Geotech Report.pdf

GEOServices, LLC (865) 573-6130 500 Maryville Highway (865) 573-6132 fax Building 1, Suite B email: dhuckaba@geoservicesllc.com Seymour, Tennessee 37865 mobile: (865) 804-5298

April 3, 2008

C2RL, Inc.

Building 2 3286 North Park Boulevard Alcoa, Tennessee 37701

ATTENTION: Mr. Chris Soro, P.E.

Subject: REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION 241st C.E.I.T.C. Facility Chattanooga, Tennessee

GEOServices Project No. 21-08139

Dear Mr. Soro:

We are submitting the results of the geotechnical exploration performed for the subject project. The geotechnical exploration was performed in accordance with our Proposal No. 11-06236, dated

October 2, 2006. The following report presents our findings and recommendations for the proposed construction. Should you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of any further assistance, please contact us at your convenience.

Sincerely, GEOServices, LLC

Derek K. Kilday, E.I. Dennis A. Huckaba, P.E.

Geotechnical Professional Principal

TN 102,311

REPORT OF

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

241st C.E.I.T.C. FACILITY

CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE

GEOSERVICES PROJECT NO. 21-08139

Prepared for:

C2RL, Inc.

Building 2

3286 North Park Boulevard Alcoa, Tennessee 37701

Prepared by:

GEOServices, LLC 500 Maryville Highway

Building 1, Suite B Seymour, Tennessee 37865

April 3, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE

1.2 PROJECT INFORMATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION

1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY

2.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROGRAMS

2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION

2.2 LABORATORY TEST PROGRAM

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 SITE ASSESSMENT

4.2 SITE PREPARATION

4.2.1 Subgrade

4.2.2 Structural Soil Fill

4.3 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

4.3.1 Foundation Bearing Material

4.3.2 Floor Slabs

4.3.3 Seismic Conditions

4.4 PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

4.4.1 Flexible Pavement Design

4.4.2 Rigid Pavement Design

4.4.3 General

4.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION

5.2 EXCAVATIONS

5.3 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS

5.4 DRAINAGE AND SURFACE WATER CONCERNS

5.5 SINKHOLE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

6.0 LIMITATIONS

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - Figures and Test Boring Records APPENDIX B - Soil Laboratory Data

Report of Geotechnical Exploration GEOServices Project No. 21-08139 241st C.E.I.T.C. Facility – Chattanooga, Tennessee April 3, 2008

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this geotechnical exploration was to characterize the subsurface conditions for the design and construction of the proposed 241st C.E.I.T.C. facility and associated parking and drive areas in Chattanooga, Tennessee. This report provides recommendations for general site preparation, excavation and fill requirements, foundation design, slab-on-grade construction, pavements, and seismic design parameters.

1.2 PROJECT INFORMATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION

The project will consist of the construction of two new structures for the 241st C.E.I.T.C. facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The project site is located just north of the intersection of

Bonnyshire Drive and Bonny Oaks Drive in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The site is bordered by an existing commercial structure to the east and west, by Bonny Oaks Drive to the south, and by vacant wooded property to the north. The site currently exists as a heavily wooded parcel with grades varying from 700 feet msl on the eastern border of the site to approximately 780 feet msl in the northwest corner of the site. Based on the current grades, we anticipate that the structural areas of the site will be filled approximately 5 feet. Additionally, there is a drainage swale which runs along the western border of the site.

The two proposed single-story structures have footprints of approximately 106,000 square feet and

10,000 square feet, respectively. We anticipate the structures will be steel-framed construction with brick veneer and slab on grade. Maximum column loads of 100 kips and maximum continuous wall loads of 3 kips per linear foot are anticipated for this project.

1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY

This geotechnical exploration involved a site reconnaissance, field drilling, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis. The following sections of this report present discussions of the field exploration, site conditions, and conclusions and recommendations. Following the text of this report, Appendix A presents figures and test boring records. Appendix B presents a summary of laboratory test results.

The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the presence or absence of wetlands, or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, bedrock, surface water, groundwater, or air, on, or below, or around this site. Any statements in this report or on the boring logs regarding odors, colors, and unusual or suspicious items or conditions are strictly for informational purposes.

2.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROGRAMS

2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION

A total of 13 soil test borings were drilled and sampled at the approximate locations shown on

Figure 2, Appendix A. Boring locations were staked by GEOServices by measuring distances from known site reference points. Drilling was performed on March 17 and 18, 2008. The depths reference the ground surface at the time of our exploration. The borings were advanced using 3.25-inch inside diameter hollow stem augers (HSA) with a truck mounted drill rig. The drill crew worked in general accordance with ASTM D6151 (HSA Drilling). Sampling of overburden soils was accomplished using the standard penetration test procedure (ASTM D1586). Detailed test boring records are presented in Appendix A.

2.2 LABORATORY TEST PROGRAM

Collected soil samples were returned to our laboratory where they were visually classified by a geotechnical professional. Samples were selected and tested for natural moisture determinations

(ASTM D2216) and Atterberg limits determinations (ASTM D4318). The results of the laboratory testing are discussed in the following sections. A summary of these results is presented in Appendix

B.

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 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 site lies near the fault between the bedrock of the

Knox Group, which is not differentiated into its individual formations in this area, and bedrock of the lower Conasauga Group. The Knox Group, where undivided, consists of siliceous dolomite and interbedded limestone. These rock units weather to produce a thick residual clay overburden. Silica in the form of chert is resistant to weathering and is scattered in various quantities throughout the clay residuum. The Conasauga Group in this area consists of rocks from the Pumpkin Valley Shale, Nolichucky Shale, Rogersville Shale, and the Maryville and Rutledge

Limestones. The Pumpkin Valley Shale consists of red, greenish, or brownish yellow shale. Some of the beds are silty, sandy, or calcareous. Residual soils from the Pumpkin Valley Shale typically consist of various combinations of clay, silt, and fine sand with a stratified or shale-like structure.

The Nolichucky Shale formation consists of gray to brown thin shale with interbedded limestone and calcareous siltstone. The residuum of the Nolichucky Shale is typically composed of a brown, red, or faintly green shaly soil with red clay from limestone units. The Rogersville Shale consists of a light green, olive green, and purple shale and typically weathers to a thin acidic soil containing shale chips. The Maryville and Rutledge Limestones are massive and contain thin to irregular silty and dolomitic layers. The limestone in this area typically weathers to a red, deep soil containing no chert.

Since the bedrock formation at the site contains limestone, the site is susceptible to the typical carbonate hazards of irregular weathering, cave and cavern conditions, and overburden sinkholes. Carbonate rock, while appearing very hard and resistant, is soluble in slightly acidic water. This characteristic, plus differential weathering of the bedrock mass, is responsible for the hazards. Of these hazards, the occurrence of sinkholes is potentially the most damaging to overlying soil supported structures. In East Tennessee, sinkholes occur primarily due to differential weathering of the bedrock and “flushing” or “raveling” of overburden soils into the cavities in the bedrock. The loss of solids creates a cavity or “dome” in the overburden. Growth of the dome over time or excavation over the dome can create a condition in which rapid, local subsidence or collapse of the roof of the dome occurs.

3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

A surface layer of topsoil was encountered in each of the borings to depths ranging from 4 to 14 inches. Beneath the surficial topsoil layer, the borings encountered fill material and residual soils to predetermined boring termination depths ranging from 7.5 to 16 feet and/or auger refusal depth of 11 feet.

Existing fill was encountered in boring B-13 to a depth of 7.5 feet. Fill is material that has been transported and placed by man. The existing fill generally consisted of reddish brown and dark brown lean clays with varying amounts of rock fragments, trace root structure and some glass debris. The N-values of the standard penetration resistance tests (SPT) are used to evaluate the relative consistency or density of the subsurface soils. The N-values for the fill ranged from 4 blows per foot (bpf) to 7 bpf indicating a soil consistency of soft to firm. The natural moisture contents of the sampled fill soils ranged from 14.9 to 22.6 percent. Atterberg limits testing on a selected soil sample indicated a liquid limit (LL) of 23 and a plasticity index (PI) of 8 percent.

The tested soil is classified as CL (lean clay) in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification

System (USCS).

Beneath the existing fill in borings B-10 and B-13, and beneath the surficial topsoil layer in the remaining borings, residual soils were encountered to boring termination depths ranging from

7.5 to 16 feet. Residual soils are formed from the in-place weathering of the underlying bedrock.

The residual soils generally consisted of reddish brown and tan lean and fat clays with varying amounts of chert fragments. The N-values in the residual clays ranged from 2 to 52 bpf, indicating a soil consistency of very soft to very hard. The soft and very soft soils were isolated to the upper 2.5 feet across the site, while the very hard soils were encountered in areas of dense chert concentration. The residual soils were most commonly stiff to very stiff in consistency.

Moisture contents in the residual clays ranged from 17.2 to 38.3 percent. Atterberg limits testing on two soil samples indicated liquid limits (LL) of 33 and 60 percent and plasticity indices (PI) of 11 and 30 percent, respectively. The tested soil is classified as CL and CH (lean and fat clay) in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

Subsurface water was not observed in any of the borings at the time of drilling. Subsurface water levels may fluctuate due to seasonal changes in precipitation amounts or construction activities at near the site. However, areas of perched water may exist in the overburden. The contractor should determine that actual subsurface water level at the time of construction.

Refusal conditions were encountered in boring B-2 at a depth of 11 feet during field exploration.

Refusal is a designation applied to any material that cannot be penetrated by the power auger.

Auger refusal may indicate dense gravel or cobble layers, boulders, rock ledges or pinnacles, or the top of continuous bedrock.

The above subsurface description is of a generalized nature to highlight the major subsurface stratification features and material characteristics. The boring logs included in Appendix A should be reviewed for specific information at individual boring locations. The depth and thickness of the subsurface strata indicated on the test boring records were generalized from and interpolated between test locations. The transition between materials will be more or less gradual than indicated and may be abrupt. Information on actual subsurface conditions exists only at the specific boring locations and is relevant to the time the exploration was performed. Variations may occur and should be expected between boring locations. The stratification lines were used for our analytical purposes and, unless specifically stated otherwise, should not be used as the basis for design or construction cost estimates.

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 SITE ASSESSMENT

The results of the field exploration indicate that the site is generally suitable for the proposed construction, however, there are some inherent challenges associated with the development of this site. These challenges include the presence of unsuitable existing fill soils, the presence of soft surficial soils, and the underlying karst geology.

Fill soils were encountered in boring B-13 to a depth of 7.5 feet. We are not aware nor have we been provided testing records of the fill. It has been our experience, that fill can change abruptly and may contain unsuitable materials. Our observations of the fill revealed dark brown clays with varying amounts of rock fragments, root structure and some glass debris. It is our opinion that the fill does not appear to be consistent with a properly compacted or controlled engineered fill and is not suitable for the support of the proposed foundation loads. The fill soils encountered were isolated to the proposed truck parking area. We anticipate the majority of the soils will be capable of supporting paved areas with only limited risk of subsidence related damages. However, isolated areas are expected to require subgrade stabilization consisting of shallow undercut and replacement or geogrid stabilization.

Soft surficial soils were encountered in 6 of the 13 borings to depths of approximately 2.5 feet. The soft surficial soils are not suitable for support of foundation loads. As such, the existing soft surficial soils within the limits should be undercut and replaced with structural soil fill. Additionally, since we anticipate the majority of the building footprints will be located within fill areas of the site, the soft surficial soils may require drying and recompaction or undercutting prior to fill placement.

As mentioned previously, the site is underlain by carbonate rock. A certain degree of risk with respect to sinkhole formation and subsidence should be considered with any site located within geologic areas underlain by potentially soluble rock units. While a rigorous effort to assess the potential for sinkhole formation on this site was beyond the scope of this evaluation, our borings did not encounter obvious indications of sinkhole development. Based on a review of the United States

Geologic Survey map for this area and our experience with these formations at other sites, we consider that this site has a moderate potential for sinkhole activity.

Based on the conditions encountered in the geotechnical exploration and provided the recommendations set forth in the following sections of this report are followed, the proposed structure can be supported using shallow bearing foundations.

4.2 SITE PREPARATION

4.2.1 Subgrade

All vegetation, topsoil (4 to 14 inches), unsuitable existing fill soils, organic soils, rock fragments greater than 6 inches, and other debris should be removed from the proposed construction areas. In addition, due in the wooded areas of the site it is not unlikely to encounter deeper grubbing depths to remove the root zones. The softer surficial soils should also be observed by the Geotechnical engineer at the time of construction to determine if remedial efforts will be required. The depth of removal should be determined by GEOServices at the time of construction to assist the contractor in determining that sufficient but not excessive material is removed.

After completion of stripping operations and any required excavations to reach subgrade level, 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 qualified representative should observe proofrolling. Areas judged to perform unsatisfactorily by the engineer should be undercut and replaced with structural soil fill or remediated at the geotechnical engineer's direction. Areas to receive structural soil fill should also be proofrolled prior to the placement of any fill.

4.2.2 Structural Soil Fill

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

Preferably, structural soil fill 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. All material being used as soil fill should be tested and approved by the geotechnical engineer before being placed. Limited laboratory testing revealed that the majority of the on-site soils are suitable for use as structural soil fill. The deeper on site soils will likely require drying to achieve the recommended degree of compaction.

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 maximum dry density per the standard Proctor method

(ASTM D698) and within the range of minus 2 percent to plus 2 percent of the optimum moisture content. Each lift should be compacted, tested by geotechnical personnel and approved before placing any subsequent lifts. Any areas which have become soft or frozen should be removed before additional structural fill is placed.

4.3 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

4.3.1 Foundation Bearing Material

Foundations for the proposed construction are anticipated to bear in the existing stiff residual soils or newly placed structural fill. The recommended allowable soil bearing capacity for design of the foundations is 2,500 psf. Even if design loads would allow smaller sizes, we recommend that continuous footings 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. All exterior footings should be designed to bear at least 18 inches below finished exterior grade to protect against frost heave.

Foundation subgrade observations should be performed by a GEOServices geotechnical engineer, or his qualified representative, so that the recommendations provided in this report are consistent with the site conditions encountered. A dynamic cone penetrometer (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 excavated to stiff, suitable soils or remediated at the geotechnical engineer's direction. Typical remedial measures consist of undercutting, overexcavation, or combinations thereof.

4.3.2 Floor Slabs

For slab-on-grade construction, the site should be prepared as described previously. 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).

4.3.3 Seismic Conditions

International Building Code, 2006

In accordance with the International Building Code, 2006, the project site is classified as seismic site class D. The project site is located approximately 300 miles from the New Madrid seismic source zone as designated by the United States Geologic Survey

4.4 PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

4.4.1 Flexible Pavement Design

AASHTO flexible pavement design methods have been utilized for pavement recommendations.

Our recommendations are based on the assumptions that the subgrade has been properly prepared as described previously. Based on our experience with similar developments, we recommend the following standard duty and heavy duty flexible pavement section:

Recommended Thickness (Inches)

Pavement Materials Standard Duty Heavy Duty

Bituminous Asphalt Surface Mix 2.0 1.5

Bituminous Asphalt Base Mix -- 2.5

Compacted Crushed Aggregate Base 8.0 8.0

We recommend a base stone equivalent to a Type A, Class A and Grading D in accordance with

Section 903.05 of the Tennessee Department of Transportation specifications. The bituminous asphalt pavement should be Grading "E" as per Section 411 for the surface mix and Grading “B” as per section 307 for the binder mix. Compaction requirements for the crushed aggregate base and the bituminous asphalt pavement should generally follow Tennessee Department of Transportation specifications.

The recommended pavement thickness’ presented in this report section are considered typical and minimum for the assumed parameters in the general site area. We understand that budgetary considerations sometimes warrant thinner pavement sections than those presented. However, the client, the owner, and the project designers should be aware that thinner pavement sections may result in increased maintenance costs and lower than anticipated pavement life.

4.4.2 Rigid Pavement Design

The trash dumpster area or areas where tractor trailers are to be parked on the pavement and other areas of the project site with anticipated heavy vehicle loads, may require the use of rigid pavement.

For the dumpster area, we recommend that the concrete pavement extend to the full length of the truck beyond the edge of the trash compactor pad.

We recommend the following rigid pavement section:

Pavement Materials Recommended Thickness (Inches)

4,000 psi Type I Concrete 7.0

Compacted Crushed Aggregate Base 4.0

Concrete should be reinforced with welded wire fabric or reinforcing bars to assist in controlling cracking from drying shrinkage and thermal changes. Sawed or formed control joints should be included for each 225 square feet of area or less (15 feet by 15 feet). Saw cuts should not cut through the welded wire fabric or reinforcing steel and dowels should be utilized at formed and/or cold joints.

4.4.3 General

Our recommendations are based upon the assumption that the subgrade has been properly prepared as described in previous report sections and that any off-site soil borrow to be used to backfill to the final subgrade meets the requirements for structural soil fill.

All paved areas should be constructed with positive drainage to direct water off-site and to minimize surface water seeping into the pavement subgrade. The subgrade should have a minimum slope of 1 percent. In down grade areas, the basestone should extend through the slope to allow any water entering the basestone a path to exit. For rigid pavements, water-tight seals should also be provided at formed construction and expansion joints.

4.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

We are not aware of any planned retaining walls, however, we were requested to provide lateral earth pressures for the site. Therefore, we are providing equivalent fluid pressures for three backfill conditions for cantilever-type walls. These are 1) active earth pressure for granular backfill (clean sand or gravel), 2) at-rest earth pressure for granular backfill, and 3) at-rest earth pressure for fine-grained (silt or clay) backfill.

Condition 1 - The active earth pressure for granular backfill will result in an equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). If the granular backfill is to develop active earth pressure conditions, walls must be flexible and/or free to rotate or translate at the top approximately one inch laterally for every 20 feet of wall height.

Condition 2 - The at-rest earth pressure for granular backfill will result in an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf. For retaining walls that will not rotate or translate, such as building walls or other walls rigidly connected to structures, at-rest conditions will develop.

Condition 3 - Walls backfilled with fine-grained material (silt or clay) should be designed using the at-rest earth pressure whether restrained at the top, or not. Fine-grained soils typically creep over time which produces additional lateral stresses to the wall. The equivalent fluid pressure for this case is 70 pcf.

In all cases, forces from any expected surcharge loading including sloping backfill should be added to the equivalent fluid pressures. The walls should be property drained to remove water or hydrostatic pressure should be added to the design pressure. Also, all backfill for the walls should be placed in accordance with the structural fill recommendations described hereinafter.

For rigid, cast-in-place concrete walls, a friction factor of 0.3 between foundation concrete and the bearing soils may be used when evaluating friction. Also, an ultimate passive earth pressure resistance of well-compacted soil fill can be approximated by a uniformly acting resistance of 333 psf. However, to limit deformation when relying on passive strength, we recommend using a minimum safety factor of 3.0 applied to the ultimate passive resistance value.

5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION

Foundation excavations should be opened, the subgrade evaluated, remedial work performed, and concrete placed in an expeditious manner. Exposure to weather often reduces foundation support capabilities, thus necessitating remedial measures prior to concrete placement. It is also important that proper surface drainage be maintained both during construction (especially in terms of maintaining dry footing trenches) and after construction. Soil backfill for footings should be placed in accordance with the recommendations for structural fill presented herein.

5.2 EXCAVATIONS

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 to be responsible for construction site safety.

5.3 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS

The upper fine-grained soils encountered at this site will be sensitive to disturbances caused by construction traffic and changes in moisture content. During wet weather periods, increases in the moisture content of the soil can cause significant reduction in the soil strength and support capabilities. Construction traffic patterns should be varied to prevent the degradation of previously stable subgrade. In addition, soils which become wet may be slow to dry and thus significantly retard the progress of grading and compaction activities. We caution if site grading is performed during the wet weather season, methods such as discing and allowing the material to dry may be required to meet the required compaction recommendations. It will, therefore, be advantageous to perform earthwork and foundation construction activities during dry weather.

5.4 DRAINAGE AND SURFACE WATER CONCERNS

To reduce the potential for undercut, water should not be allowed to collect in the foundation excavations, on floor slab areas, or on prepared subgrades of the construction area either during or after construction. Undercut or excavated areas should be sloped toward one corner to facilitate removal of any collected rainwater, subsurface water, or surface runoff. Positive site surface drainage should be provided to reduce infiltration of surface water around the perimeter of the building and beneath the floor slabs. The grades should be sloped away from the building and surface drainage should be collected and discharged such that water is not permitted to infiltrate the backfill and floor slab areas of the building.

5.5 SINKHOLE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

As discussed in previous sections of this report, there is a sinkhole risk at this site considering the underlying limestone bedrock. As with essentially all projects in karst terrain, there is a potential for sinkhole development. If sinkhole conditions are encountered during construction or construction induced dropouts occur, the type of corrective action should be determined by GEOServices during subgrade construction.

Considerations when building within a sinkhole prone area are to provide positive surface drainage away from any proposed building or parking area both during and after construction. Backfill in utility trenches of other excavations should consist of compacted, well-graded material such as dense graded aggregate or compacted on site soils. The use of an open graded stone such as No. 57 stone is not recommended unless the stone backfill is provided an exit path and not allowed to pond.

6.0 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice for specific application to this project. This report is for our geotechnical work only, and no environmental assessment efforts have been performed. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon applicable standards of our practice in this geographic area at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.

The analyses and recommendations submitted herein are based, in part, upon the data obtained from the exploration. The nature and extent of variations between the borings will not become evident until construction. We recommend that GEOServices be retained to observe the project construction in the field. GEOServices cannot accept responsibility for conditions which deviate from those described in this report if not retained to perform construction observation and testing. If variations appear evident, then we will re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the structures are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions modified or verified in writing. Also, if the scope of the project should change significantly from that described herein, these recommendations may have to be re-evaluated.

APPENDIX A

Figures and Test Boring Records

FIGURE NO:

JOB NO: 21-08139

Site Vicinity Map

241st C.E.I.T.C.

Chattanooga, Tennessee

SCALE: NTS

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

DKK

DAH

April 1, 2008

Site

DRILLER

ON-SITE REP.

BORING NO. / LOCATION

DATE FT.

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

SAMPLED 15.0 FT. 4.6 M ELEV. FT.

TOP OF ROCK DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT.

BEGAN CORING DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. AFTER 24 HRS. DEPTH FT.

FOOTAGE CORED (LF) FT. ELEV. FT.

BOTTOM OF HOLE DEPTH 15.0 FT. ELEV. -15.0 FT.

BORING ADVANCED BY: X.

FIELD LABORATORY

SAMPLE RESULTS RESULTS

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

SS 4

SS 10

SS 9

SS 52*

SS 17

8.5

13.5

Lean CLAY (CL) with trace chert fragments -reddish brown and tan; very stiff; moist

(Residuum)

Boring Terminated at 15 feet

-7.5

-5.0

-15.0

-12.5

-10.0

DEPTH

STRATUM

FROM

-2.52.5

3.5

6.0

Chattanooga, Tennessee 241st C.E.I.T.C.

GEOServices Project No. 21-08139

FT.

1.0

*Inflated blow count due to encountering dense concentration of chert.REMARKS:

-20.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

-17.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

WASHBORINGPOWER AUGERING

SAMPLE DEPTH

15.0

10.0

SAMPLE

RUN NO.

7.5

FT.

2.5

DRY ON COMPLETION ? Yes

WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

B-1

Topsoil (12 inches)

Lean CLAY (CL) with chert fragments - tan; soft to stiff; very moist (Residuum)

March 17, 2008

5.0

SURFACE ELEV.

TO OR

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 1 OF

B-1

F. Jones

ON-SITE REP.

BORING NO. / LOCATION

DATE FT.

REFUSAL: Yes DEPTH 11.0 FT. ELEV. -11.0 FT. COMPLETION: DEPTH Dry FT.

SAMPLED 11.0 FT. 3.4 M ELEV. FT.

TOP OF ROCK DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT.

BEGAN CORING DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. AFTER 24 HRS. DEPTH FT.

FOOTAGE CORED (LF) FT. ELEV. FT.

BOTTOM OF HOLE DEPTH 11.0 FT. ELEV. -11.0 FT.

BORING ADVANCED BY: X.

FIELD LABORATORY

SS 2 18

SS 18 18.5

SS 11 33

SS 22 37.9

Lean CLAY (CL) with root structure - dark brown;

very stiff; moist (Residuum)

Topsoil (11 inches)

Yes

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 1 OF

B-2

F. Jones

WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

DRY ON COMPLETION ?B-2

WASHBORING

SAMPLE

SURFACE ELEV.

RUN NO.

POWER AUGERING

TO OR

March 17, 2008

DEPTH

STRATUM

20.0

REMARKS:

-20.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

-17.5

15.0

17.5

3.5

6.0

Chattanooga, Tennessee 241st C.E.I.T.C.

GEOServices Project No. 21-08139

FT.

1.0

-2.52.5

7.5

FT.

2.5

-7.5

-5.0

-15.0

-12.5

-10.0

10.0

Lean CLAY (CL) to Fat CLAY (CH) with black staining and chert fragments - reddish brown and tan; very stiff to stiff; moist (Residuum)

8.5

SAMPLE DEPTH

5.0

FROM

Auger Refusal at 11 feet

ON-SITE REP.

BORING NO. / LOCATION

DATE FT.

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

SAMPLED 15.0 FT. 4.6 M ELEV. FT.

TOP OF ROCK DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT.

BEGAN CORING DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. AFTER 24 HRS. DEPTH FT.

FOOTAGE CORED (LF) FT. ELEV. FT.

BOTTOM OF HOLE DEPTH 15.0 FT. ELEV. -15.0 FT.

BORING ADVANCED BY: X.

FIELD LABORATORY

SS 9

SS 14

SS 21

SS 23

SS 32

-15.0

5.0 2

-2.5

-7.5

-5.0

13.5

8.5

-12.5

-10.0

Boring Terminated at 15 feet

10.0

15.0

Lean CLAY (CL) with chert fragments - reddish brown and tan; very stiff to hard; moist

(Residuum)

2.5

7.5

FT.

2.51.0

3.5

6.0

Chattanooga, Tennessee 241st C.E.I.T.C.

20.0

REMARKS:

-20.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

-17.5

15.0

17.5

DEPTH

STRATUM SAMPLE

RUN NO.

B-3

F. Jones

SURFACE ELEV.

POWER AUGERING

March 18, 2008

GEOServices Project No. 21-08139

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 1 OF

WASHBORING

ORFROM

FT.

SAMPLE DEPTH

TO

DRY ON COMPLETION ? Yes

Lean CLAY (CL) with chert fragments - reddish brown and tan; stiff; very moist (Residuum)

WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

Topsoil (12 inches)

B-3

ON-SITE REP.

BORING NO. / LOCATION

DATE FT.

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

SAMPLED 15.0 FT. 4.6 M ELEV. FT.

TOP OF ROCK DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT.

BEGAN CORING DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. AFTER 24 HRS. DEPTH FT.

FOOTAGE CORED (LF) FT. ELEV. FT.

BOTTOM OF HOLE DEPTH 15.0 FT. ELEV. -15.0 FT.

BORING ADVANCED BY: X.

FIELD LABORATORY

SS 19 24

SS 24 25.2

SS 26 26.1

SS 20 36.8

SS 20 34.7

Topsoil (6 inches)

WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

B-4

WASHBORING

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 1 OF

DRY ON COMPLETION ? Yes

B-4

F. Jones

SURFACE ELEV.

POWER AUGERING

TO

March 18, 2008

DEPTH

STRATUM SAMPLE

RUN NO.

OR

20.0

REMARKS:

-20.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

-17.5

15.0

17.5

3.5

6.0

Chattanooga, Tennessee 241st C.E.I.T.C.

GEOServices Project No. 21-08139

FT.

1.0

-2.52.5

7.5

FT.

2.5

SAMPLE DEPTH

5.0

15.0

10.08.5

13.5

FROM

-7.5

-5.0

-15.0

-12.5

-10.0

Lean CLAY (CL) with chert fragments - dark reddish brown; very stiff; moist (Residuum)

Lean CLAY (CL) with chert fragments - reddish brown and tan; very stiff; moist (Residuum)

Boring Terminated at 15 feet

ON-SITE REP.

BORING NO. / LOCATION

DATE FT.

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

SAMPLED 15.0 FT. 4.6 M ELEV. FT.

TOP OF ROCK DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT.

BEGAN CORING DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. AFTER 24 HRS. DEPTH FT.

FOOTAGE CORED (LF) FT. ELEV. FT.

BOTTOM OF HOLE DEPTH 15.0 FT. ELEV. -15.0 FT.

BORING ADVANCED BY: X.

FIELD LABORATORY

SS 9 60 30 25.3

SS 24 26.2

SS 27 37.1

SS 35 29.7

SS 21 30.3

Boring Terminated at 15 feet -15.0

-12.5

-10.0

SAMPLE DEPTH

5.0

15.0

FROM

-2.5

-7.5

-5.0

10.08.5

13.5

3.5

6.0

Chattanooga, Tennessee 241st C.E.I.T.C.

2.5

7.5

FT.

2.5

GEOServices Project No. 21-08139

FT.

1.0

RUN NO.

OR

20.0

REMARKS:

-20.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

-17.5

15.0

17.5

SURFACE ELEV.

POWER AUGERING

TO

March 17, 2008

DEPTH

STRATUM SAMPLE

Fat CLAY (CH) with increasing chert with depth -reddish brown and tan; very stiff to hard; moist

(Residuum)

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 1 OF

B-5

F. Jones

WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

B-5 DRY ON COMPLETION ? Yes

Fat CLAY (CH) with trace chert fragments -reddish brown and tan; stiff; moist (Residuum)

WASHBORING

Topsoil (12 inches)

ON-SITE REP.

BORING NO. / LOCATION

DATE FT.

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

SAMPLED 15.0 FT. 4.6 M ELEV. FT.

TOP OF ROCK DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT.

BEGAN CORING DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. AFTER 24 HRS. DEPTH FT.

FOOTAGE CORED (LF) FT. ELEV. FT.

BOTTOM OF HOLE DEPTH 15.0 FT. ELEV. -15.0 FT.

BORING ADVANCED BY: X.

FIELD LABORATORY

SS 11

SS 25

SS 25

SS 25

SS 24

Boring Terminated at 15 feet

Lean CLAY (CL) with chert fragments - reddish brown and tan; stiff to very stiff; moist

(Residuum)

-15.0

-12.5

-10.0

SAMPLE DEPTH

5.0

15.0

FROM

-2.5

-7.5

-5.0

10.08.5

13.5

3.5

6.0

Chattanooga, Tennessee 241st C.E.I.T.C.

2.5

7.5

FT.

2.5

RUN NO.

OR

STRATUM SAMPLE

FT.

1.0

B-6

20.0

REMARKS:

-20.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

-17.5

15.0

17.5

SURFACE ELEV.

POWER AUGERING

TO

March 18, 2008

DEPTH

WASHBORING

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 1 OF

GEOServices Project No. 21-08139

DRY ON COMPLETION ? Yes

B-6

F. Jones

Topsoil (5 inches)

WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

ON-SITE REP.

BORING NO. / LOCATION

DATE FT.

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

SAMPLED 15.0 FT. 4.6 M ELEV. FT.

TOP OF ROCK DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT.

BEGAN CORING DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. AFTER 24 HRS. DEPTH FT.

FOOTAGE CORED (LF) FT. ELEV. FT.

BOTTOM OF HOLE DEPTH 15.0 FT. ELEV. -15.0 FT.

BORING ADVANCED BY: X.

FIELD LABORATORY

SS 2 21.4

SS 20 33 11 21

SS 19 18.9

SS 22 28.2

SS 17 38.3

Topsoil (11 inches)

DRY ON COMPLETION ? Yes

WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 1 OF

B-7

F. Jones

B-7

WASHBORING

SAMPLE DEPTH

SURFACE ELEV.

POWER AUGERING

SAMPLE

TO

March 18, 2008

DEPTH

STRATUM

FROM OR

RUN NO.

20.0

REMARKS:

-20.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

-17.5

15.0

17.5

3.5

6.0

Chattanooga, Tennessee 241st C.E.I.T.C.

GEOServices Project No. 21-08139

FT.

1.0

-2.52.5

7.5

FT.

2.5

5.0

15.0

10.08.5

13.5 5

-7.5

-5.0

-15.0

-12.5

-10.0

Lean CLAY (CL) with root structure - tan; very soft to very stiff; very moist to moist (Residuum)

Fat CLAY (CH) with chert fragments - reddish brown; very stiff; moist (Residuum)

Boring Terminated at 15 feet

ON-SITE REP.

BORING NO. / LOCATION

DATE FT.

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

SAMPLED 15.0 FT. 4.6 M ELEV. FT.

TOP OF ROCK DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT.

BEGAN CORING DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. AFTER 24 HRS. DEPTH FT.

FOOTAGE CORED (LF) FT. ELEV. FT.

BOTTOM OF HOLE DEPTH 15.0 FT. ELEV. -15.0 FT.

BORING ADVANCED BY: X.

FIELD LABORATORY

SS 20

SS 16

SS 17

SS 19

SS 20

-15.0

Lean CLAY (CL) with chert fragments - reddish brown and tan; very stiff; moist (Residuum)

Boring Terminated at 15 feet

-7.5

-5.0

15.0

-12.5

-10.0

Topsoil (4 inches)

10.08.5

13.5 5

-2.52.5

7.5

FT.

2.5

5.03.5

6.0

Chattanooga, Tennessee 241st C.E.I.T.C.

GEOServices Project No. 21-08139

FT.

1.0

20.0

REMARKS:

-20.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

-17.5

15.0

17.5

B-8

SURFACE ELEV.

POWER AUGERING

TO

March 18, 2008

DEPTH

STRATUM

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 1 OF

B-8

F. Jones

FROM STRATUM DESCRIPTION

SAMPLE DEPTH SAMPLE

DRY ON COMPLETION ? Yes

WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)

WASHBORING

RUN NO.

OR

ON-SITE REP.

BORING NO. / LOCATION

DATE FT.

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

SAMPLED 16.0 FT. 4.9 M ELEV. FT.

TOP OF ROCK DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT.

BEGAN CORING DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. AFTER 24 HRS. DEPTH FT.

FOOTAGE CORED (LF) FT. ELEV. FT.

BOTTOM OF HOLE DEPTH 16.0 FT. ELEV. -16.0 FT.

BORING ADVANCED BY: X.

FIELD LABORATORY

SS 4 17.9

SS 7 24.8

SS 10 20.9

SS 25 29.7

SS 24 32.9

Topsoil (14 inches)

DRY ON COMPLETION ? Yes

WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)

B-9

F. Jones

SURFACE ELEV.

POWER AUGERING

TO

March 17, 2008

DEPTH STRATUM DESCRIPTION

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 1 OF

B-9

WASHBORING

STRATUM SAMPLE

RUN NO.

OR

SAMPLE DEPTH

FROM

20.0

REMARKS:

-20.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

-17.5

15.0

17.5

3.5

6.0

Chattanooga, Tennessee 241st C.E.I.T.C.

GEOServices Project No. 21-08139

FT.

1.0

-2.52.5

7.5

FT.

2.5

5.0

-7.5

-5.0

15.0

10.08.5

13.5

-15.0

-12.5

-10.0

Lean CLAY (CL) - reddish brown; soft to stiff;

very moist to moist (Residuum)

Fat CLAY (CH) with chert fragments - reddish brown and tan; very stiff; moist (Residuum)

Boring Terminated at 16 feet

ON-SITE REP.

BORING NO. / LOCATION

DATE FT.

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

SAMPLED 10.0 FT. 3.0 M ELEV. FT.

TOP OF ROCK DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT.

BEGAN CORING DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. AFTER 24 HRS. DEPTH FT.

FOOTAGE CORED (LF) FT. ELEV. FT.

BOTTOM OF HOLE DEPTH 10.0 FT. ELEV. -10.0 FT.

BORING ADVANCED BY: X.

FIELD LABORATORY

SS 5 19

SS 4 22

SS 16 21.6

SS 15 17.2

Boring Terminated at 10 feet

-15.0

-12.5

-10.0

Lean CLAY (CL) with black staining - tan; very stiff to stiff; moist (Residuum)-7.5

-5.0

10.08.5

2.5

7.5

FT.

2.5

5.03.5

6.0

Chattanooga, Tennessee 241st C.E.I.T.C.

GEOServices Project No. 21-08139

FT.

1.0

20.0

REMARKS:

-20.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

-17.5

15.0

17.5

SURFACE ELEV.

POWER AUGERING

TO

March 17, 2008

DEPTH

-2.5 Lean CLAY (CL) with root structure and rock fragments - tan; firm to soft; very moist

(Residuum)

WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)

STRATUM SAMPLE

B-10

WASHBORING

RUN NO.

OR

SAMPLE DEPTH

FROM

Topsoil (8 inches)

B-10

F. Jones

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 1 OF

DRY ON COMPLETION ? Yes

ON-SITE REP.

BORING NO. / LOCATION

DATE FT.

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

SAMPLED 7.5 FT. 2.3 M ELEV. FT.

TOP OF ROCK DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT.

BEGAN CORING DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. AFTER 24 HRS. DEPTH FT.

FOOTAGE CORED (LF) FT. ELEV. FT.

BOTTOM OF HOLE DEPTH 7.5 FT. ELEV. -7.5 FT.

BORING ADVANCED BY: X.

FIELD LABORATORY

SS 2

SS 8

Topsoil (12 inches)

DRY ON COMPLETION ? Yes

WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)

B-11

F. Jones

SURFACE ELEV.

POWER AUGERING

TO

March 17, 2008

DEPTH STRATUM DESCRIPTION

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 1 OF

B-11

WASHBORING

RUN NO.

OR

SAMPLE DEPTH

FROM

STRATUM SAMPLE

20.0

REMARKS:

-20.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

-17.5

15.0

17.5

3.5

6.0

Chattanooga, Tennessee 241st C.E.I.T.C.

GEOServices Project No. 21-08139

FT.

1.0

-2.52.5

7.5

FT.

2.5

5.0

-7.5

-5.0

-15.0

-12.5

-10.0

Lean CLAY (CL) with root structure - dark brown;

very stiff; very moist (Residuum)

Lean CLAY (CL) with trace blacks staining -reddish brown; stiff to firm; moist (Residuum)

Boring Terminated at 7.5 feet

ON-SITE REP.

BORING NO. / LOCATION

DATE FT.

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

SAMPLED 10.0 FT. 3.0 M ELEV. FT.

TOP OF ROCK DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT.

BEGAN CORING DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. AFTER 24 HRS. DEPTH FT.

FOOTAGE CORED (LF) FT. ELEV. FT.

BOTTOM OF HOLE DEPTH 10.0 FT. ELEV. -10.0 FT.

BORING ADVANCED BY: X.

FIELD LABORATORY

SS 10

SS 23

SS 43

Boring Terminated at 10 feet

Lean CLAY (CL) to Fat CLAY (CH) with trace chert fragments - reddish brown and tan; stiff to hard; moist (Residuum)

-15.0

-12.5

-10.0

-7.5

-5.0

10.08.5

2.5

7.5

FT.

2.5

5.03.5

6.0

Chattanooga, Tennessee 241st C.E.I.T.C.

GEOServices Project No. 21-08139

FT.

1.0

20.0

REMARKS:

-20.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

-17.5

15.0

17.5

SURFACE ELEV.

POWER AUGERING

TO

March 18, 2008

DEPTH

-2.5

Lean CLAY (CL) with trace rock fragments - tan;

soft; moist (Residuum)

WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)

STRATUM SAMPLE

B-12

WASHBORING

RUN NO.

OR

SAMPLE DEPTH

FROM

Topsoil (12 inches)

B-12

F. Jones

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 1 OF

DRY ON COMPLETION ? Yes

ON-SITE REP.

BORING NO. / LOCATION

DATE FT.

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

SAMPLED 7.5 FT. 2.3 M ELEV. FT.

TOP OF ROCK DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT.

BEGAN CORING DEPTH FT. ELEV. FT. AFTER 24 HRS. DEPTH FT.

FOOTAGE CORED (LF) FT. ELEV. FT.

BOTTOM OF HOLE DEPTH 7.5 FT. ELEV. -7.5 FT.

BORING ADVANCED BY: X.

FIELD LABORATORY

SS 6 14.9

SS 7 23 8 20.9

SS 6 22.6

Topsoil (12 inches)

DRY ON COMPLETION ? Yes

WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE)

B-13

F. Jones

SURFACE ELEV.

POWER AUGERING

TO

March 18, 2008

DEPTH STRATUM DESCRIPTION

LOG OF BORING

SHEET 1 OF

B-13

WASHBORING

RUN NO.

OR

SAMPLE DEPTH

FROM

STRATUM SAMPLE

20.0

REMARKS:

-20.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

-17.5

15.0

17.5

3.5

6.0

Chattanooga, Tennessee 241st C.E.I.T.C.

GEOServices Project No. 21-08139

FT.

1.0

-2.52.5

7.5

FT.

2.5

5.0

-7.5

-5.0

-15.0

-12.5

-10.0

Lean CLAY (CL) with trace root structure, rock fragments, and glass debris - dark brown; firm;

moist (Fill)

Boring Terminated at 7.5 feet

APPENDIX B

Soil Laboratory Data

Natural Boring Sample Depth Moisture Soil Number Number (feet) Content LL PL PI Type

B-2 1 1.0-2.5 18.0% 2 3.5-5.0 18.5% 3 6.0-7.5 33.0% 4 8.5-10.0 37.9%

B-4 1 1.0-2.5 24.0% 2 3.5-5.0 25.2% 3 6.0-7.5 26.1% 4 8.5-10.0 36.8% 5 13.5-15.0 34.7%

B-5 1 1.0-2.5 25.3% 60 30 30 CH

2 3.5-5.0 36.2% 3 6.0-7.5 37.1% 4 8.5-10.0 29.7% 5 13.5-15.0 30.3%

B-7 1 1.0-2.5 21.4%

2 3.5-5.0 21.0% 33 22 11 CL

3 6.0-7.5 18.9% 4 8.5-10.0 28.2% 5 13.5-15.0 38.3%

B-9 1 1.0-2.5 17.9% 2 3.5-5.0 24.8% 3 6.0-7.5 20.9% 4 8.5-10.0 29.7% 5 13.5-15.0 32.9%

B-10 1 1.0-2.5 19.0% 2 3.5-5.0 22.0% 3 6.0-7.5 21.6% 4 8.5-10.0 17.2%

B-13 1 1.0-2.5 14.9%

2 3.5-5.0 20.9% 23 15 8 CL

3 6.0-7.5 22.6%

SOIL DATA SUMMARY

Atterberg Limits

April 1, 2008

241st C.E.I.T.C. - Chattanooga, Tennessee GEOServices Project No. 21-08139