Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Ecusta Road Property...

Preliminary Geotechnical

Exploration

Ecusta Road Property

Brevard, North Carolina

S&ME Project No. 1441-16-023

Prepared for:

Transylvania County Economic Alliance

147 East Main Street

Suite 301

Brevard, North Carolina 28712

Prepared by:

S&ME, Inc.

44 Buck Shoals Road, Ste C-3

Arden, NC 28704

September 16, 2016

Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration




September 16, 2016 ii

Table of Contents

1.0 Project Information ............................................................................................... 1

2.0 Exploration and Testing ....................................................................................... 1

3.0 Site and Subsurface Conditions ......................................................................... 2

3.1 Site Conditions .................................................................................................................. 2

3.2 Area Geology..................................................................................................................... 3

3.3 Subsurface Conditions ..................................................................................................... 4

3.3.1 Surface Materials ................................................................................................................ 4

3.3.2 Existing Fill ......................................................................................................................... 4

3.3.3 Alluvium ............................................................................................................................. 4

3.3.4 Residuum ............................................................................................................................. 5

3.3.5 Partially Weathered Rock (PWR)........................................................................................ 5

3.3.6 Subsurface Water ................................................................................................................ 5

4.0 Preliminary Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................... 5

4.1 General Discussion ........................................................................................................... 5

4.2 Preliminary Foundation Alternatives ............................................................................ 6

4.2.1 Conventional Spread Footings ............................................................................................ 6

4.2.2 Spread Footings with Ground Improvement (Compacted Aggregate Piers) ...................... 6

4.2.3 Deep Foundations ................................................................................................................ 7

4.3 Preliminary Earthwork Recommendations .................................................................. 7

4.3.1 Site Preparation and Subgrade Evaluation - General ......................................................... 7

4.4 Fill Placement and Compaction ...................................................................................... 8

4.4.1 In-Place Density Testing ..................................................................................................... 8

4.5 Excavation Conditions ..................................................................................................... 8

4.6 Seismic Site Classification ................................................................................................ 9

4.7 Floor Slab ........................................................................................................................... 9

5.0 Supplemental Exploration ................................................................................... 9

6.0 Limitations of Report ............................................................................................ 9





September 16, 2016 1

1.0 Project Information

Our understanding of the project and site are based on the following:

On July 29, 2016, David Loftis, P.E. with S&ME met with Mr. Josh Hallingse, Executive Director of

the Transylvania County Economic Alliance (TCEA) at the offices of TCEA in Brevard, North

Carolina.

Email from Mr. Hallingse to Mr. Loftis on August 24, 2016 clarifying that the possible industrial

building could be 50,000 square feet (our proposal indicated 5,000 square feet).

S&ME previously performed a Phase I ESA and a Limited Site Assessment (LSA) in 2011 under

contract with the Land-of-Sky Regional Council for the subject property. The assessment

activities were ultimately performed for the benefit and use of the City of Brevard.

The subject property is being considered for development of a 50,000-square foot, one-story, steel

framed, metal sided building planned to be used for light industrial purposes. Mr. Hallingse stated that

the industry will include aluminum metal fabrication. The location of the building is not known at this

time, and conceptual development drawings and grading plans have not been developed. Structural

loads are also not known, but for the sake of our evaluation, we assume maximum column loads will be

less than 125 kips and wall loads will be about 2 to 4 kips per linear foot.

We were informed the future business may install a computer numerical control (CNC) machine within the

building footprint. We anticipate the machine will be relatively heavy, but the actual weight is not known

at this time. We assume floor slab loads will generally be less than 150 psf, with higher loads at the CNC

machine location, and possibly in areas where materials are stored.

After the locations of the building, CNC machine, parking lots, etc. are determined and structural and floor

slab loads are better defined, additional exploration will likely be warranted. Because the site is relatively

flat and level, we anticipate earthwork for the project would consist of cuts and fills no deeper than about

5 feet. However, deeper excavation could be required for storm drainage and/or utilities.

2.0 Exploration and Testing

The field exploration included a visual site reconnaissance and boring layout by our staff professional and

performance of 5 soil test borings (B-1 through B-5). The borings were each drilled to 20 feet below the

surface.

The boring locations were located in the field by using available aerial maps and measuring distances

from existing site features. The boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan in the Appendix

(Figure 2). Because precise survey techniques were not used, the indicated locations should be

considered approximate. Boring Logs presenting the subsurface information obtained and a description

of the boring procedures are included in the Appendix. The ground surface elevations were not available

to us and are not shown on the Boring Logs.






The borings were made with a truck-mounted drill rig and advanced using hollow stem auger techniques.

Split-spoon samples and standard penetration resistance (N) values were obtained at selected intervals

using a manual (rope and cathead) safety hammer.

The samples obtained during the exploration were transported to our laboratory where they were visually

and manually classified by a Geotechnical Engineer. The visual and manual classification was estimated

based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and our experience with similar soil conditions.

3.0 Site and Subsurface Conditions

3.1 Site Conditions

The proposed industrial site is located on the west side of Ecusta Road in Brevard, North Carolina (see

Figure 1 – Vicinity Map in the Appendix). The site is in the apparent geologic floodplain of the Davidson

River, French Broad River, and their tributaries. The subject property consists of one parcel with a

Transylvania County Property Identification Number (PIN) of 8597-31-5264 and does not have an address.

However, it surrounds the north, west, and south sides of an old gas station at 630 Ecusta Road.

According to Mr. Hallingse, the subject property is 6.5 acres in size and is currently owned by the City of

Brevard. We understand prior uses of the property include farmland, parking for the former Ecusta Paper

Mill facility, and a driver training facility operated by the City of Brevard.

The majority of the parcel is currently paved, although most areas are severely cracked with some

vegetation growing through the pavement. A photograph is provided below.

Date

: 3/2

/2011

P

ho

tog

rap

her:

D. Lo

ftis

Location / Orientation Pavement and storm drain / looking east

Remarks Asphalt is severely cracked with vegetation growing

through






A well house with masonry walls about 5 feet tall is in the northwest part of the site. The old gas station

consists of a one-story block building with significant cracking in the masonry, most likely due to

excessive settlement. A photograph is provided below.

Date

: 3/2

/2011

P

ho

tog

rap

her:

D. Lo

ftis

Location / Orientation Old Gas Station Building

Remarks Apparent settlement cracks

Being previously developed and in a geologic floodplain area, the site is relatively flat. A topographic

survey was not available; however, based on topographic information available on Google Earth, the

ground surface elevations in the previously paved areas vary from about 2121 feet in the southeast to

about 2130 feet in the northwest. The western edge of the site is wooded and slopes upward a few more

feet from the paved area.

3.2 Area Geology

The project site is in the Brevard Fault Zone of the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province of North Carolina,

an area underlain by ancient igneous and metamorphic rocks. The soils encountered in this area are the

residual product of in-place physical and chemical weathering of the rock presently underlying the site. In

areas not altered by erosion or disturbed by the activities of man, the typical residual soil profile typically

consists of clayey soils near the surface, where soil weathering is more advanced, underlain by sandy silts

and silty sands. The boundary between soil and rock is not sharply defined. This transitional zone,

termed "partially weathered rock," is normally found overlying parent bedrock. Partially weathered rock is

defined, for engineering purposes, as residual material with standard penetration resistance values of at

least 50 blows per 6 inches. Weathering is facilitated by fractures, joints, and the presence of less resistant






rock types. Consequently, the profile of the partially weathered rock (as well as hard rock) is quite

irregular and erratic, even over relatively short horizontal distances. Also, it is not unusual to find lenses

and boulders of hard rock and zones of partially weathered rock within the soil mantle, well above the

general bedrock level.

Fill soils are placed by man in conjunction with activities such as construction grading, farming, or waste

disposal. Fill can be comprised of a variety of soil types and can also contain debris from building

demolition, organics, topsoil, trash, etc. The engineering properties of fill depend primarily on its

composition, density, and moisture content.

Typically, the upper soils along streams, creeks, rivers, drainage features, and in geologic flood plain areas

are water-deposited materials (termed alluvium) that have been eroded and washed down from higher

ground. These alluvial soils are usually wet, soft and compressible, having never been consolidated by

pressures in excess of their present overburden. Alluvial materials can vary from silts and clays to sand,

gravel, cobbles, and boulders, and can contain organic debris.

3.3 Subsurface Conditions

A general description of subsurface conditions is provided below. For more detailed information the

Boring Logs in the Appendix should be reviewed.

3.3.1 Surface Materials

The borings initially penetrated asphalt and crushed stone associated with the existing old pavements.

The asphalt encountered was about 1 to 2 inches thick and the crushed stone was about 2 to 3 inches

thick. However, no asphalt was remaining at the location of Boring B-3, which initially penetrated about 1

inch of topsoil. The surface materials and their thicknesses will vary across the site.

3.3.2 Existing Fill

Existing fill material was encountered in boring B-5 beneath the pavement materials to about 3 feet deep.

The fill was described as medium dense, brown and gray, silty sand (USCS Group Symbol SM). The fill

exhibited a standard penetration resistance value (N-value) of 11 blows per foot (bpf). N-values are

generally poor indicators of compaction, but it appears that some compactive effort had been applied

and/or the material was consolidated to some degree by previous vehicular traffic.

3.3.3 Alluvium

Beneath the fill in B-5 and beneath the pavement materials or topsoil in the remaining borings, alluvial

materials were encountered. The alluvium (water-deposited soil) was encountered to depths ranging

from 7 to 17 feet below the surface. The alluvium was generally described as gray, brown, and tan fat clay

(CH), lean clay (CL), silty sand (SM) and silty gravel with sand (GM). The alluvial soils were typically

described as very moist to wet, or well above their standard Proctor optimum moisture contents. The

alluvium often contained rock pieces, particularly in the lower parts of the alluvial layer. N-values ranged

from 2 bpf to 50 blows for 4 inches of penetration in the alluvium. However, the higher values were most

likely amplified due to the presence of larger rock materials/pieces. The N-values obtained indicated

loose to very dense relative densities in the sandy soils and gravel, and very soft to very stiff relative






densities in the clayey soils. However, (again) the denser relative densities are more likely due to

amplified N-values caused by rock materials.

3.3.4 Residuum

Residual materials were encountered below the alluvium in all of the borings. (The residual material

consisted of partially weathered rock in borings B-2 and B-5 as discussed in the next section.) The

residual soils encountered in borings B-1, B-3 and B-4 were described as very stiff to very hard, gray, tan

and orange-brown, sandy silt (ML). Standard penetration resistance values in the residual soils ranged

from 31 to 51 bpf. Boring B-3 was terminated in the residual soils at its planned termination depth of 20

feet.

3.3.5 Partially Weathered Rock (PWR)

Partially weathered rock (PWR) was encountered in borings B-1, B-2, B-4 and B-5 at depths varying from

12 to 17 feet. PWR is defined as a transitional material between very hard soil and rock which has an N-

value of at least 50 blows per 6 inches. The PWR was described as very dense or very hard, gray, tan and

orange-brown, silty sand (SM) and sandy silt (ML). These borings were terminated in the PWR at their

planned termination depths of 20 feet.

3.3.6 Subsurface Water

Subsurface water was encountered in the borings at depths ranging from 5.5 to 7.7 feet below the surface

about 24 hours after the completion of drilling. Subsurface water elevations should be expected to

fluctuate due to seasonal variations in rainfall, nearby stream and river levels, construction activity, and

other factors, and could be encountered at different depths in the future.

4.0 Preliminary Conclusions and Recommendations

The preliminary conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based on information and

assumptions concerning expected existing and final site grades, our understanding of the proposed

project, findings of the preliminary subsurface exploration, geotechnical engineering evaluations of

encountered subsurface conditions, and experience with similar projects. When reviewing this

information, please keep in mind subsurface conditions vary erratically in this geologic area, particularly

with respect to alluvium, partially weathered rock, bedrock, and subsurface water levels. A supplemental,

design geotechnical exploration should be performed after the design grades have been established as

well as structure locations and loads, proposed slopes, etc. The design geotechnical exploration will

consist of additional borings and/or test pits in previously unexplored areas, laboratory testing, and the

report will contain more detailed design recommendations.

4.1 General Discussion

Based on the encountered subsurface conditions, the site is underlain by low consistency alluvial soils (soil

deposited over time by water or flooding) with some existing fill, and subsurface water is shallow (5.5 to

7.7 feet deep). Alluvial soils are typically under consolidated, and will tend to settle excessively and non-

uniformly under new loads, and we would expect settlement-related issues for structures built without

remedial site work or special foundations. It is our opinion the site can be developed for support of the






building and pavements; however, special measures will be required to support the building and internal

heavy equipment. Special measures could including undercutting some of the alluvium and stabilization

with geotextile fabric and crushed stone, ground improvement with compacted aggregate piers, or deep

foundations, depending on the structural loads and the owner’s tolerance for risk.

Site grading will also require some special measures because the majority of the alluvial soils sampled

during the exploration will be very difficult to work with because of the high clay and moisture content.

These soils will not dry effectively and if excavated, will likely need to be replaced with soils from off site.

If grading is performed during hot and dry weather, a portion of the soils may be adaptable for reuse. To

reduce the amount of unsuitable soils excavated and to improve foundation support characteristics, if

practical, we recommend the site be raised about 4 to 5 feet with low plasticity and sandy structural fill.

The following sections provide more detailed comments and preliminary recommendations for these and

other geotechnical issues relative to the proposed construction.

4.2 Preliminary Foundation Alternatives

4.2.1 Conventional Spread Footings

Conventional spread footings can be used for support of the building if a sufficient thickness of new, well-

compacted material will underlie the foundations and the owner is willing to accept some risk of future

settlement.

Based on our experience with similar conditions, the risks will be somewhat low in our opinion for the

anticipated lightly loaded building columns if grading can be performed so that at least 4 to 5 feet of new,

well-compacted structural fill can be placed under the deepest building foundations. (Support of the

anticipated internal heavy equipment will require ground improvement as discussed below.) This could

be accomplished by undercutting some of the existing soils under the building footprint, stabilizing the

subgrade with fabric and 18 to 24 inches of crushed stone, and placing compacted structural fill soil, or

raising the entire site. Because all of the alluvial materials (which extend up to 17 feet below the surface

with subsurface water at about 5.5 feet below the surface) cannot be practically undercut and replaced,

some risks will remain with this approach. (A similar approach was used on the Habitat for Humanity

Restore on the adjacent site to the south and the building appears to be functioning properly.) If site

grades can be raised sufficiently, this could reduce the amount of undercutting required.

If this remedial approach is selected for building support, a design bearing pressure of up to 2,000 psf

could be used in design to size column and wall footings.

4.2.2 Spread Footings with Ground Improvement (Compacted Aggregate Piers)

Depending on the design building and floor slab loads, final grades, and the owner’s tolerance of risk,

another option could be ground improvement. This is typically considered a lower risk option. Also, the

undercutting and stabilization described above would probably be reduced or possibly eliminated in the

building area. The design and installation of the ground improvement system is typically handled by a

design-build specialty contractor. We expect a series of compacted aggregate piers (CAPs) or rigid

inclusions (controlled stiffness columns) could be installed to support the building and heavy internal

equipment. Typically these are installed beneath the footings and equipment mats only, but they can also






be installed on a grid pattern to support the slab and the weight of new fill, and reduce differential

settlement across the entire structure. The CAPs or inclusions would probably need to extend through the

alluvial layer and into the residual soils or partially weathered rock. The aggregate piers generally have a

24- to 36-inch diameter and the rigid inclusions are a smaller diameter. With this approach, because the

foundations are supported on improved soils and compacted aggregate, higher bearing pressures are

usually available for foundation design (typically about 4,000 to 6,000 psf).

4.2.3 Deep Foundations

The lowest risk option for building support, that also carries the highest cost, is a deep foundation system.

There are many different types of deep foundations that could be considered for support of the building.

Micropiles or driven steel H-piles may be the most suitable deep foundation type for this site because of

the potentially rocky materials in the lower parts of the alluvial layer. Deep foundations are the most

expensive option, however, and are likely cost-prohibitive for the size of the project.

4.3 Preliminary Earthwork Recommendations

4.3.1 Site Preparation and Subgrade Evaluation - General

To prepare the site for construction, all surface vegetation, topsoil, roots and any other unsuitable surface

materials should be stripped to at least 10 feet beyond building lines and 5 feet beyond planned

pavement lines. The existing pavements should generally be removed; however, if the site grades are

being raised significantly, it may be possible to leave some of these materials in place, particularly

beneath planned pavement and landscaped areas. If any old pavement is left in place, it will need to be

sufficiently broken up so that it does not trap water. We will need to evaluate this potential after a site

grading plan is developed.

Existing fill will be present in some areas. This will need to be undercut from the building areas and

recompacted or replaced. Existing fill will require evaluation in pavement areas to determine its suitability.

Alluvial soils exist over the site, and are highly susceptible to changes in moisture content and will be

problematic, especially in wet weather. As previously discussed, several alternatives are available to

support the new building and proposed equipment. One alternative included partial undercut and

replacement, or raising the entire site. If the undercut alternative is used, excavation will extend 4 to 5

feet below the ground surface and very close or possibly into the existing subsurface water table. The

exposed soils at this depth will be very wet and unstable, and require stabilization with crushed stone and

a high performance geotextile. Also, some dewatering could be required.

If the site is raised above the current grade or if ground improvements or deep foundations are used, the

upper alluvial clays could be soft, wet and unstable after the site is stripped, especially if grading is

initiated during a cold, wet period of the year. So, some undercutting and/or stabilization could still be

required based on the proofrolling procedure discussed below. The stabilization method selected will

need to take into account the planned remedial approach so that the stabilization layer does not inhibit

installation of foundation elements (e.g., a layer of rip-rap size crushed stone could cause problems with

installing compacted aggregate piers).






After stripping and undercutting as required, the exposed subgrades should be evaluated by a

representative of the Geotechnical Engineer. During this evaluation, the exposed subgrade should be

methodically proofrolled with a tandem-axle dump truck or similar piece of rubber-tired equipment

loaded at the engineer’s discretion. Areas that deflect excessively during proofrolling should be undercut

or stabilized in place as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer before placing fill. Depending on

the subgrade condition, some areas may be too unstable for proofrolling. These areas should be

evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative using hand auger boring and Dynamic Cone

Penetrometer testing.

4.4 Fill Placement and Compaction

The majority of the soils sampled during this exploration appear challenging or not suitable for reuse in a

well-compacted fill to support buildings and pavements. The majority of the sampled soils were wet of

their optimum moisture contents and have a high plasticity. Drying will be difficult or not reasonably

possible. Also, the plasticity index of fat clays is usually too high to be reused as structural fill. For these

reasons, most excavated materials will require being wasted in non-structural areas or hauled off-site.

We expect the contractor will need to import the majority of the fill and trench backfill soils. Any soils

proposed as fill should be evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to hauling to the site, but should

consist of clean, sandy soils.

Normally for a project of this nature, all fill should be uniformly compacted to at least 95 percent of the

soil’s maximum dry density, as determined by the standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D-698).

Typically, the moisture content of the soil will need to be controlled to within about 3 percent of its

optimum moisture content to achieve the recommended degree of compaction. All structural fill should

be free of organic matter and other deleterious materials and have maximum particle size of 4 inches.

4.4.1 In-Place Density Testing

A qualified Materials Technician working under the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer should observe

fill placement. The Technician should perform a sufficient number of in-place field density tests during

mass grading and backfilling of utility trenches to assess whether the recommended compaction criteria

have been achieved. Field check plugs should be performed to determine appropriate standard Proctor

comparisons.

4.5 Excavation Conditions

The boring data indicates excavation to shallow depths beneath existing grades will encounter low

consistency fill and alluvial soils. Rocky alluvial materials (cobbles and boulders) and hard residual soils

appear to be present below about 7 to 10 feet beneath the existing ground surface. Partially weathered

rock (PWR) was encountered between 12 and 17 feet below existing grades. We expect the soils can be

excavated by front-end loaders and/or tracked excavators. Due to the soft subgrade conditions and

shallow groundwater, light-weight tracked equipment may be required. Be aware that rock in a boulder,

weathered and massive form varies erratically in location and depth in this geologic region. Therefore,

these materials can exist at shallower depths between the borings and in unexplored areas. If

encountered during utility installation, rock (and sometimes PWR) will require blasting or removed by

pneumatic tools.






Subsurface water was encountered at depths ranging from about 5.5 to 8 feet. Since a grading plan has

not been developed at this time and there will be several alternatives for preparing the site for building

support, the effect on construction will need to addressed during the final exploration.

All 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 solely

responsible for site safety. This information is provided only as a service and under no circumstances

should S&ME be assumed to be responsible for construction site safety.

4.6 Seismic Site Classification

Depending on the building placement and final grades, the site could be in Seismic Site Class D or C. At

the existing grades, some borings indicate D and some borings indicate C. If grades are raised as

expected, Seismic Site Class D will likely be appropriate in most areas.

4.7 Floor Slab

Building floor slabs can be soil supported on properly prepared subgrades. Typically, the floor slabs are

separated from the subgrade soils by a 6-inch thick layer of crushed stone.

Depending on final grades selected, a thicker underslab drainage layer may be required due to the

shallow groundwater level. A vapor barrier should also be considered beneath the grade slab to help

prevent slab dampness due to the upward migration of soil moisture. The need for a vapor barrier will

also be dependent upon the floor covering design and local building codes.

5.0 Supplemental Exploration

When project plans are further advanced, with the building location, loads and design subgrade levels

established, a supplemental exploration should be performed. This is important because the site is

underlain by erratic alluvial and fill soils, the subsurface water level is shallow, previous development has

occurred, and the borings were widely spaced. That exploration would include additional soil test borings,

possibly backhoe-excavated test pits, possibly laboratory testing, and final design recommendations

could be provided.

6.0 Limitations of Report

This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice

for specific application to this project. The preliminary 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 preliminary recommendations submitted herein are for planning and evaluating the

site’s feasibility. It should not be used for design or construction purposes.






Assessment of site environmental conditions; sampling of soils, groundwater or other materials for

environmental contaminants; identification of jurisdictional wetlands, rare or endangered species, or

geological hazards were beyond the scope of this geotechnical exploration.

Appendices

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO:

FIGURE NO.

WWW.SMEINC.COM

DRAWING PATH: Q:\1441\2016\16-023 - ECUSTA RD PROPERTY\Ecusta Road Parcel - FIGURES.dwg

VICINITY MAP

ECUSTA ROAD PROPERTY (6.5 ACRES)

ECUSTA ROAD

BREVARD, NORTH CAROLINA

AS SHOWN

RDM

SEPT. 2016

1441-16-023

1

GRAPHIC SCALE

02000 1000 2000

SCALE: 1" = 2,000'

SOURCE: PISGAH FOREST, NC AND BREVARD, NC, 7.5-MINUTE SERIES, US TOPOS (2013),

SITE

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO:

FIGURE NO.

WWW.SMEINC.COM

DRAWING PATH: Q:\1441\2016\16-023 - ECUSTA RD PROPERTY\Ecusta Road Parcel - FIGURES.dwg

BORING LOCATION PLAN

ECUSTA ROAD PROPERTY (6.5 ACRES)

ECUSTA ROAD

BREVARD, NORTH CAROLINA

AS SHOWN

RDM

SEPT. 2016

1441-16-023

2

KEY

- APPROXIMATE SOIL TEST BORING LOCATION

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

SOURCE: 2015 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND 2015 PARCEL DATA OBTAINED FROM NCONEMAP.COM

GRAPHIC SCALE

0120 60 120

SCALE: 1" = 120'

RQD

Asphalt

Concrete

Topsoil

Shelby Tube

Split Spoon

Rock Core

No Recovery

HC

LEGEND TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS

Partially WeatheredRock

Cored Rock

(Shown in Water Level Column)

- Total Length of Rock Recovered in the CoreBarrel Divided by the Total Length of the CoreRun Times 100%.

- Total Length of Sound Rock SegmentsRecovered that are Longer Than or Equal to 4"(mechanical breaks excluded) Divided by theTotal Length of the Core Run Times 100%.

0 to 45 to 1011 to 3031 to 50Over 50

Silt (ML)

Clay (CL, CH)

Sandy Silt (ML)

Clayey Sand (SC)

Clayey Silt (MH)

Organic (OL, OH)

RELATIVE DENSITY

Very LooseLoose

Medium DenseDense

Very Dense

SAMPLER TYPES(Shown in Samples Column)

TERMS

StandardPenetrationResistance

(Shown in Graphic Log)

WATER LEVELS

CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS

CONSISTENCY

STD. PENETRATIONRESISTANCEBLOWS/FOOT

Very SoftSoftFirmStiff

Very StiffHard

Very Hard

REC

STD. PENETRATIONRESISTANCEBLOWS/FOOT

RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS

= Water Level At Termination of Boring= Water Level Taken After 24 Hours= Loss of Drilling Water= Hole Cave

- The Number of Blows of 140 lb. Hammer Falling30 in. Required to Drive 1.4 in. I.D. Split SpoonSampler 1 Foot. As Specified in ASTM D-1586.

0 to 23 to 45 to 8

9 to 1516 to 3031 to 50Over 50

Fill

Sand (SW, SP)

Silty Sand (SM)

Sandy Clay (CL, CH)

Silty Clay (CL, CH)

Gravel (GW, GM, GP)

SOIL TYPES (USCS CLASSIFICATION)

11

9

10

46

46

50/5"

ASPHALT - (1 inch)

CRUSHED STONE - (2 inches)

ALLUVIUM: FAT CLAY (CH) - stiff, browngray, trace fine sand, moist

ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - loose, graytan, fine to medium, some rounded rock pieces,moist

RESIDUUM: SANDY SILT (ML) - hard, graytan, fine - no sample recovery from 8.5 to 10 feet; classified as residuum by driller

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SANDYSILT WITH GRAVEL (ML) - very hard, gray,fine to coarse, with rock pieces, moist

Boring terminated at 20 feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

6

4

4

21

20

50/5"

4

4

3

9

9

26

5

5

6

25

26

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

N V

ALU

E

DE

PT

H

(fee

t)

THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMEDPROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.

BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERALACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.

STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.

WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.

NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

5

10

15

20

ELE

VA

TIO

N

(fee

t)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

2nd

6in

/ REC

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

O.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #

BLOW COUNT/ CORE DATA

1.

2.

3.

4.

BORING LOG B-1

Page 1 of 1

PROJECT: Ecusta Road PropertyBrevard, North CarolinaS&ME Project No. 1441-16-023

CLIENT: Transylvania Co. Economic Alliance

DATE DRILLED: 8/31/16 - 8/31/16

DRILL RIG: CME 45

DRILLER: Metro Drill

HAMMER TYPE: Manual Hammer

SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon

DRILLING METHOD: 2¼" H.S.A.

ELEVATION:

BORING DEPTH: 20.0 ft

WATER LEVEL: 10' @ TOB, 6.3' @ 24 hrs

LOGGED BY: M. McCurdy

NOTES:

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TLE

| 12

-22-

2009

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

| L

IBR

AR

Y 2

009_

12_2

2.G

LB |

BO

RIN

G L

OG

S.G

PJ

| 9/1

5/16

>>

6

4

2

3

47

50/5"

ASPHALT - (1 inch)


ALLUVIUM: LEAN CLAY (CL) - firm, grayblack, fine, very moist

ALLUVIUM: FAT CLAY (CH) - soft to verysoft, gray tan, very moist to wet

ALLUVIUM: SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND(GM) - dense, tan brown, fine to coarse, withrounded rock pieces and cobbles, very wet

RESIDUUM/PARTIALLY WEATHEREDROCK: SILTY SAND (SM) - very dense, tanorange-brown, fine to medium


1

2

3

4

5

6

3

2

1

1

26

3

2

1

2

12

50/5"

3

2

1

2

21

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

N V

ALU

E

DE

PT

H

(fee

t)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

5

10

15

20

ELE

VA

TIO

N

(fee

t)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


2nd

6in

/ REC

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

O.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


1.

2.

3.

4.

BORING LOG B-2

Page 1 of 1



DATE DRILLED: 8/31/16 - 8/31/16

DRILL RIG: CME 45





ELEVATION:




NOTES:

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TLE

| 12

-22-

2009

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

| L

IBR

AR

Y 2

009_

12_2

2.G

LB |

BO

RIN

G L

OG

S.G

PJ

| 9/1

5/16

>>

8

3

4

6

50/4"

51

TOPSOIL - (1 inch)

ALLUVIUM: FAT CLAY (CH) - firm to soft,brown tan gray, trace fine sand, very moist

ALLUVIUM: LEAN CLAY (CL) - soft to firm,tan gray, some fine to coarse sand and gravel,very moist to wet

ALLUVIUM: SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND(GM) - very dense, brown orange-brown, fineto coarse, with rock pieces and cobbles, verywet

RESIDUUM: SANDY SILT (ML) - very hard,tan orange-brown, fine


1

2

3

4

5

6

3

2

2

3

16

20

3

1

2

3

3

8

5

1

2

3

50/4"

31

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

N V

ALU

E

DE

PT

H

(fee

t)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

5

10

15

20

ELE

VA

TIO

N

(fee

t)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


2nd

6in

/ REC

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

O.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


1.

2.

3.

4.

BORING LOG B-3

Page 1 of 1



DATE DRILLED: 8/31/16 - 8/31/16

DRILL RIG: CME 45





ELEVATION:




NOTES:

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TLE

| 12

-22-

2009

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

| L

IBR

AR

Y 2

009_

12_2

2.G

LB |

BO

RIN

G L

OG

S.G

PJ

| 9/1

5/16

>>

5

16

24

31

50/4"

50/5"

ASPHALT - (1.5 inches)


ALLUVIUM: LEAN CLAY (CL) - firm, tanbrown gray, trace fine sand, very moist

ALLUVIUM: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) - verystiff, brown tan, fine to medium, trace rockfragments, very moist

RESIDUUM: SANDY SILT (ML) - very stiff tohard, orange-brown tan, fine

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SANDYSILT (ML) - very dense, orange-brown tan,fine


1

2

3

4

5

6

3

7

10

10

50/4"

50/5"

2

7

7

9

16

36

2

9

14

21

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

N V

ALU

E

DE

PT

H

(fee

t)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

5

10

15

20

ELE

VA

TIO

N

(fee

t)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


2nd

6in

/ REC

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

O.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


1.

2.

3.

4.

BORING LOG B-4

Page 1 of 1



DATE DRILLED: 8/31/16 - 8/31/16

DRILL RIG: CME 45





ELEVATION:


WATER LEVEL: 5.5' @ 24 hrs


NOTES:

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TLE

| 12

-22-

2009

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

| L

IBR

AR

Y 2

009_

12_2

2.G

LB |

BO

RIN

G L

OG

S.G

PJ

| 9/1

5/16

>>

>>

11

2

3

6

50/5"

50/4"

ASPHALT - (2 inches)


FILL: SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense,brown gray, fine to medium, trace rock pieces

ALLUVIUM: FAT CLAY (CH) - very soft tosoft, gray black, trace fine sand, very moist

ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - loose, gray,fine to coarse, trace mica, wet

RESIDUUM/PARTIALLY WEATHEREDROCK: SILTY SAND (SM) - very dense, tanorange-brown, fine to medium, trace rockpieces


1

2

3

4

5

6

5

1

2

2

22

11

1

1

1

12

50/4"

6

1

1

4

50/5"

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

N V

ALU

E

DE

PT

H

(fee

t)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

5

10

15

20

ELE

VA

TIO

N

(fee

t)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


2nd

6in

/ REC

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

O.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


1.

2.

3.

4.

BORING LOG B-5

Page 1 of 1



DATE DRILLED: 8/31/16 - 8/31/16

DRILL RIG: CME 45





ELEVATION:


WATER LEVEL: 8' @ TOB, 7' @ 24 hrs


NOTES:

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TLE

| 12

-22-

2009

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

| L

IBR

AR

Y 2

009_

12_2

2.G

LB |

BO

RIN

G L

OG

S.G

PJ

| 9/1

5/16

>>

>>

FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES

SOIL TEST BORINGS

All borings and sampling were conducted in accordance with ASTM D-1586-99 test method. Initially, the borings were advanced by either mechanically augering or wash boring through the overburden soils. When necessary, a heavy drilling fluid is used below the water table to stabilize the sides and bottom of the borehole. At regular intervals, soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4-inch I.D., 2-inch O.D., split-barrel or split-spoon sampler. The sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings and then driven an additional foot with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final foot is designated as the "Standard Penetration Resistance" or N-value. The penetration resistance, when properly evaluated, can be correlated to consistency, relative density, strength and compressibility of the sampled soils.

WATER LEVEL READINGS

Water level readings are normally taken in conjunction with borings and are recorded on the Boring Logs following termination of drilling (designated by ) and at a period of 24 hours following termination of drilling (designated by ). These readings indicate the approximate location of the hydrostatic water table at the time of our field exploration. The groundwater table may be dependent upon the amount of precipitation at the site during a particular period of time. Fluctuations in the water table should also be expected with variations in surface run-off, evaporation, construction activity and other factors. In some instances, boreholes cannot be left open overnight because of safety concerns, access restrictions, livestock in the boring area, and other reasons. Occasionally the boreholes sides will cave, preventing the water level readings from being obtained or trapping drilling water above the cave-in zone. In these instances, the hole cave-in depth (designated by HC ) is measured and recorded on the Boring Logs. Water level readings taken during the field operations do not provide information on the long-term fluctuations of the water table. When this information is required, piezometers are installed to prevent the boreholes from caving.

Portion obtained with permission from “Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report”, ASFE, 2004 © S&ME, Inc. 2010

Important Information About Your

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Variations in subsurface conditions can be a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns and claims. The following information is provided to assist you in understanding and managing the risk of these variations.

Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Geotechnical engineers cannot specify material properties as other design engineers do. Geotechnical material properties have a far broader range on a given site than any manufactured construction material, and some geotechnical material properties may change over time because of exposure to air and water, or human activity. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions at the time of exploration and only at the points where subsurface tests are performed or samples obtained. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their judgment to render professional opinions about site subsurface conditions. Their recommendations rely upon these professional opinions. Variations in the vertical and lateral extent of subsurface materials may be encountered during construction that significantly impact construction schedules, methods and material volumes. While higher levels of subsurface exploration can mitigate the risk of encountering unanticipated subsurface conditions, no level of subsurface exploration can eliminate this risk. Scope of Geotechnical Services Professional geotechnical engineering judgment is required to develop a geotechnical exploration scope to obtain information necessary to support design and construction. A number of unique project factors are considered in developing the scope of geotechnical services, such as the exploration objective; the location, type, size and weight of the proposed structure; proposed site grades and improvements; the construction schedule and sequence; and the site geology. Geotechnical engineers apply their experience with construction methods, subsurface conditions and exploration methods to develop the exploration scope. The scope of each exploration is unique based on available project and site information. Incomplete project information or constraints on the scope of exploration increases the risk of variations in subsurface conditions not being identified and addressed in the geotechnical report.

Services Are Performed for Specific Projects Because the scope of each geotechnical exploration is unique, each geotechnical report is unique. Subsurface conditions are explored and recommendations are made for a specific project. Subsurface information and recommendations may not be adequate for other uses. Changes in a proposed structure location, foundation loads, grades, schedule, etc. may require additional geotechnical exploration, analyses, and consultation. The geotechnical engineer should be consulted to determine if additional services are required in response to changes in proposed construction, location, loads, grades, schedule, etc. Geo-Environmental Issues The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geo-environmental study differ significantly from those used for a geotechnical exploration. Indications of environmental contamination may be encountered incidental to performance of a geotechnical exploration but go unrecognized. Determination of the presence, type or extent of environmental contamination is beyond the scope of a geotechnical exploration. Geotechnical Recommendations Are Not Final Recommendations are developed based on the geotechnical engineer’s understanding of the proposed construction and professional opinion of site subsurface conditions. Observations and tests must be performed during construction to confirm subsurface conditions exposed by construction excavations are consistent with those assumed in development of recommendations. It is advisable to retain the geotechnical engineer that performed the exploration and developed the geotechnical recommendations to conduct tests and observations during construction. This may reduce the risk that variations in subsurface conditions will not be addressed as recommended in the geotechnical report.

Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Ecusta Road Property...

Documents

Transcript of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Ecusta Road Property...