-4 at a depth of about 43 feet. Generally, the residual soils were of firm to stiff consistency.

Auger Refusal

Materials sufficiently hard to cause refusal to the power auger used to advance the borings were not encountered to the depths explored. Auger refusal is a designation applied to any material that cannot be penetrated by the power auger.

Ground Water

Ground water was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the borings were backfilled in consideration of safety. This information is based solely on the subsurface data obtained from our exploration. Subsurface water levels may fluctuate due to seasonal changes in precipitation amounts. However, areas of perched water may exist in the overburden and/or near the contact with bedrock.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Proposed Elevator

The site appears suitable for the construction of the proposed elevator addition; however, some firm fill soils were encountered near the likely foundation bearing elevations. Given the presence of the firm existing fill soil, we recommend careful observation and testing at the time of construction.

Undercutting and replacement to correct foundation support conditions may be required where lower consistency soils are encountered.

Foundations for the proposed construction are expected to bear in existing fill which has been tested and approved as recommended. The recommended allowable soil bearing capacity for design of the foundations is 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). Undercutting and replacement of lower consistency soils will be required if encountered at the foundation bearing elevation. The requirement and method of foundation support correction should be determined based upon conditions observed by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction.

We recommend that continuous foundations be a minimum of 18 inches wide and isolated spread footings be a minimum of 24 inches wide to reduce the possibility of a localized punching shear failure. Exterior foundations should be designed to bear at least 18 inches below finished exterior grade to develop the design bearing pressure and to protect against frost heave.

Undercut excavations near the existing structure, if required, should be carefully evaluated with respect to the effect of the excavation on the materials supporting the structures. Under no circumstances should subgrade or foundation support materials be disturbed or undermined by the excavation, without a plan previously approved by the structural engineer.

For slab-on-grade construction, the site should be prepared as previously described. We recommend that the subgrade be topped with a minimum 4-inch layer of crushed stone to act as a capillary moisture block. The subgrade should be proofrolled and approved prior to the placement of the crushed stone. Based on the conditions encountered on this site, we recommend that the floor slabs be designed using a subgrade modulus of 125 pounds per cubic inch (pci). This modulus is appropriate for small diameter loads (i.e. a 1ft x 1ft plate) and should be adjusted for wider loads. The grade slab should be jointed around columns and along footing supported walls so that the slab and foundations can settle differentially without damage.

A geotechnical representative should be retained to perform foundation subgrade tests to confirm that the recommendations provided in this report are consistent with the site conditions encountered. A

DCP is commonly utilized to provide information that is compared to the data obtained in the geotechnical report. Where unacceptable materials are encountered, the material should be remediated at the geotechnical engineer's direction.

Based on the results of the geotechnical exploration, we estimate total and differential foundation settlements of less than ¾ of an inch and ½ of an inch, respectively. The settlement estimates where developed considering maximum continuous foundation loads on the order of 4 kips per linear foot (kpf) and an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. We note that the total settlement and differential settlement of the new addition will be relative to the existing building and the connections between the new and existing structures should be designed to be flexible.

Additionally, this information assumes that the site is prepared in accordance with our recommendations provided in this report. If, during the design of the structure, these parameters are determined to be incorrect, we should be notified to reevaluate the settlements for the building.

Exterior Wall Distress

Based in the testing and observations made in the area of exterior wall distress, it is our professional opinion that the destress was likely caused from the consolidation of unconsolidated (undisturbed) firm soils in the immediate area of the foundation elements in this area of the building. There is a note on the original drawing for this building on Figure 1 on page A3.1 stating “6-inch minimum gravel on compacted fill or undisturbed ground” for the subgrade. It is very likely that this area was originally near grade prior to construction and has naturally consolidated due to the area never being subjected to external loading. Firm soils could have been overlooked if proofrolling with a fully-loaded, tandem-axle dump truck or other pneumatic-tired construction equipment of similar weight was not required at the time of construction.

It is our recommendation to utilize helical piers to stabilize the foundations surrounding the southern corner where the distress was apparent. Helical piers consist of single flights of screw helix along a shaft installed with rotary installation equipment. A second but similar type system is often referred to as “push piers” which is installed by hydraulically advancing a steel bar to an underlying hard layer. Push Piers are not recommended at this site as a hard layer on which the push piers would bear was not encountered.

These piers can be installed in relatively confined areas and the installation produces minimal vibration. The shafts are designed to withstand the compressive and tensile foundation loads as well as the installing torque. The individual screw helixes act similar to small footing foundations.

The foundation loads should be transferred through the fill layer to competent residual soils, partially weathered rock and/or rock. Should the soils be corrosive, special coatings are applied at the time of installation or cathodic protection can be used. Because of the limited subsurface data available at this site, torque value should be monitored during installation to estimate soil consistency as the helix penetrates through the different strata. The pier design should be based on the soil test boring information, considering the maximum pier torque value may not be achievable in the firm soils. A suggested method of testing is to use two helical reaction anchors to secure a reaction beam as load is applied on a central test anchor. Foundation anchors have reportedly been installed in areas roughly two feet wide and five feet of head room.

Floor Slab Distress

Based on the testing and observations made inside rooms 101 and 121, it is our professional opinion that the slab settlement is partially a result of the failure of the foundation supporting the building. We believe the slab distress is also due to the consolidation of the material under the slab. The material below the slab was loose open graded stone (i.e. #57 stone) underlain by firm to stiff fat clay. Once the exterior footers are stabilized, the floors can be leveled. We recommend the material be stabilized and slab be lifted using polyurethane grout (foam) injection. Foam injection is performed by advancing small diameter injection tubes to varying depths within the zone to be improved. Polymer foam is then injected through the tubes where it expands to consolidate (or compact) the soft/soil materials. The foam injection plan is designed by the specialty contactor who performs the work. The injection plan would include the locations and depths of injection points. The foam injection should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer to document the injection process and to confirm the work generally conforms to the recommended process. Once the foam injection is complete, we recommend the cracks be filled with a non-shrink grout or epoxy to provide a smooth surface.

SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA

In accordance with the International Building Code, 2012/2015, we are providing the following seismic design information. After evaluating the SPT N-value data from the soil test borings and based on our experience in the site vicinity, it was determined that the subsurface conditions at the site most closely matched the description for “Seismic Site Class D” or “Stiff Soil Profile”. Table

1 provides the spectral response accelerations for both short and 1-second periods, which may be used for design.

Table 1 – Seismic Design Parameters

The short and 1-second period values indicate the structure should be assigned a Seismic Design

Category “C” using the published information. The provided values are based on the results of our field exploration and the assumption that the structure will be designed utilizing a Risk Category I, II or III. If these assumptions are incorrect, we should be contacted to reevaluate the seismic design information.

If it is thought that an improvement of the seismic site class may provide an economic advantage to this project, we recommend testing be performed to evaluate the shear wave velocity profile of the subsurface materials. The use of shear wave velocity data to evaluate the site class is a less conservative, but costlier, approach than using the SPT N-values. Based on our experience with other sites in a similar geologic setting, it is likely shear wave velocity testing can be used to develop a less conservative site class definition for this site.

SITE PREPARATION

Subgrade

Site stripping within the proposed construction areas should include the removal of vegetation, topsoil, rock fragments greater than 6 inches, gravel, and other debris. The stripping operations should extend a minimum of 10 feet beyond building footprints, where possible. Existing underground utilities to be abandoned should be removed and the resulting excavations backfilled using structural soil fill or compacted dense graded aggregate. Utilities which are to remain should be routed such that they are not located below the proposed structure.

Structure Ss S1 SDS SD1 g g g g

134th Building B420 Improvements 0.423 0.126 0.412 0.193

After the completion of stripping operations and excavation to reach the planned subgrade elevation, we recommend that the subgrade be proofrolled with a fully-loaded, tandem-axle dump truck or other pneumatic-tired construction equipment of similar weight. The geotechnical engineer or his representative should observe proofrolling. Areas judged to perform unsatisfactorily (e.g., pumping and/or rutting) by the engineer should be undercut and replaced with structural soil fill or remediated at the geotechnical engineer's recommendation. Areas to receive structural soil fill should also be proofrolled prior to the placement of new fill.

Structural Soil Fill

Material considered suitable for use as structural fill should be clean soil free of organics, trash, and other deleterious material, containing no rock fragments greater than 6 inches in dimension.

Preferably, structural soil fill material should have a standard Proctor maximum dry density of 90 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), or greater, and a plasticity index (PI) of 35 percent, or less. The material to be used as structural fill should be tested by the geotechnical engineer to confirm that it meets the project requirements before being placed. Based on the limited laboratory testing performed, the site soils appear suitable for reuse as new fill; however, moisture conditioning may be required.

Structural fill should be placed in loose, horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Each lift should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the soil’s maximum dry density per the standard

Proctor method (ASTM D 698) and within the range of minus (-) 2 percent to plus (+) 3 percent of the optimum moisture content. Each lift should be tested by geotechnical personnel to confirm that the contractors’ method is capable of achieving the project requirements before placing subsequent lifts. Areas which have become soft or frozen should be removed before additional structural fill is placed.

Dense Graded Aggregate Fill

Dense-graded aggregate (DGA) fill may be used as backfill in undercut excavations and in utility trench excavations. The DGA used for this section should be Type A and Grading D or E in accordance with Section 903.05 of the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) specifications. The DGA fill should be placed in loose, horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Each lift should be compacted to at least 98 percent of maximum dry density per the standard Proctor method (ASTM D 698). Each lift should be compacted, tested by geotechnical personnel and approved before placing subsequent lifts.

EXCAVATIONS

Auger refusal was not encountered in the borings of this exploration to the depths explored. Auger refusal conditions generally correspond to materials which require hoe-ramming and/or blasting for removal. Typically, soils penetrated by augers can be removed with conventional earthmoving equipment. However, excavation equipment varies, and field refusal conditions may vary. Generally, the weathering process is erratic and variations in the rock profile can occur in small lateral distances.

It is, therefore, possible that some partially weathered rock and/or rock pinnacles or ledges may exists at more shallow depths between our boring locations. Based on our understanding of the project information and the soil test boring data, we do not anticipate difficult excavation will present a significant challenge at this site.

Excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations, including OSHA (29 CFR Part 1926) excavation trench safety standards. The contractor is usually solely responsible for site safety. This information is provided only as a service, and under no circumstances should GEOServices be assumed responsible for construction site safety.

Work near existing structures should be evaluated with respect to the effect of the excavation on the materials supporting the structures. Under no circumstances should foundation support materials be disturbed or undermined by the excavation, without a plan previously approved by the structural engineer.

CLOSURE

We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service to you on this project. Please contact us with any questions you may have regarding this letter.

Sincerely, GEOServices, LLC

Michael R. Bridges, E.I. T. Brian Williamson, P.E.

Geotechnical Project Manager Geotechnical Department Manager

TN 118,861

MRB/TBW/MBH:mrb

Attachments: Figures and Boring Logs

FIGURETBW

N.T.S.

134th Building B420

Alcoa, TN

SITE LOCATION PLAN

MBH

12.10.18

21-18900

N

1.) BASE MAP: USGS Qaud Map (Maryville and Louisville MAPS)

NOTES:

Improvements

B-3

B-4

RM121

RM101

Knoxville, Tennessee 37931 2561 Willow Point Way

Fax: 865-539-8252 Office: 865-539-8242

FIGURETBW

N.T.S.

BORING LOCATION PLAN

MBH

12.10.18 21-18900

1.) BORING LOCATIONS ARE SHOWN IN GENERAL

ARRANGMENT ONLY.

2.) DO NOT USE BORING LOCATIONS FOR

DETERMINATIONS OF DISTANCES OR QUANTITIES.

3.) BASE MAP PROVIDED BY: GOOGLE EARTH, INC.

LOCATION OF SOIL TEST BORING

NOTES:

N

134th Building B420

Alcoa, TN

Improvements

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCALE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROVED BY:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAWN BY:

AutoCAD SHX Text

JOB NO.:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRILLER

ON-SITE REP.

BORING NO. / LOCATION

DATE 1006.0 FT.

REFUSAL: No DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. COMPLETION: DEPTH Dry FT.

SAMPLED 40.0 FT. 12.2 M ELEV. FT.

TOP OF ROCK DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. AFTER 1 HRS: DEPTH TNP FT.

BEGAN CORING DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. ELEV. FT.

FOOTAGE CORED (LF) FT. AFTER 24 HRS. DEPTH TNP FT.

BOTTOM OF HOLE DEPTH 40.0 FT. ELEV. 966.0 FT. ELEV. FT.

BORING ADVANCED BY: X PROPOSED FFE: 1006.5 FT..

FIELD LABORATORY

SAMPLE RESULTS RESULTS

FT. ELEV. TYPE N-Value Qu LL PI %M

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

134th Building B420 Improvements LOG OF BORING B-3 Alcoa, Tennessee SHEET 1 OF

GEOServices Project # 21-18900 J. Javins

B-3 DRY ON COMPLETION ? Yes

November 29, 2018 SURFACE ELEV. WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)

POWER AUGERING

STRATUM SAMPLE DEPTH SAMPLE

DEPTH FROM TO OR STRATUM DESCRIPTION

FT. FT. RUN NO.

2 - 2 - 3 N = 5

3 - 5 - 6 N = 11

2 - 4 - 8 N = 12

5.0 1001.0

1.0 2.5 1

2.5 1003.5

6.0 7.5 3

3.5 5.0 2

7.5 998.5

3 - 4 - 7 N = 118.5 10.0

10.0 996.0

3 - 3 - 4 N = 7

12.5 993.5

17.5

13.5 15.0 5

18.5 20.0 2 - 2 - 3 N = 5

Continued

Fat CLAY (CH) - orangish brown and reddish brown - moist - stiff to firm

(RESIDUUM)

15.0 991.0

Topsoil (4 Inches)

Fat CLAY (CH) - with trace organics - reddish brown - moist

(FILL)

988.5

20.0 986.0

REMARKS:

18.7

28.5

27.5

35.6

35.3

44.2

ON-SITE REP.

BORING NO. / LOCATION

DATE 1006.0 FT.

REFUSAL: No DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. COMPLETION: DEPTH Dry FT.

SAMPLED 40.0 FT. 12.2 M ELEV. FT.

TOP OF ROCK DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. AFTER 1 HRS: DEPTH TNP FT.

BEGAN CORING DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. ELEV. FT.

FOOTAGE CORED (LF) FT. AFTER 24 HRS. DEPTH TNP FT.

BOTTOM OF HOLE DEPTH 40.0 FT. ELEV. 966.0 FT. ELEV. FT.

BORING ADVANCED BY: X PROPOSED FFE: 1006.5 FT..

FIELD LABORATORY

SAMPLE RESULTS RESULTS

FT. ELEV. TYPE N-Value Qu LL PI %M

SS

SS

SS

SS

134th Building B420 Improvements LOG OF BORING B-3 Alcoa, Tennessee SHEET 2 OF

SAMPLE DEPTH SAMPLE

GEOServices Project # 21-18900 J. Javins

B-3 DRY ON COMPLETION ? Yes

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

FT. FT. RUN NO.

November 29, 2018 SURFACE ELEV. WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)

POWER AUGERING

STRATUM

DEPTH FROM TO OR

2 - 3 - 4 N = 7

22.5 983.5

(continued)

36.623.5 25.0 7

25.0 981.0

43.6 2 - 3 - 5 N = 828.5

27.5 978.5

30.0 8

30.0 976.0

4 - 4 - 5 N = 933.5 35.0 9 41.0

32.5 973.5

35.0 971.0

2 - 6 - 6 N = 12 32.5

968.5

38.5 40.0 10

40.0 966.0 Boring Terminated at 40.0 Feet

REMARKS:

Lean CLAY (CL) - light brown and orangish brown - moist - firm to stiff

(RESIDUUM)

37.5

ON-SITE REP.

BORING NO. / LOCATION

DATE 1006.0 FT.

REFUSAL: No DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. COMPLETION: DEPTH Dry FT.

SAMPLED 50.0 FT. 15.2 M ELEV. FT.

TOP OF ROCK DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. AFTER 1 HRS: DEPTH TNP FT.

BEGAN CORING DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. ELEV. FT.

FOOTAGE CORED (LF) FT. AFTER 24 HRS. DEPTH TNP FT.

BOTTOM OF HOLE DEPTH 50.0 FT. ELEV. 956.0 FT. ELEV. FT.

BORING ADVANCED BY: X PROPOSED FFE: FT..

FIELD LABORATORY

SAMPLE RESULTS RESULTS

FT. ELEV. TYPE N-Value Qu LL PI %M

SS

SS 75 49

SS

SS

SS

SS

134th Building B420 Improvements LOG OF BORING B-4 Alcoa, Tennessee SHEET 1 OF

SAMPLE DEPTH SAMPLE

GEOServices Project # 21-18900 J. Javins

B-4 DRY ON COMPLETION ? Yes

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

FT. FT. RUN NO.

November 29, 2018 SURFACE ELEV. WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)

POWER AUGERING

STRATUM

3 - 3 - 4 N = 7 35.3

DEPTH FROM TO OR

2 - 3 - 3 N = 6 34.8

Topsoil (4 Inches)

5.0 1001.0

1.0 2.5 1

2.5 1003.5

6.0 7.5 3

3.5 5.0 2

8.5

6 - 5 - 8 N = 13 33.2

36.2

7.5 998.5

5 - 4 - 4 N = 8 34.710.0 4

10.0 996.0

2 - 4 - 4 N = 8

12.5 993.5

13.5 15.0 5

15.0 991.0

3 - 3 - 4 N = 7 39.3

20.0 986.0

17.5 988.5

Continued

REMARKS:

Fat CLAY (CH) - with trace organics - orangish brown and reddish brown - moist

(FILL)

Fat CLAY (CH) - with trace sand - orangish brown, reddish brown and tan - moist - firm

(RESIDUUM)

18.5 20.0 6

ON-SITE REP.

BORING NO. / LOCATION

DATE 1006.0 FT.

REFUSAL: No DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. COMPLETION: DEPTH Dry FT.

SAMPLED 50.0 FT. 15.2 M ELEV. FT.

TOP OF ROCK DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. AFTER 1 HRS: DEPTH TNP FT.

BEGAN CORING DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. ELEV. FT.

FOOTAGE CORED (LF) FT. AFTER 24 HRS. DEPTH TNP FT.

BOTTOM OF HOLE DEPTH 50.0 FT. ELEV. 956.0 FT. ELEV. FT.

BORING ADVANCED BY: X PROPOSED FFE: FT..

FIELD LABORATORY

SAMPLE RESULTS RESULTS

FT. ELEV. TYPE N-Value Qu LL PI %M

SS

SS

SS

SS

134th Building B420 Improvements LOG OF BORING B-4 Alcoa, Tennessee SHEET 2 OF

GEOServices Project # 21-18900 J. Javins

B-4 DRY ON COMPLETION ? Yes

November 29, 2018 SURFACE ELEV. WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)

POWER AUGERING

STRATUM SAMPLE DEPTH SAMPLE

DEPTH FROM TO OR STRATUM DESCRIPTION

FT. FT. RUN NO.

5 - 5 - 4 N = 9

(continued)

21.4

Lean CLAY (CL) - with chert gravel - light brown, orangish brown and reddish brown - moist - stiff to very soft

(RESIDUUM)

22.5 983.5

23.5 25.0 7

25.0 981.0

3 - 5 - 7 N = 12 35.8

27.5 978.5

28.5 30.0 8

30.0 976.0

3 - 2 - 3 N = 5 37.5

32.5 973.5

33.5 35.0 9

35.0 971.0

2 - 2 - 3 N = 5 37.8

37.5 968.5

Continued

REMARKS:

38.5 40.0 10

40.0 966.0

ON-SITE REP.

BORING NO. / LOCATION

DATE 1006.0 FT.

REFUSAL: No DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. COMPLETION: DEPTH Dry FT.

SAMPLED 50.0 FT. 15.2 M ELEV. FT.

TOP OF ROCK DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. AFTER 1 HRS: DEPTH TNP FT.

BEGAN CORING DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. ELEV. FT.

FOOTAGE CORED (LF) FT. AFTER 24 HRS. DEPTH TNP FT.

BOTTOM OF HOLE DEPTH 50.0 FT. ELEV. 956.0 FT. ELEV. FT.

BORING ADVANCED BY: X PROPOSED FFE: FT..

FIELD LABORATORY

SAMPLE RESULTS RESULTS

FT. ELEV. TYPE N-Value Qu LL PI %M

SS

SS

59.2

41.2

134th Building B420 Improvements LOG OF BORING B-4 Alcoa, Tennessee SHEET 3 OF

GEOServices Project # 21-18900 J. Javins

B-4 DRY ON COMPLETION ? Yes

November 29, 2018 SURFACE ELEV. WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)

POWER AUGERING

STRATUM SAMPLE DEPTH SAMPLE

DEPTH FROM TO OR STRATUM DESCRIPTION

FT. FT. RUN NO.

1 - 1 - 1 N = 2

(continued)

Lean CLAY (CL) - with chert gravel - light brown, orangish brown and reddish brown - moist - stiff to very soft

(RESIDUUM)

1 - 4 - 3 N = 712

42.5 963.5

43.5 45.0 11

45.0 961.0

47.5 958.5

48.5 50.0

50.0 956.0

52.5 953.5

55.0 951.0

57.5

60.0 946.0

Boring Terminated at 50.0 Feet

REMARKS:

948.5

Date:

Avg. Consistency LL PL PI Moisture Soil Type 0 - 3

3 - 6 6

6 - 12 12 14 stiff 67 28 39 29.4 Fat CLAY (CH)

0 - 3

3 - 6 6 8 firm

6 - 12 12 8 firm 60 20 40 22.4 Fat CLAY (CH)

* - DCP Refusal on rock, soil likely very stiff.

RM101

RM121

Boring Terminated at 12 Inches

Basestone (3 Inches)

Concrete Floor Slab (3 inches)

Basestone

Fill

Boring Terminated at 12 Inches

Basestone

Fill

Basestone (3 Inches)

Concrete Floor Slab (3 inches)

Dynamic Cone PenetrometerThickness (in)

134th Building B420

21-18900

Colby Nix, Aaron Keys

Project Name:

GEOS Project No:

GEOS Personnel:

Hand Auger - DCP - Logs

Location Material Type Depth of Test

(in)

Lab Data / Notes

1/7/2019

Natural Percent Boring Sample Depth Moisture Soil Organic

Number Number (feet) Content LL PL PI Type Content B-3 1 1.0-2.5' 18.7%

2 3.5-5.0' 28.5% 3 6.0-7.5' 27.5% 4 8.5-10.0' 35.6% 5 13.5-15.0' 35.3% 6 18.5-20.0' 44.2% 7 23.5-25.0' 36.6% 8 28.5-30.0' 43.6% 9 33.5-35.0' 41.0% 10 38.5-40.0' 32.5%

B-4 1 1.0-2.5' 34.8%

2 3.5-5.0' 35.9% 75 26 49 CH

3 6.0-7.5' 33.2% 4 8.5-10.0' 34.7% 5 13.5-15.0' 36.2% 6 18.5-20.0' 39.3% 7 23.5-25.0' 21.4% 8 28.5-30.0' 35.8% 9 33.5-35.0' 37.5% 10 38.5-40.0' 37.8% 11 43.5-45.0' 59.2% 12 48.5-50.0' 41.2%

134th Building B420 Improvements

GEOServices Project No. 21-18900 December 18, 2018

SOIL DATA SUMMARY

Atterberg Limits

GEOServices, LLC - 2561 Willow Point Way Knoxville. Tennessee, 37931 - Phone: (865) 573-6130 Fax: (865) 573-6132

Natural Percent

Boring Sample Depth Moisture Soil Organic

Number Number (feet) Content LL PL PI Type Content

RM101 1 12" 29.4% 67 28 39 CH

RM121 1 12" 22.4% 60 20 40 CH

134th Building B420 Improvements

GEOServices Project No. 21-18900

December 12, 2018

SOIL DATA SUMMARY

Atterberg Limits

GEOServices, LLC - 2561 Willow Point Way Knoxville. Tennessee, 37931 - Phone: (865) 573-6130 Fax: (865) 573-6132