HomeMy WebLinkAboutWEST PLUM HOUSING - PDP - PDP160029 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - GEOTECHNICAL (SOILS) REPORTGeotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed EdR ECU Housing
Dickinson Avenue and Reade Circle
Greenville, North Carolina
September 6, 2016
Project No. 72165069
Prepared for:
EdR
Memphis Tennessee
Prepared by:
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Winterville, North Carolina
Terracon Consultants, Inc. 314 Beacon Drive Winterville, North Carolina 28590
P [252] 353 1600 F [252] 353 0002 Terracon.com NC Registration Number F-0869
Terracon Consultants, Inc. 314 Beacon Drive Winterville, North Carolina 28590
P [252] 353 1600 F [252] 353 0002 Terracon.com NC Registration Number F-0869
September 6, 2016
EdR
999 South Shady Grove Road, Suite 600
Memphis, Tennessee 28120
Attn: Mr. Rodney J. King
Vice-President, Development
Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed EdR ECU Housing
Dickinson Avenue and Reade Circle
Greenville, Pitt County, North Carolina
Terracon Project No. 72165069
Dear Mr. King:
Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed the geotechnical engineering services for the
above referenced project. This study was performed in general accordance with our proposal
P72167084, dated August 9, 2016.
This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical
recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of foundations, floor
slabs, and pavements for the proposed housing.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Materials testing services are
provided by Terracon. We would be pleased to discuss these services with you. If you have any
questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Andrew J. Gliniak, P.E. Carl F. Bonner, P.E.
Geotechnical Project Engineer Principal / Office Manager
Registered NC 042183
Reviewed by: Barney C. Hale, P.E.
Enclosures
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. i
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................................. 1
2.1 Project Description ................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Site Location and Description .................................................................................. 2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 2
3.1 Site Geology ............................................................................................................ 2
3.2 Typical Profile .......................................................................................................... 3
3.3 Groundwater ............................................................................................................ 3
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ......................................... 4
4.1 Geotechnical Considerations ................................................................................... 4
4.2 Earthwork ................................................................................................................ 4
Compaction Requirements ...................................................................... 6
Grading and Drainage ............................................................................. 6
Construction Considerations.................................................................... 6
4.3 Foundation Recommendations ................................................................................ 7
Shallow Foundations ............................................................................... 7
Construction Considerations.................................................................... 8
4.4 Seismic Considerations ........................................................................................... 9
4.5 Floor Slabs............................................................................................................... 9
4.6 Pavements ............................................................................................................... 9
GENERAL COMMENTS ................................................................................................... 11
APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION
Exhibit A-1 Site Location Plan
Exhibit A-2 Boring Location Plan
Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description
Exhibits A-4 and A-7 Boring Logs
APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING
Exhibits B-1 Laboratory Test Description
Exhibits B-2 thru B-3 Laboratory Test Data
APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Exhibit C-1 General Notes
Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification System
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed EdR ECU Housing ■ Greenville, North Carolina
September 6, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 72165069
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following items represent a brief summary of the findings of our subsurface exploration and
recommendations for the proposed housing to be located at the southern corner of the intersection
between Dickinson Avenue and Reade Circle in Greenville, North Carolina. A total of 4 borings were
advanced to a depth of 75 feet below the existing ground surface.
The building could be supported on shallow foundations sized for 2000 psf. We anticipate total
settlement up to 1.5 inches based on the medium dense soil profile encountered in the borings.
Increasing building loads or limiting total settlement to under 1.5 inches will likely require deep
foundations or ground improvement. Ground improvement increases bearing pressure which
can lead to smaller footings. We should be contacted to provide recommendations for these
options.
Fill was encountered from depths of 3 to 5 feet in Borings B-1 and B-4. The footings, floor
slabs, and pavements could be supported on or above existing fill soils. However, even with
the recommended construction testing services, there is an inherent risk for the owner that
compressible fill or unsuitable material within or buried by the fill will not be discovered. This
risk of unforeseen conditions cannot be eliminated without completely removing the existing
fill, but can be reduced by performing additional testing and evaluation.
Overexcavation of footings on the order of 3 feet is anticipated near Boring B-3 if the soils
encountered are not sufficiently improved by vibratory rolling. Similar overexcavation of footings
could be required across the site.
After site stripping, the exposed subgrade soils in the building footprint and pavement areas
should be densified in place using a medium weight vibratory roller.
After preparing the subgrade and completion of recommended repairs, the structure can be
supported on shallow foundations bearing on approved existing soils or new engineered fill
compacted as recommended sized for a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of
2,000 psf.
An IBC seismic site classification of “D” is appropriate for this site.
We recommend Terracon be retained to observe and test the foundation bearing materials as
well as other construction materials at the site.
This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. 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 report limitations.
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
PROPOSED EDR ECU HOUSING
DICKINSON AVENUE AND READE CIRCLE
GREENVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Terracon Project No. 72165069
September 6, 2016
INTRODUCTION
We have completed the geotechnical engineering report for the proposed housing to be located at
the southern corner of the intersection between Dickinson Avenue and Reade Circle in Greenville,
North Carolina. A total of 4 borings were advanced to a depth of 75 feet below the existing ground
surface. Logs of the borings along with site location and boring location plans are included in
Appendix A of this report.
The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering
recommendations relative to:
Subsurface Soil Conditions Floor slab design and construction
Groundwater Conditions Foundation recommendations
Earthwork Seismic considerations
Pavements
PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Project Description
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Site Location See Appendix A, Exhibit A-1, Site Location Plan
Site layout See Appendix A, Exhibits A-2 and A-3, Boring Location Plan
Site Coordinates Latitude: 35.6095° Longitude: -77.3753°
Structure
A proposed four story, 38 unit, apartment building with approximately 133
beds. The project includes a two level concrete parking deck. We
understand that the apartment buildings will be constructed over the
parking deck.
Building Construction
The apartment building will be wood framed with brick veneer constructed
over the parking deck. The parking deck will be either precast or cast-in-
place concrete.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed EdR ECU Housing ■ Greenville, North Carolina
September 6, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 72165069
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Maximum loads
Column Loads: 300 to 400 kips (assumed)
Wall Loads: 3 klf (assumed)
Floor: 100 psf (assumed)
Finished Floor
Elevation
Not provided.
Grading Approximately 2 feet of cut and fill (assumed).
2.2 Site Location and Description
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Location
The site is approximately 0.76 acres of undeveloped property, Pitt County
Parcel Numbers 24437 and 24438 located at the intersection of Dickinson
Avenue and Reade Circle in Greenville, Pitt County, North Carolina.
Existing improvements Undeveloped.
Current ground cover Grassed and some trees along the perimeter.
Existing topography Relatively level
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 Site Geology
The subject site is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The Coastal Plain soils
consist mainly of marine sediments that were deposited during successive periods of fluctuating sea
level and moving shoreline. The soils include sands, silts, and clays with irregular deposits of shells,
which are typical of those lain down in a shallow sloping sea bottom. Recent alluvial sands, silts,
and clays are typically present near rivers and creeks.
According USGS Mineral Resources On-Line Spatial Data based off of the 1998 digital equivalent
of the official State Geology Map and 1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina, the site is mapped within
Yorktown and Duplin Formation, Undivided.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed EdR ECU Housing ■ Greenville, North Carolina
September 6, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 72165069
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3
3.2 Typical Profile
Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as
shown on the following table:
Description
Approximate Depth to
Bottom of Stratum (feet)
Material Encountered Consistency/Density
Stratum 1 0.17 Grass/Topsoil/Rootmat NA
Stratum 2A
Borings B-1
and B-4
3 to 5
Fill: Lean Clay (CL), Clayey Sand
(SC)
Medium Stiff to Stiff /
Medium Dense
Stratum 2 33 to 48
Silty Sand (SM), Poorly Graded
Sand with Silt (SP-SM), Poorly
graded Sand (SP), Clayey Sand
(SC), Lean Clay (CL)
Medium Stiff to Hard /
Loose to Dense
Stratum 3 Borings Terminated 75
Weathered Limestone, Silty Sand
(SM), Clayey Sand (SC), Poorly
Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM)
Medium Dense
to Very Dense
Laboratory tests for moisture content, Atterberg limits, and grain size were conducted on selected
soil samples. The test results are presented in the Appendix B of this report and in the borings
logs. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes
in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. For a comprehensive
description of the conditions encountered in the borings, refer to the boring logs in Appendix A of
this report.
3.3 Groundwater
The mud rotary drilling techniques used to advance the borings obscured water levels. A
groundwater level of 12 feet was observed after drilling in Boring B-2. The groundwater levels in
the remaining borings 24 hours after drilling which had more time to stabilize ranged in depth from
14 to 15 feet.
The groundwater level can change due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and
other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. The possibility of groundwater
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed EdR ECU Housing ■ Greenville, North Carolina
September 6, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 72165069
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4
level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for
the project.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
4.1 Geotechnical Considerations
The building could be supported on shallow foundations sized for 2,000 psf. We anticipate total
settlement up to 1.5 inches based on the medium dense soil profile encountered in the borings. We
should be contacted to provide alternative foundation recommendations if the building loads increase
more than those assumed or if the anticipated settlement is too high for the design. Deep foundations
or ground improvement would likely be required if that becomes the case. Ground improvement
increases bearing pressure which can lead to smaller footings.
Fill was encountered from depths of 3 to 5 feet in Borings B-1 and B-4. The footings, floor slabs,
and pavements could be supported on or above existing fill soils. However, even with the
recommended construction testing services, there is an inherent risk for the owner that
compressible fill or unsuitable material within or buried by the fill will not be discovered. This risk
of unforeseen conditions cannot be eliminated without completely removing the existing fill, but
can be reduced by performing additional testing and evaluation.
After site stripping, the building and parking lot footprints should be densified in place using a
medium weight vibratory roller. The purpose of the vibratory rolling is to densify the loose, near
surface soils and potentially improve floor slab and foundation support. Overexcavation of footings
on the order of 3 feet is anticipated near Boring B-3 if the soils are not sufficiently improved by
vibratory rolling. Similar overexcavation of footings could be required across the site.
After preparing the subgrade and completion of recommended repairs, the structure can be
supported on shallow foundations bearing on approved native soils or new engineered fill
compacted as recommended sized for a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000
psf.
A more complete discussion of these points and additional information is included in the following
sections.
4.2 Earthwork
Site preparation should begin with the complete removal of surface vegetation and topsoil in the
proposed building and pavement footprints. Based on site observations during the drilling
process, topsoil should be stripped to a depth of approximately 2 inches. A Terracon
representative should field verify the stripping depth during construction. Topsoil may be reused
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed EdR ECU Housing ■ Greenville, North Carolina
September 6, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 72165069
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5
in areas of the site to be landscaped. Topsoil should not be used as structural fill or backfill.
Stump holes should be backfilled with engineered fill.
After site stripping, the exposed subgrade soils in the building and pavement footprints should be
densified in place using a medium weight vibratory roller. The purpose of the vibratory rolling is to
densify soils loosened by the demolition, to improve the exposed subgrade soils for floor slab and
pavement support and to potentially improve the foundation bearing soils. The roller should make
at least 6 passes across the site, with the second set of 3 passes perpendicular to the first set of 3
passes. If water is brought to the surface by the vibratory rolling, the operation should be
discontinued until the water subsides. Vibratory rolling should be completed during dry weather.
After the vibratory rolling, pore pressures should be allowed to dissipate for a minimum of 16
hours. After the waiting period, proofrolling should be performed on the exposed subgrade soils in
areas to receive fill or at the subgrade elevation in cut areas with a fully loaded, tandem-axle dump
truck or similar rubber-tired construction equipment. Proofrolling is recommended as a means of
detecting areas of soft or unstable subgrade soils. The proofrolling should be performed during
a period of dry weather to avoid degrading an otherwise suitable subgrade. The proofrolling
operations should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Subgrade soils
that exhibit excessive rutting or deflection during proofrolling should be repaired as directed by
the representative. Typical repairs include overexcavation followed by replacement with either
properly compacted fill or by a subgrade stabilization fabric in conjunction with a sand fill or crushed
stone.
Engineered fill should meet the following material property requirements:
Fill Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Location for Placement
Imported Soil Sand: SC, SM, SP All locations and elevations.
On-site Soils 2
Sand: SC, SM, SP, SP-SM
Clay: CL
All locations and elevations.
1. Controlled, compacted fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and
debris. Frozen material should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. A
sample of each material type should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for evaluation.
2. On site soils that meet the above soil classifications are generally suitable for fill if properly moisture
conditioned.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed EdR ECU Housing ■ Greenville, North Carolina
September 6, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 72165069
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6
Compaction Requirements
We recommend that the fill be placed as recommended in the following table:
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Fill Lift Thickness
9-inches or less in loose thickness (4” to 6” lifts when hand-
operated equipment is used).
Compaction Requirements 1
Compact to a minimum of 95% of the materials standard
Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). 2
Moisture Content – Structural Fill
Within the range of -2% to +2% 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.
2. It is not necessary to achieve 95% compaction on the existing ground prior to placing fill or beginning
construction. However, the subgrade should be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical
engineer prior to placing fill or beginning construction.
Grading and Drainage
During construction, grades should be sloped to promote runoff away from the construction area.
Final surrounding grades should be sloped away from the structures on all sides to prevent ponding
of water. If gutters / downspouts for the proposed building do not discharge directly onto
pavement, they should not discharge directly adjacent to the building. This can be accomplished
through the use of splash-blocks, downspout extensions, and flexible pipes that are designed to
attach to the end of the downspout. Flexible pipe should only be used if it is daylighted in such a
manner that it gravity-drains collected water. Splash-blocks should also be considered below
hose bibs and water spigots.
Construction Considerations
Performing earthwork operations during warmer periods of the year (May through October) will
reduce the potential for problems associated with wet unstable subgrades. Site drying conditions
are typically enhanced when it is warm. The moisture sensitivity of the on-site soils does not
preclude performing earthwork at other times of the year, but does lead to an increased potential
for having to perform some other form of remedial work.
The site should be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in
excavations. If the subgrade should become frozen, desiccated, saturated, or disturbed, the
affected material should be removed or these materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned,
and recompacted.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed EdR ECU Housing ■ Greenville, North Carolina
September 6, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 72165069
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7
As a minimum, all temporary excavations should be sloped or braced as required by Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations to provide stability and safe working
conditions. Temporary excavations will most likely 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;
vibratory rolling, proofrolling; placement and compaction of controlled compacted fills; and
backfilling of excavations.
4.3 Foundation Recommendations
Shallow Foundations
The proposed buildings can be supported by a shallow foundation system consisting of isolated
column and wall footings. Design recommendations are presented in the following table and
paragraphs.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed EdR ECU Housing ■ Greenville, North Carolina
September 6, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 72165069
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8
DESCRIPTION VALUE
Maximum Net allowable bearing pressure 1 2,000 psf
The required embedment below lowest adjacent finished
grade for frost protection and protective embedment 2 18 inches
Minimum width for continuous wall footings
12 inches for thickened slab
16 inches for strip footings
Minimum width for isolated column footings 24 inches
Approximate total settlement 3 Up to 1.5 inches
Estimated differential settlement 3
Up to 1/2 inch between columns and
along 40 feet of wall
Ultimate coefficient of sliding friction 4 0.35
1. The recommended net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum
surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. The maximum net allowable bearing
pressure may be increased by 1/3 for temporary wind loads.
2. For frost protection and to reduce effects of seasonal moisture variations in subgrade soils. For
perimeter footings and footings beneath unheated areas.
3. The actual magnitude of settlement that will occur beneath the foundations will depend upon the
variations within the subsurface soil profile, the structural loading conditions and the quality of the
foundation excavation. The estimated total and differential settlements listed assume that the
foundation-related earthwork and the foundation design are completed in accordance with our
recommendations.
4. For uplift resistance, use the weight of the foundation concrete plus the weight of the soil over the plan
area of the footings. 110 pounds per cubic foot should be used for the density of the soil.
Construction Considerations
The foundation bearing materials should be evaluated at the time of the foundation excavation.
This is an essential part of the construction process. A representative of the geotechnical
engineer should use a combination of hand auger borings and dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP)
testing to determine the suitability of the bearing materials for the design bearing pressure. DCP
testing should be performed to a depth of 3 to 5 feet below the bottom of footing excavation.
Excessively soft, loose or wet bearing soils should be overexcavated to a depth recommended by
the geotechnical engineer. The excavated soils should be replaced with compacted soil fill or
washed, crushed stone (NCDOT No. 57) wrapped in a geotextile fabric (Mirafi 140 N or equivalent).
However, footings could bear directly on these soils at the lower level if approved by the geotechnical
engineer.
Overexcavation on the order of 3 feet is anticipated near Boring B-3 if the soils encountered are not
sufficiently improved by vibratory rolling. Similar overexcavation of footings could be required across
the site.
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.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed EdR ECU Housing ■ Greenville, North Carolina
September 6, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 72165069
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9
Should the soils at bearing level become excessively disturbed or saturated, the affected soil
should be removed prior to placing concrete.
4.4 Seismic Considerations
Code Used Seismic Parameters1
2012 International Building Code (IBC)
Seismic Site Class D
Ss = 0.159 S1 = 0.065
Sms = 0.255 Sm1 = 0.157
SDS = 0.170 SD1 = 0.105
Based on our experience with the geology of the area, it is our opinion that the subsurface
characteristics reflect those of Site Class D as described in the 2012 North Carolina State Building
Code. Based on the results of the borings, liquefaction is not expected based on the relatively low
level of ground motions associated with the design earthquake.
4.5 Floor Slabs
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Floor slab support Approved existing soils or new engineered fill
Modulus of subgrade reaction
100 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) for point
loading conditions
Base Course 4 inches crushed stone (NCDOT No. 57) or CABC
Saw-cut control joints should be placed in the slab to help control the location and extent of
cracking. For additional recommendations, refer to the ACI Design Manual.
The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade that will be
covered with wood, tile, carpet or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings. The slab
designer should refer to ACI 302 and/or ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding the use
and placement of a vapor retarder.
4.6 Pavements
The pavement subgrade should be thoroughly compacted and proofrolled as outlined in section 4.2
Earthwork of this report. Loose soils delineated by the proofrolling operations should be undercut
and backfilled as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. The use of a geosynthetic fabric or
geogrid and additional crushed stone is also a potential option for subgrade improvement. Upon
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed EdR ECU Housing ■ Greenville, North Carolina
September 6, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 72165069
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10
completion of any necessary remediation, the subgrade should be adequate for support of the
pavement sections recommended below.
Pavement thickness design is dependent upon the following:
Anticipated traffic conditions during the life of the pavement.
Subgrade and paving material characteristics.
Climatic conditions of the region.
We have assumed that traffic loads at the site will be produced primarily by delivery and garbage
trucks in the heavy duty areas and by passenger cars and light delivery vehicles for the light duty
areas. Two pavement section alternatives have been provided. The light-duty pavement sections
are for car parking areas only. Heavy-duty pavement sections should be used for concentrated
car traffic (drive lanes / entrance drives) and garbage/delivery truck traffic areas.
Recommended pavement sections are listed in the following table. For areas subject to
concentrated and repetitive loading conditions, i.e. dumpster pads and ingress/egress aprons, or
in areas where vehicles will turn at low speeds, we recommend using a Portland cement concrete
pavement with a thickness of at least 7 inches underlain by at least 4 inches of crushed stone.
For dumpster pads, the concrete pavement area should be large enough to support the container
and tipping axle of the refuse truck.
Recommended Pavement Sections
Pavement Type Material
Layer Thickness (inches)
Light Duty Heavy Duty
Rigid
Portland Cement Concrete
(4,000 psi)
5 7
Crushed Aggregate Base Course
(NCDOT CABC Type 1 or Type 2)
4 4
Flexible
(Superpave)
Asphalt Surface
(NCDOT S-9.5A)
31 1.5
Asphalt Binder
(NCDOT I-19.0B)
-- 2.5
Crushed Aggregate Base Course
(NCDOT CABC Type 1 or Type 2)
6 8
1. Placed in two 1.5 inch lifts
The placement of a partial pavement thickness for use during construction is not suggested
without a detailed pavement analysis incorporating construction traffic. In addition, we should be
contacted to confirm the traffic assumptions outlined above. If the actual traffic varies from the
assumptions outlined above, modification of the pavement section thickness will be required.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed EdR ECU Housing ■ Greenville, North Carolina
September 6, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 72165069
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11
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.
Asphalt concrete and aggregate base course materials should conform to the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) “Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures”.
Concrete pavement materials should conform to ACI 330.1 “Specifications for Unreinforced Parking
Lots”. 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. ACI 330R-01 recommendations should
be followed concerning control and expansion joints, as well as other concrete pavement practices.
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.
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
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.
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 between borings, across the site, or
due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations
may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed EdR ECU Housing ■ Greenville, North Carolina
September 6, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 72165069
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12
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
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF
THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: GREENVILLE NW,
NC (1/1/1998), GREENVILLE NE, NC
(1/1/1998), GREENVILLE SW, NC (1/1/1998)
and GREENVILLE SE, NC (1/1/1998).
SITE LOCATION PLAN
Proposed EdR ECU Housing
Dickinson Ave and Reade Cir
Greenville, NC
314 Beacon Dr
Winterville, NC 28590-7956
72165069
DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY,
AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION
PURPOSES
Project Manager:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Approved by:
AJG
BCH
BCH
AJG
72165069 EXA
9/3/16
Project No.
File Name:
Date:
A-1
Exhibit
Scale: 1”=2,000’
BORING LOCATION PLAN
314 Beacon Dr
Winterville, NC 28590-7956
72165069
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY
Google Earth
Proposed EdR ECU Housing
Dickinson Ave and Reade Cir
Greenville, NC
DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY,
AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION
PURPOSES
Project Manager:
Approximate Boring Locations
Drawn by:
Checked by:
B-3
Approved by:
AJG
BCH
B-2
BCH
AJG
72165069 EXA
B-1
9/3/16
Scale:
B-4
Project No.
File Name:
Date:
NTS
A-2
Exhibit
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed EdR ECU Housing ■ Greenville, North Carolina
September 6, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 72165069
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit A-3
Field Exploration Description
Coordinates and elevations of the borings were determined by referencing existing site features on
aerial photography. The boring locations were marked in the field by Terracon using a hand held
GPS. The location of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the
means and methods used to define it.
The soil test borings were performed using both a track-mounted and a trailer-mounted power
drilling rig utilizing hollow stem auger drilling procedures to advance the boreholes.
Representative soil samples were obtained at 2.5 foot intervals above a depth of 10 feet and at 5
foot intervals below 10 feet using split-barrel sampling procedures. In the split barrel sampling
procedure, the number of blows required to advance a standard 2 inch O.D. split barrel sampler
the last 12 inches of the typical total 18 inch penetration by means of a 140 pound automatic
hammer with a free fall of 30 inches, is the standard penetration resistance value (SPT-N). This
value is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and consistency of
cohesive soils. Soil samples were taken.
An automatic SPT hammer was used to advance the split-barrel sampler in the borings performed
on this site. A greater efficiency is typically achieved with the automatic hammer compared to the
conventional safety hammer operated with a cathead and rope. Published correlations between
the SPT values and soil properties are based on the lower efficiency cathead and rope method.
This higher efficiency affects the standard penetration resistance blow count (N) value by
increasing the penetration per hammer blow over what would be obtained using the cathead and
rope method. The effect of the automatic hammer's efficiency has been considered in the
interpretation and analysis of the subsurface information for this report.
The samples were tagged for identification, sealed to reduce moisture loss, and taken to our
laboratory for further examination, testing, and classification. Information provided on the boring logs
attached to this report includes soil descriptions, consistency evaluations, boring depths, sampling
intervals, and groundwater conditions.
A field log of each boring was prepared by the drill crew. These logs included visual classifications
of the materials encountered during drilling as well as the driller’s interpretation of the subsurface
conditions between samples. Final boring logs included with this report represent the engineer's
interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on laboratory observation and tests
of the samples. Additional information provided on the boring logs attached to this report includes
soil descriptions, consistency evaluations, boring depths, sampling intervals, and groundwater
conditions.
2-3-2
N=5
3-5-7
N=12
5-6-7
N=13
5-7-10
N=17
6-6-8
N=14
4-18-22
N=40
4-4-4
N=8
3-4-5
N=9
5-8-11
N=19
13-20-24
N=44
0.2
5.0
8.0
23.0
28.0
33.0
38.0
Grass/Topsoil/Rootmat
FILL - LEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand and gravel, gray, red and orange,
medium stiff to stiff
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), light tan, medium
dense
SILTY SAND (SM), orange and light tan, medium dense to dense
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), with shell fragments, dark gray, medium
stiff
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace mica, black, loose
SILTY SAND (SM), dark gray, medium dense
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace mica, black, hard
22 93
34
20
21
16
14
36
27
35
32
1 39-16-23
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
GRAPHIC LOG
Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic
1-2-3
N=5
5-10-13
N=23
11-13-15
N=28
13-15-19
N=34
25/0"
50/3"
50/2"
43.0
48.0
58.0
63.0
75.0
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace mica, black, hard (continued)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), dark gray, loose
SILTY SAND (SM), dark gray, medium dense
CLAYEY SAND (SC), dark gray, dense
WEATHERED LIMESTONE, with shell fragments, gray, very dense
Boring Terminated at 75 Feet
23
23
25
33
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
GRAPHIC LOG
Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic
THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 72165069 PROPOSED EDR ECU HOUSING; GREENVILLE, NC.GPJ TERRACON2015.GDT 9/6/16
FIELD TEST
RESULTS
DEPTH
LOCATION
Latitude: 35.609625° Longitude: -77.375556°
See Exhibit A-2
PERCENT FINES
WATER
CONTENT (%)
LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
OBSERVATIONS
DEPTH (Ft.)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
SAMPLE
4-5-4
N=9
3-4-7
N=11
4-5-8
N=13
5-6-9
N=15
4-6-7
N=13
3-7-8
N=15
3-5-5
N=10
3-5-7
N=12
3-4-8
N=12
7-6-9
N=15
0.2
3.0
6.0
8.0
13.0
23.0
38.0
Grass/Topsoil/Rootmat
SILTY SAND (SM), gray, loose
CLAYEY SAND (SC), light orange, medium dense
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), light tan and light
orange, medium dense
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), light tan, medium dense
SILTY SAND (SM), orange to orangish brown, medium dense
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with shell fragments, trace mica, dark gray to
black, medium dense
SILTY SAND (SM), with shell fragments, dark gray to gray, medium
dense
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
GRAPHIC LOG
Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic
THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 72165069 PROPOSED EDR ECU HOUSING; GREENVILLE, NC.GPJ TERRACON2015.GDT 9/6/16
FIELD TEST
RESULTS
DEPTH
LOCATION
Latitude: 35.609689° Longitude: -77.375208°
See Exhibit A-2
PERCENT FINES
WATER
CONTENT (%)
50/2"
8-11-14
N=25
5-7-8
N=15
8-12-16
N=28
50/2"
50/4"
50/2"
43.0
48.0
63.0
75.0
SILTY SAND (SM), with shell fragments, dark gray to gray, medium
dense (continued)
WEATHERED LIMESTONE, very dense, no recovery
SILTY SAND (SM), with shell fragments, dark gray to gray, medium
dense
WEATHERED LIMESTONE, with shell fragments, dark gray to gray,
very dense
Boring Terminated at 75 Feet
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
GRAPHIC LOG
Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic
THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 72165069 PROPOSED EDR ECU HOUSING; GREENVILLE, NC.GPJ TERRACON2015.GDT 9/6/16
FIELD TEST
RESULTS
DEPTH
LOCATION
Latitude: 35.609689° Longitude: -77.375208°
See Exhibit A-2
PERCENT FINES
WATER
CONTENT (%)
LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
OBSERVATIONS
DEPTH (Ft.)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
SAMPLE
Dickinson Ave and Reade Circle
Greenville, NC
SITE:
Page 2 of 2
2-2-2
N=4
3-3-3
N=6
3-5-7
N=12
4-6-9
N=15
5-6-8
N=14
5-7-12
N=19
4-6-4
N=10
3-4-5
N=9
5-5-6
N=11
6-10-13
N=23
0.2
3.0
6.0
8.0
13.0
18.0
23.0
38.0
Grass/Topsoil/Rootmat
CLAYEY SAND (SC), brownish gray, loose
SILTY SAND (SM), light tan and orange, loose
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), orange, medium dense
SILTY SAND (SM), orange and light tan, medium dense
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), light tan and orange, medium dense
SILTY SAND (SM), orange, medium dense
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with shell fragments, trace mica, dark gray to
black, loose to medium dense
SILTY SAND (SM), gray to dark gray and black, medium dense to
dense
35 37-10-27 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
GRAPHIC LOG
Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic
THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 72165069 PROPOSED EDR ECU HOUSING; GREENVILLE, NC.GPJ TERRACON2015.GDT 9/6/16
FIELD TEST
RESULTS
DEPTH
LOCATION
Latitude: 35.609234° Longitude: -77.375272°
See Exhibit A-2
PERCENT FINES
6-9-11
N=20
11-13-14
N=27
12-15-16
N=31
11-13-16
N=29
25/0"
23-25-31
N=56
17, 25, 50/3"
63.0
68.0
74.5
75.0
SILTY SAND (SM), gray to dark gray and black, medium dense to
dense (continued)
WEATHERED LIMESTONE, no recovery
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), gray to dark gray,
very dense
WEATHERED LIMESTONE, with shell fragments, gray to dark gray,
very dense
Boring Terminated at 75 Feet
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
GRAPHIC LOG
Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic
THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 72165069 PROPOSED EDR ECU HOUSING; GREENVILLE, NC.GPJ TERRACON2015.GDT 9/6/16
FIELD TEST
RESULTS
DEPTH
LOCATION
Latitude: 35.609234° Longitude: -77.375272°
See Exhibit A-2
PERCENT FINES
WATER
CONTENT (%)
LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
OBSERVATIONS
DEPTH (Ft.)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
SAMPLE
Dickinson Ave and Reade Circle
Greenville, NC
13-10-8
N=18
3-3-3
N=6
3-3-4
N=7
6-5-6
N=11
4-6-7
N=13
5-4-3
N=7
3-5-6
N=11
5-4-5
N=9
5-7-9
N=16
6-10-14
N=24
0.2
3.0
8.0
13.0
18.0
28.0
33.0
38.0
Grass/Topsoil/Rootmat
FILL - CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace organics, orange and dark gray,
medium dense
SILTY SAND (SM), light tan and orange, loose
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), light tan and light
orange, medium dense
SILTY SAND (SM), orange, medium dense
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with shell fragments, orange and dark gray,
loose to medium dense
LEAN CLAY (CL), with shell fragments, dark gray, stiff
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with shell fragments, dark gray, medium dense
SILTY SAND (SM), dark gray, medium dense
11 NP 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
GRAPHIC LOG
Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic
THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 72165069 PROPOSED EDR ECU HOUSING; GREENVILLE, NC.GPJ TERRACON2015.GDT 9/6/16
FIELD TEST
RESULTS
DEPTH
LOCATION
Latitude: 35.609454° Longitude: -77.375016°
See Exhibit A-2
4-7-8
N=15
5-9-11
N=20
7-8-11
N=19
17, 50/3"
12-13-17
N=30
17-22-21
N=43
12-16-21
N=37
53.0
58.0
73.0
75.0
SILTY SAND (SM), dark gray, medium dense (continued)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), dark gray to black, medium dense
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), dark gray to gray,
dense to very dense
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with shell fragments, dark gray, dense
Boring Terminated at 75 Feet
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
GRAPHIC LOG
Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic
THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 72165069 PROPOSED EDR ECU HOUSING; GREENVILLE, NC.GPJ TERRACON2015.GDT 9/6/16
FIELD TEST
RESULTS
DEPTH
LOCATION
Latitude: 35.609454° Longitude: -77.375016°
See Exhibit A-2
PERCENT FINES
WATER
CONTENT (%)
LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
OBSERVATIONS
DEPTH (Ft.)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
SAMPLE
Dickinson Ave and Reade Circle
Greenville, NC
SITE:
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed EdR ECU Housing ■ Greenville, North Carolina
September 6, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 72165069
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit B-1
Laboratory Test Description
Descriptive classifications of the soils indicated on the boring logs are in accordance with the
enclosed General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System. Also shown are estimated
Unified Soil Classification Symbols. A brief description of this classification system is attached to
this report. Soils laboratory testing was performed under the direction of a geotechnical engineer
and included visual classification, moisture content, grain size analysis, and Atterberg limits
testing as appropriate. The results of the laboratory testing are shown on the borings logs and in
Appendix B.
The laboratory test methods are described in the ASTM Standards listed below:
ASTM D2216 Standard Test Method of Determination of Water Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
ASTM D2487 Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil
Classification System)
ASTM D2488 Standard Practice of Description and Identification of Soils (Visual Manual Method)
ASTM D422 Standard Test Method for Particle Size Analysis of Soils
ASTM D1140 Standard Test Methods for Determining the Amount of Material Finer than No. 200
Sieve in Soils by Washing
ASTM D4318 Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils
Procedural standards noted above are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases
variations to methods are applied as a result of local practice or professional judgment.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
0.077
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
PERCENT FINER
3/4 1/2
3/8
SIEVE
(size)
D60
30 40
3 60
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES HYDROMETER
% FINES % CLAY USCS
B-1
B-3
B-4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.2
0.5
7.1
56.9
89.8
GRAY, RED & ORANGE LEAN CLAY
(CL)
BLACK CLAYEY SAND WITH SHELL
FRAGMENTS & MICA (SC)
LIGHT TAN & LIGHT ORANGE
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT
(SP-SM)
0.193
0.157 0.316
1.53
DEPTH
GRAIN SIZE
16 20
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
CL or OL CH or OH
ML or OL
MH or OH
Boring ID Depth PL PI Description
GRAY, RED & ORANGE LEAN CLAY
BLACK CLAYEY SAND WITH SHELL FRAGMENTS & MICA
LIGHT TAN & LIGHT ORANGE POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT
CL
SC
SP-SM
Fines
P
L
A
S
T
I
C
I
T
Y
I
N
D
E
X
LIQUID LIMIT
"U" Line
"A" Line
39
37
NP
16
10
NP
23
27
NP
93
35
10
LL USCS
B-1
B-3
B-4
ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS
ASTM D4318
1 - 2.5
28.5 - 30
8.5 - 10
314 Beacon Dr
Winterville, NC
APPENDIX C
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Trace
With
Modifier
Water Level After
a Specified Period of Time
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY
Trace
With
Modifier
Standard Penetration or
N-Value
Blows/Ft.
Descriptive Term
(Consistency)
Loose
Very Stiff
Exhibit C-1
Standard Penetration or
N-Value
Blows/Ft.
Ring Sampler
Blows/Ft.
Ring Sampler
Blows/Ft.
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
0 - 1 < 3
4 - 9 2 - 4 3 - 4
Medium-Stiff 5 - 9
30 - 50
WATER LEVEL
Auger
Shelby Tube
Ring Sampler
Grab Sample
8 - 15
Split Spoon
Macro Core
Rock Core
PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION
Term
< 15
15 - 29
> 30
Descriptive Term(s)
of other constituents
Water Initially
Encountered
Water Level After a
Specified Period of Time
Major Component
of Sample
Percent of
Dry Weight
(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)
Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance
Includes gravels, sands and silts.
Hard
Very Loose 0 - 3 0 - 6 Very Soft
Exhibit C-2
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A
Soil Classification
Group
Symbol Group Name B
Coarse Grained Soils:
More than 50% retained
on No. 200 sieve
Gravels:
More than 50% of
coarse fraction retained
on No. 4 sieve
Clean Gravels:
Less than 5% fines C
Cu t 4 and 1 d Cc d 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F
Cu 4 and/or 1 ! Cc ! 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F
Gravels with Fines:
More than 12% fines C
Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G,H
Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H
Sands:
50% or more of coarse
fraction passes No. 4
sieve
Clean Sands:
Less than 5% fines D
Cu t 6 and 1 d Cc d 3 E SW Well-graded sand I
Cu 6 and/or 1 ! Cc ! 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I
Sands with Fines:
More than 12% fines D
Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I
Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I
Fine-Grained Soils:
50% or more passes the
No. 200 sieve
Silts and Clays:
Liquid limit less than 50
Inorganic:
PI ! 7 and plots on or above “A” line J CL Lean clay K,L,M
PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K,L,M
Organic:
Liquid limit - oven dried
0.75 OL
Organic clay K,L,M,N
Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O
Silts and Clays:
Liquid limit 50 or more
Inorganic:
PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K,L,M
PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M
Organic:
Liquid limit - oven dried
0.75 OH
Organic clay K,L,M,P
Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,Q
Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat
A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve
B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles
or boulders, or both” to group name.
C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded
gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly
graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.
D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded
sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded
sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay
E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =
10 60
2
30
D x D
(D )
F If soil contains t 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.
G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.
H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.
I If soil contains t 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.
J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.
K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,”
whichever is predominant.
L If soil contains t 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy” to
group name.
M If soil contains t 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add
“gravelly” to group name.
N PI t 4 and plots on or above “A” line.
O PI 4 or plots below “A” line.
P PI plots on or above “A” line.
Q PI plots below “A” line.
7 - 18 Soft
10 - 29 19 - 58
59 - 98 Stiff
less than 500
500 to 1,000
1,000 to 2,000
2,000 to 4,000
> 99 4,000 to 8,000
LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES
SAMPLING
FIELD TESTS
(HP)
(T)
(b/f)
(PID)
(OVA)
DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Descriptive Term
(Density)
Non-plastic
Low
Medium
High
Boulders
Cobbles
Gravel
Sand
Silt or Clay
10 - 18
> 50 15 - 30 19 - 42
> 30 > 42
_
Hand Penetrometer
Torvane
Standard Penetration
Test (blows per foot)
Photo-Ionization Detector
Organic Vapor Analyzer
Water levels indicated on the soil boring
logs are the levels measured in the
borehole at the times indicated.
Groundwater level variations will occur
over time. In low permeability soils,
accurate determination of groundwater
levels is not possible with short term
water level observations.
CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS
(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)
Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field
visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance
DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION
> 8,000
Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The accuracy
of such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey was
conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographic
maps of the area.
Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dry
weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have
less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and
silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be
added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined
on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.
Plasticity Index
0
1 - 10
11 - 30
> 30
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES
Descriptive Term(s)
of other constituents
Percent of
Dry Weight
< 5
5 - 12
> 12
No Recovery
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS
Particle Size
Over 12 in. (300 mm)
12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm)
3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)
#4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm
Passing #200 sieve (0.075mm)
STRENGTH TERMS
Unconfined Compressive
Strength, Qu, psf
4 - 8
GENERAL NOTES
PROJECT NUMBER: 72165069
PROJECT: Proposed EDR ECU Housing
SITE: Dickinson Ave and Reade Circle
Greenville, NC
CLIENT: EdR
Memphis, TN
EXHIBIT: B-3
LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. ATTERBERG LIMITS 72165069 PROPOSED EDR ECU HOUSING; GREENVILLE, NC.GPJ TERRACON2015.GDT 9/3/16
CL-ML
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
REMARKS
COBBLES SILT OR CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
medium
92.9
34.9
9.7
U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
4 4 6 100
3 2
fine coarse
SOIL DESCRIPTION
CU 4.09
BORING ID
10 14
6 50
1.5 8 200
1 140
coarse fine
COEFFICIENTS
% COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND
D30
D10
CC
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT
% SILT
100.0
99.85
99.58
99.07
97.79
92.92
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D422
CL
SC
SP-SM
1 1/2"
1"
3/4"
1/2"
3/8"
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#200
1 - 2.5
28.5 - 30
8.5 - 10
314 Beacon Dr
Winterville, NC
PROJECT NUMBER: 72165069
PROJECT: Proposed EDR ECU Housing
SITE: Dickinson Ave and Reade Circle
Greenville, NC
CLIENT: EdR
Memphis, TN
EXHIBIT: B-2
LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GRAIN SIZE: USCS 1 72165069 PROPOSED EDR ECU HOUSING; GREENVILLE, NC.GPJ 35159097 - ATTERBERG ISSUE.GPJ 9/3/16
Page 2 of 2
Advancement Method:
Mud Rotary
Abandonment Method:
Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.
314 Beacon Dr
Winterville, NC
Notes:
Project No.: 72165069
Drill Rig: Trailer
Boring Started: 8/18/2016
BORING LOG NO. B-4
CLIENT: EdR
Memphis, TN
Driller: Carolina Drilling, Inc.
Boring Completed: 8/18/2016
Exhibit: A-7
See Exhibit A-3 for description of field
procedures.
See Appendix B for description of laboratory
procedures and additional data (if any).
See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and
abbreviations.
PROJECT: Proposed EDR ECU Housing
Cave in after 25 hours
After 24 hours
Cave in after 25 hours
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
After 24 hours
PERCENT FINES
WATER
CONTENT (%)
LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
OBSERVATIONS
DEPTH (Ft.)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SAMPLE
Dickinson Ave and Reade Circle
Greenville, NC
SITE:
Page 1 of 2
Advancement Method:
Mud Rotary
Abandonment Method:
Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.
314 Beacon Dr
Winterville, NC
Notes:
Project No.: 72165069
Drill Rig: Trailer
Boring Started: 8/18/2016
BORING LOG NO. B-4
CLIENT: EdR
Memphis, TN
Driller: Carolina Drilling, Inc.
Boring Completed: 8/18/2016
Exhibit: A-7
See Exhibit A-3 for description of field
procedures.
See Appendix B for description of laboratory
procedures and additional data (if any).
See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and
abbreviations.
PROJECT: Proposed EDR ECU Housing
Cave in after 25 hours
After 24 hours
Cave in after 25 hours
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
After 24 hours
SITE:
Page 2 of 2
Advancement Method:
Mud Rotary
Abandonment Method:
Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.
314 Beacon Dr
Winterville, NC
Notes:
Project No.: 72165069
Drill Rig: Track
Boring Started: 8/18/2016
BORING LOG NO. B-3
CLIENT: EdR
Memphis, TN
Driller: Carolina Drilling, Inc.
Boring Completed: 8/18/2016
Exhibit: A-6
See Exhibit A-3 for description of field
procedures.
See Appendix B for description of laboratory
procedures and additional data (if any).
See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and
abbreviations.
PROJECT: Proposed EDR ECU Housing
Cave in after 25 hours
After 24 hours
Cave in after 25 hours
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
After 24 hours
WATER
CONTENT (%)
LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
OBSERVATIONS
DEPTH (Ft.)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SAMPLE
Dickinson Ave and Reade Circle
Greenville, NC
SITE:
Page 1 of 2
Advancement Method:
Mud Rotary
Abandonment Method:
Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.
314 Beacon Dr
Winterville, NC
Notes:
Project No.: 72165069
Drill Rig: Track
Boring Started: 8/18/2016
BORING LOG NO. B-3
CLIENT: EdR
Memphis, TN
Driller: Carolina Drilling, Inc.
Boring Completed: 8/18/2016
Exhibit: A-6
See Exhibit A-3 for description of field
procedures.
See Appendix B for description of laboratory
procedures and additional data (if any).
See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and
abbreviations.
PROJECT: Proposed EDR ECU Housing
Cave in after 25 hours
After 24 hours
Cave in after 25 hours
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
After 24 hours
Advancement Method:
Mud Rotary
Abandonment Method:
Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.
314 Beacon Dr
Winterville, NC
Notes:
Project No.: 72165069
Drill Rig: Track
Boring Started: 8/19/2016
BORING LOG NO. B-2
CLIENT: EdR
Memphis, TN
Driller: Carolina Drilling, Inc.
Boring Completed: 8/19/2016
Exhibit: A-5
See Exhibit A-3 for description of field
procedures.
See Appendix B for description of laboratory
procedures and additional data (if any).
See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and
abbreviations.
PROJECT: Proposed EDR ECU Housing
Cave in after 25 hours
At completion of drilling
Cave in after 25 hours
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
At completion of drilling
LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
OBSERVATIONS
DEPTH (Ft.)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SAMPLE
Dickinson Ave and Reade Circle
Greenville, NC
SITE:
Page 1 of 2
Advancement Method:
Mud Rotary
Abandonment Method:
Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.
314 Beacon Dr
Winterville, NC
Notes:
Project No.: 72165069
Drill Rig: Track
Boring Started: 8/19/2016
BORING LOG NO. B-2
CLIENT: EdR
Memphis, TN
Driller: Carolina Drilling, Inc.
Boring Completed: 8/19/2016
Exhibit: A-5
See Exhibit A-3 for description of field
procedures.
See Appendix B for description of laboratory
procedures and additional data (if any).
See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and
abbreviations.
PROJECT: Proposed EDR ECU Housing
Cave in after 25 hours
At completion of drilling
Cave in after 25 hours
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
At completion of drilling
Dickinson Ave and Reade Circle
Greenville, NC
SITE:
Page 2 of 2
Advancement Method:
Mud Rotary
Abandonment Method:
Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.
314 Beacon Dr
Winterville, NC
Notes:
Project No.: 72165069
Drill Rig: Track
Boring Started: 8/18/2016
BORING LOG NO. B-1
CLIENT: EdR
Memphis, TN
Driller: Carolina Drilling, Inc.
Boring Completed: 8/18/2016
Exhibit: A-4
See Exhibit A-3 for description of field
procedures.
See Appendix B for description of laboratory
procedures and additional data (if any).
See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and
abbreviations.
PROJECT: Proposed EDR ECU Housing
Cave in after 25 hours
After 24 hours
Cave in after 25 hours
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
After 24 hours
THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 72165069 PROPOSED EDR ECU HOUSING; GREENVILLE, NC.GPJ TERRACON2015.GDT 9/6/16
FIELD TEST
RESULTS
DEPTH
LOCATION
Latitude: 35.609625° Longitude: -77.375556°
See Exhibit A-2
PERCENT FINES
WATER
CONTENT (%)
LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
OBSERVATIONS
DEPTH (Ft.)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SAMPLE
Dickinson Ave and Reade Circle
Greenville, NC
SITE:
Page 1 of 2
Advancement Method:
Mud Rotary
Abandonment Method:
Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.
314 Beacon Dr
Winterville, NC
Notes:
Project No.: 72165069
Drill Rig: Track
Boring Started: 8/18/2016
BORING LOG NO. B-1
CLIENT: EdR
Memphis, TN
Driller: Carolina Drilling, Inc.
Boring Completed: 8/18/2016
Exhibit: A-4
See Exhibit A-3 for description of field
procedures.
See Appendix B for description of laboratory
procedures and additional data (if any).
See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and
abbreviations.
PROJECT: Proposed EDR ECU Housing
Cave in after 25 hours
After 24 hours
Cave in after 25 hours
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
After 24 hours