internet.savannah.chatham.k12.ga.usinternet.savannah.chatham.k12.ga.us/district/finance/purchasing... ·...

ECS Southeast, LLP Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration & Report Beach High School Auditorium 3001 Hopkins Street Savannah, Georgia 31405 ECS Project Number 23:3065 March 14, 2019

mailto:[email protected]



Beach High School Auditorium March 14, 2019 ECS Project Number 23:3065 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 3

1.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................................ 3 1.3 AUTHORIZATION ................................................................................................................ 4

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................................ 5 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................................................................ 5 2.2 CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 5 2.3 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................... 5

2.3.1 Structural Information/Loads ................................................................................... 6 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION ...................................................................................................... 7

3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 7 3.1.1 Cone Penetration Testing (CPT) ................................................................................ 7 3.1.2 Sowers Dynamic Cone Penetration Testing (DCP) .................................................... 7 3.1.3 Kessler Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Testing (KDCP) .............................................. 7 3.1.4 Infiltration Testing .................................................................................................... 8 3.1.5 Hand Auger Borings .................................................................................................. 8

3.2 LABORATORY TESTING ....................................................................................................... 8 3.3 REGIONAL/SITE GEOLOGY .................................................................................................. 9 3.4 SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION ..................................................................................... 9 3.5 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS ..................................................................................... 10 3.6 SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE AND INFILTRATION ........................................................ 10

4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 11 4.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN ...................................................................................................... 11

4.1.1 Seismic Design Considerations ............................................................................... 11 4.1.2 Shallow Foundations .............................................................................................. 13 4.1.3 Floor Slabs ............................................................................................................... 14

4.2 SITE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................ 16 4.2.1 Pavement Sections ................................................................................................. 16

4.3 SITE DRAINAGE ................................................................................................................. 17 5.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 18

5.1 SUBGRADE PREPARATION ................................................................................................ 18 5.1.1 Subgrade Preparation ............................................................................................. 18 5.1.2 Proofrolling ............................................................................................................. 18 5.1.3 Site Temporary Dewatering .................................................................................... 18

5.2 EARTHWORK OPERATIONS............................................................................................... 19 5.2.1 Structural Fill Materials .......................................................................................... 19 5.2.2 Compaction ............................................................................................................. 19

5.3 FOUNDATION AND SLAB OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................ 21 5.4 UTILITY INSTALLATIONS ................................................................................................... 21 5.5 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................. 22

6.0 CLOSING ...................................................................................................................... 24

Beach High School Auditorium March 14, 2019 ECS Project Number 23:3065 Page ii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 Site Location ...................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 4-1 Concrete slab-on-grade diagram .................................................................................... 15

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Design Values ...................................................................................................................... 6 Table 3-1 Subsurface Stratigraphy ..................................................................................................... 9 Table 3-1 Field-observed Seasonal High Water Table ...................................................................... 10 Table 3-2 Field-measured groundwater infiltration values .............................................................. 10 Table 4-1 Seismic Site Classification ................................................................................................. 12 Table 4-2 Ground Motion Parameters (IBC 2015 Method) .............................................................. 13 Table 4-3 Shallow Foundation Design .............................................................................................. 14 Table 4-4 Recommended Minimum Pavement Sections ................................................................. 16 Table 5-1 Structural Fill Index Properties ......................................................................................... 19 Table 5-2 Frequency of Compaction Tests in Fill Areas .................................................................... 20 Table 5-3 Lift Thickness Recommendations ..................................................................................... 20

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – Drawings & Reports • Figure 1 Site Location Diagram• Figure 2 Test Location Diagram

APPENDIX B – Field Operations • CPT Reference Notes• CPT Soundings C-1 through C-5• Hand Auger Logs• Kessler DCP Logs

APPENDIX C – Laboratory Testing • ASTM Lab Summary

Beach High School Auditorium March 14, 2019 ECS Project Number 23:3065 Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following summarizes the main findings of the exploration, particularly those that may have a cost impact on the planned development. Further, our principal foundation recommendations are summarized. Information gleaned from the executive summary should not be utilized in lieu of reading the entire geotechnical report.

The geotechnical exploration performed for the planned development included five (5) CPT soundings advanced to depths ranging from approximately 34 to 58 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). The CPT soundings generally encountered coastal sedimentary deposits to the deepest explored depth of approximately 58 feet bgs. The soils consisted of layers of very loose to very dense sands with varying amounts of silt and clay interbedded with soft to very stiff clays with varying amounts of silt and sand.

The planned structure can be supported on conventional shallow foundations consisting of column and/or wall footings bearing on approved soils, if liquefaction is accepted or mitigated. Liquefaction settlement was estimated on the order of less than 1 inch. Details of the assumed foundation subgrade, depths, and loads are contained in the body of the report.

Based upon the results of our field exploration we anticipate up to 12 inches of undercutting may be required within the building area in order to completely remove existing pavement and up to 6 inches of undercutting may be required in the planned parking expansion in order to remove soft surficial soils. Hand augers performed across the site contained up to 8 inches of topsoil; therefore we anticipate up to 8 inches of additional stripping may be required to completely remove organic-laden topsoil.

Construction operations in the vicinity of existing structures should not undermine or disturb existing foundations. Vibratory rolling should not be performed in the vicinity of existing structures. We recommend the structural engineer consider the zone of load influence from new construction on existing foundations and the potential to induce settlement or create bearing capacity issues.


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

The purpose of this study was to provide geotechnical information for the design of the new Beach High School Auditorium. According to the information provided, the new building will be constructed on the southwestern side of the existing school. This area is currently developed with an asphalt paved parking lot and associated driveways. Additionally, there are plans to extend an existing walkway canopy on the southwestern side of the school. Other planned site improvements include the construction of a new parking area with associated stormwater ponds in the grass field area north of the baseball field and to the northwest of the existing school building.

The recommendations developed for this report are based on project information supplied by J.W. Robinson & Associates, Inc. and Parsons Program Management Team. This report contains: the results of our subsurface exploration; a site characterization; our engineering analyses; and recommendations for the design and construction of the planned structure and associated parking areas/drive lanes. In addition, the report provides seasonal high water table (SHWT)/Infiltration rate information for design of stormwater handling features.

1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES

To obtain the necessary geotechnical information required for the design of the proposed construction, five (5) cone penetration test soundings (CPTs), twenty-four (24) hand auger borings, nine (9) Kessler dynamic cone penetration (DCP) tests, two (2) Sowers DCP tests, and 2 seasonal high water table (SHWT)/infiltration tests were performed at locations selected by you. The test locations were located within the proposed building footprint, the planned canopy area, and the planned parking area.

This report discusses our exploratory and testing procedures, presents our findings and evaluations, and includes the following:

• description of subsurface exploration program and test location plan;

• description of tests performed, results of tests and data collected;

• CPT soundings, hand auger logs, and soil classification in accordance with Unified Soil Classification System;

• pertinent geological data and general description of area soils;

• seismic site class determination per 2015 International Building Code (IBC 2015) and impact of potential soil liquefaction on design and construction;

• shallow foundation recommendations, including allowable bearing pressure and estimated total and differential settlement;

• constructability recommendations including: compaction requirements; maximum slopes; and identifying any undesirable subgrade material present such as old fill, refuse, rubble, existing foundations, organic material, etc., which are recommended for removal;

• recommendations on subgrade modulus for design of at-grade slabs; and

• pavement recommendations.

Beach High School Auditorium March 14, 2019 ECS Project Number 23:3065 Page 4 1.3 AUTHORIZATION

Our services were provided in accordance with our Proposal No. 23.3700-P (revised) dated October 30, 2018, as authorized by the Savannah-Chatham County School System Contract Number RFQ C16-21 issued on October 5, 2018 and includes the Terms and Conditions of Service outlined with our proposal.


2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The project site is located at 3001 Hopkins Street in Savannah, Chatham County, GA, as shown below and on Figure 1 in Appendix A. The proposed construction involves two separate portions of the existing property; an existing parking lot on the southwestern side of the existing school building and a grassed field on the northwestern side of the school building.

Figure 2-1 Site Location

2.2 CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS

Currently, the area of the proposed building is developed with an asphalt parking area. The area of the proposed parking lot expansion and stormwater ponds is a grassed field. Topographic information was not provided; however, the site appears to be relatively flat with a ground surface elevation of approximately +10 ft (NAVD88), according to 2017 USGS topographic maps. 2.3 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

From the information provided, we understand that a new auditorium and canopy expansion connecting to the existing building is proposed in the parking area on the southwestern side of the school building. The parking expansion with associated stormwater ponds is planned for the grassed field on the northwestern side of the site. We have not been provided a finished floor elevation (FFE) at this time, but we assume cuts/fills on the order of about 2 feet may be required to meet finished elevations.


2.3.1 Structural Information/Loads

The following information explains our understanding of the loads for the planned auditorium:

Table 2-1 Design Values

SUBJECT DESIGN INFORMATION / EXPECTATIONS

Usage High school auditorium

Column Loads 75 kips or less (Full Dead and Factored Live) (assumed)

Wall Loads 4.5 kips/linear foot, provided.

Finished Floor Elevation 2 feet or less above current site grades (assumed)


3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM

The field exploration was planned with the objective of characterizing the project site in general geotechnical and geological terms and to evaluate subsequent field data to assist in the determination of geotechnical recommendations.

Test locations were identified in the field by ECS personnel using a boring location plan provided by Parsons Program Management Team and are shown on the Test Location Diagram in Appendix A. Prior to performing the field investigation, we contacted Palmetto Utility Protection Service (PUPS) to check the test locations for potential underground utilities.

3.1.1 Cone Penetration Testing (CPT)

The CPT soundings, designated as C-1 through C-5, were performed within the footprint of the proposed structure during our field exploration. The cone penetration test soundings were performed in general conformance with ASTM D 5778 by our subcontractor. The soundings were performed with a track-mounted rig.

The cone used in the sounding has a tip area of 15 cm2 and a sleeve area of 225 cm2. The CPT sounding records tip resistance and sleeve friction measurements to assist in determining pertinent index and engineering properties of the site soils. The ratio of the sleeve friction to tip resistance is then used to aid in assessing the soil types through which the tip is advanced. Additionally, soil shear wave velocity measurements of the site soils were recorded in the CPT sounding. The CPT logs are presented in Appendix B.

3.1.2 Sowers Dynamic Cone Penetration Testing (DCP)

The Sowers DCP tests, designated as D-1 through D-2, were conducted in general conformance with ASTM STP 399. In this procedure, a 1 3/8 inch-diameter steel rod with an enlarged, cone-shaped point is used to shear the soil by repeatedly dropping a 15 pound weight (or hammer) over a fixed distance of 20 inches. The device is initially seated to a depth of 2 inches into the undisturbed bottom of the auger hole and then progressed 1 ¾ inches; this procedure is performed two times at each test depth and the number of hammer drops for the two increments is averaged in order to determine the DCP cone penetrometer resistance. The DCP cone penetrometer resistance can then be used to estimate the standard penetration test (SPT) “N” count using the correlations published in ASTM STP 399. The Sowers DCP results are presented in the hand auger logs in Appendix B.

3.1.3 Kessler Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Testing (KDCP)

The Kessler DCP tests, designated as K-1 through K-9, were performed throughout the proposed parking lot expansion area during our field exploration. The KDCP tests were conducted in general conformance with ASTM D-6951.

The Kessler DCP is driven into the soil by dropping either a single-mass 10.1 lb. (4.6 kg) hammer or a dual-mass 17.6 lb. (8 kg) hammer from a height of 22.6 in (575mm). The 10.1 lb. (4.6 kg) hammer is used in weaker soils having a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 10 or less and can be used on soils with a CBR value up to 80. The depth of cone penetration is measured at selected penetration or hammer drop intervals and the soil shear strength is reported in terms of DCP index.

Beach High School Auditorium March 14, 2019 ECS Project Number 23:3065 Page 8 The DCP index is based on the average penetration depth resulting from one blow of the hammer. The index values are correlated to strength parameters, such as CBR, which can be used in pavement recommendations. The Kessler DCP logs are presented in Appendix B.

3.1.4 Infiltration Testing

Two (2) hand auger borings designated as I-1 and I-2, were performed within the proposed stormwater pond areas to estimate the Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT). The hand auger boring was conducted in general conformance with ASTM D 1452.

Additionally, field infiltration rates were determined utilizing a Compact Constant Head Permeameter (CCHP). The CCHP is a piece of field equipment that provides the means to collect data for determining in situ saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) of the vadose (unsaturated) zone. The procedure is also known as Constant Head Well Permeameter Technique, Shallow Well Pump-in Method, or Borehole Infiltration Test.

3.1.5 Hand Auger Borings

Twenty-six (26) hand auger borings, designated as C-1 through C-5, D-1 through D-2, HA-1 though HA-8, K-1 through K-9, and I-1 through I-2 were performed adjacent to the CPT locations within the proposed auditorium footprint, the canopy expansion area, and throughout the proposed parking expansion area and stormwater pond areas. The hand auger borings were conducted in general conformance with ASTM D 1452.

In this procedure, the auger boring is made by manually rotating and advancing an auger to the desired depths while periodically removing the auger from the hole to clear and examine the auger cuttings. The auger cuttings were visually classified in the field. Stratification lines shown on the hand auger boring logs represent approximate boundaries between physical soil types. The hand auger boring logs are presented in Appendix B.

3.2 LABORATORY TESTING

The soil samples collected from the field exploration program were reexamined in the office for soil classifications, and representative samples were selected for laboratory testing. The laboratory testing program was designed to evaluate engineering properties of the soil at the site. Samples were tested to measure moisture content, grain size analysis, and plasticity (Atterberg Limits), where appropriate. Results of the laboratory testing are included on the boring logs and in Appendix C.

Beach High School Auditorium March 14, 2019 ECS Project Number 23:3065 Page 9 3.3 REGIONAL/SITE GEOLOGY

The site is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of Georgia. The Coastal Plain is composed of seven terraces, each representing a former level of the Atlantic Ocean. Soils in this area generally consist of sedimentary materials transported from other areas by the ocean or rivers. These deposits vary in thickness from a thin veneer along the western edge of the region to more than 10,000 feet near the coast. The sedimentary deposits of the Coastal Plain rest upon consolidated rocks similar to those underlying the adjacent Piedmont Physiographic Province. In general, shallow unconfined groundwater movement within the overlying soils is largely controlled by topographic gradients. Recharge occurs primarily by infiltration along higher elevations and typically discharges into streams or other surface water bodies. The elevation of the shallow water table is transient and can vary greatly with seasonal fluctuations in precipitation.

It is important to note that the natural geology within the site has been modified in the past by grading that included the placement of fill materials. The quality of man-made fills can vary significantly, and it is often difficult to assess the engineering properties of existing fills.

3.4 SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION

The subsurface conditions encountered were generally consistent with published geological mapping. The following sections provide generalized characterizations of the soil strata encountered during our subsurface exploration. For subsurface information at a specific location, refer to the CPT soundings and hand auger boring logs presented in Appendix B.

Table 3-1 Subsurface Stratigraphy

Approximate Depth Range

(ft) Stratum Description

Ranges of SPT(1) N60-values

(bpf)

0 to 12 inches N/A

Hand augers performed contained an observed thickness of topsoil of up to approximately 8 inches. Pavement sections were determined to comprise of between 3.5 to 4 inches of asphalt with 5 to 8 inches of graded aggregate base (GAB).

N/A

12 inches to 12 ft I Very loose to dense SAND (SP, SM, SC) with varying amounts of silt and clay, moist to wet. 1 to 44

12 to 43 ft II Layers of soft to very stiff CLAY (CL) with varying amounts of silt and sand interbedded with loose to medium dense SAND (SP, SM, SC) with varying amounts of silt and clay, wet.

3 to 17/ 10 to 22

43 to 52 ft III Medium dense to very dense SAND (SP, SM) with varying amounts of silt, wet. 15 to 50+

52 to 56 ft IV Stiff to hard CLAY (CL) with varying amounts of silt and sand, wet. 12 to 48

56 to 58 ft V Very dense SAND (SP, SM) with varying amounts of silt, wet. 50+

Notes: (1) Standard Penetration Test UBC-1983 SPT Correlations

Beach High School Auditorium March 14, 2019 ECS Project Number 23:3065 Page 10 3.5 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS

Water levels were measured in our CPT soundings and hand augers as noted on the logs in Appendix B. Groundwater depth measured at the time of our field investigation was measured between 2.5 and 8.25 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). Variations in the long term water table may occur as a result of changes in precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff, construction activities, and other factors.

3.6 SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE AND INFILTRATION

The seasonal high water table (SHWT) and groundwater depths were estimated at hand auger locations I-1 and I-2 below current site grades. A summary of the SHWT findings and infiltration test results are depicted in the tables below.

Table 3-2 Field-observed Seasonal High Water Table

Test Location SHWT bgs (inches) Current Groundwater

Level (inches)

I-1 30 56

I-2 70 99

Table 3-3 Field-measured groundwater infiltration values

Test Location Depth of Test bgs (inches)

Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) Soil Description

I-1 10 0.43

Grayish brown clayey fine SAND mottled reddish

brown.

I-1 46 9.97

Orange silty fine SAND mottled light tan and

grayish brown.

Infiltration rates and SHWT may vary within the proposed site due to changes in elevation and subsurface conditions. The values provided are field values. An appropriate factor of safety should be applied for design.


4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN

The following sections provide recommendations for foundation design, soil supported slabs, and seismic design parameters.

4.1.1 Seismic Design Considerations

Liquefaction: When a saturated soil with little to no cohesion liquefies during a major earthquake, it experiences a temporary loss of shear strength as a result of a transient rise in excess pore water pressure generated by strong ground motion. Flow failure, lateral spreading, differential settlement, loss of bearing, ground fissures, and sand boils are evidence of excess pore pressure generation and liquefaction.

We completed our liquefaction analysis in accordance with the 2015 International Building Code (IBC) design earthquake1. Layers of very loose to medium dense saturated sand, silty sand, and sandy silt varying in thickness were encountered below the ground water table to a depth of approximately 29 feet below the existing ground surface. ECS has compared the cyclic stress in these saturated soils to the cyclic resistance to estimate a Factor of Safety against Liquefaction (FSAL).2 On the basis of the results of our analyses, we conclude several of these layers have the potential to liquefy during the design seismic event.

Although the FSAL represents the liquefaction resistance of a soil stratum at a specific depth in a soil profile and are used in determining liquefaction-induced settlements, it does not quantify the severity of liquefaction-induced settlements or potential infrastructure damage for a site. Iwasaki et al. (1978) proposed the liquefaction potential index (LPI), which expresses liquefaction potential over an entire soil profile by integrating the product of the liquefaction potential of liquefiable soil layers and a weighting factor with respect to depth to the center of each liquefiable layer.

LPI is an empirical tool used to assess site liquefaction hazards and potential for liquefaction-related damage that ranges from 0 to 100. An LPI less than 5 indicates no anticipation of surface manifestations and low to moderate liquefaction-induced damages, LPIs ranging from 5 to 15 indicates surface manifestations (depending on near-surface soil profile) and a high degree of liquefaction-induced damages are possible, and an LPI greater than 15 indicates probable surface manifestations (depending on near-surface soil profile) with severe liquefaction-induced damages and that foundation damage is likely.

The LPI determined for this site is less than 5, which indicates the liquefaction risk is low, that there is no anticipation of surface manifestations, and low to moderate liquefaction-induced damages are anticipated, considering the design earthquake event. When soils susceptible to liquefaction are located within approximately 10 ft of the surface, ground surface disruptions (i.e., sand boils) are possible. Such disruptions beneath at-grade structures would result in bearing capacity failure. Since potentially liquefiable sands are minimal in the upper 10 ft at this site, there is low risk of ground surface disruption. Our analysis indicates that at-grade structures such as parking, slabs

1 The IBC design earthquake has a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Our liquefaction analysis was based on an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.3 and ground surface acceleration of 0.233 g.

2 Analysis completed following the procedures presented in the 1996 NCEER and the 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on the Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils (Youd and Idriss 2001). To estimate volumetric strain and associated liquefaction-induced settlement, we used the procedures developed by Zhang et al. (2002).


and shallow foundations could potentially settle less than 1 inch during and immediately following the design seismic event. Differential settlement associated with liquefaction-induced settlement is estimated at approximately 2/3 of the overall anticipated liquefaction settlement. This settlement would result from volumetric compression of the liquefiable sand layers which occurs as seismically-induced excess soil pore water pressures dissipate.

Seismic Site Classification: The IBC requires site classification for seismic design based on the upper 100 feet of a soil profile. Three methods are utilized in classifying sites, namely the shear wave velocity (vs) method; the Standard Penetration Resistance (N-value) method; and the undrained compressive strength (Su) method.

The seismic site class definitions for the weighted average of shear wave velocity, average undrained shear strength, and SPT N-value in the upper 100 feet of the soil profile are shown in the following table:

Table 4-1 Seismic Site Classification

Site Class Soil Profile Name

Shear Wave Velocity, Vs

(ft/s)

N value

(bpf)

Undrained Shear Strength, su

(psf)

A Hard Rock Vs > 5,000 fps N/A N/A

B Rock 2,500 < Vs ≤ 5,000 fps N/A N/A

C Very dense soil and soft rock 1,200 < Vs ≤ 2,500 fps N > 50 su > 2000

D Stiff Soil Profile 600 ≤ Vs ≤ 1,200 fps 15 < N < 60 1000 < su < 2000

E Soft Soil Profile Vs < 600 fps N < 15 su < 1000

Any profile with more than 10 feet of soil having the following characteristics:

• PI > 20

• w ≥ 40%

• su < 500 psf

F Soils Requiring Site Specific Response

Evaluation

Any profile containing soils having one or more of the following characteristics:

1. Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismicloading such as liquefiable soils, quick and highly sensitive clays,collapsible weakly cemented soils.

2. Peats and/or highly organic clays (H > 10 ft or peat and/orhighly organic clay where H = thickness of soil).

3. Very high plasticity clays (H> 25 ft with plasticity index PI > 75).Very thick soft/medium stiff clays ( H > 120 ft)

Based on shear wave velocity correlations and the data from sounding C-4, we estimate average shear wave velocities of 630 ft/s to a depth of approximately 58 feet below the existing ground surface as measured from the current ground surface. As a result, the soil profile type for the building location falls in the range of Seismic Site Class "D" as shown in the preceding table in accordance with the IBC 2015.


Ground Motion Parameters: In addition to the seismic site classification noted above, ECS has determined the design spectral response acceleration parameters following the IBC 2015 methodology. The ground motion parameters are provided in Table 4-2. The Mapped Reponses were estimated from the Applied Technology Council (ATC) free hazard tool available from the ATC website (https://hazards.atcouncil.org/). The design responses for the short (0.2 sec, SDS) and 1-second period (SD1) are 0.314g and 0.183g respectively. Please note the Site Class definition should not be confused with the Seismic Design Category designation, which the Structural Engineer typically assesses.

Table 4-2 Ground Motion Parameters (IBC 2015 Method)

Period (sec)

Mapped Spectral Response

Accelerations (g)

Values of Site Coefficient for

Site Class (unitless)

Maximum Spectral Response Acceleration Adjusted for Site Class

(g)

Design Spectral Response Acceleration

(g)

Reference Figures 1613.3.1

(1) & (2)

Tables 1613.3.3

(1) & (2)

Eqs. 16-37 &

16-38

Eqs. 16-39 &

16-40

0.2 SS 0.302 Fa 1.559 SMS=FaSs 0.470 SDS=2/3 SMS 0.314

1.0 S1 0.118 Fv 2.329 SM1=FvS1 0.274 SD1=2/3 SM1 0.183

4.1.2 Shallow Foundations

Provided subgrades and structural fills are prepared as discussed herein and if liquefaction induced settlements are accepted or mitigated, the proposed auditorium and canopy expansion can be supported by conventional shallow foundations: individual column footings and continuous wall footings. Our recommendations for the foundation design parameters are presented in Table 4-3.

Estimates of settlement for foundations bearing on engineered or non-engineered fills are strongly dependent on the quality of fill placed. Factors which may affect the quality of fill include maximum loose lift thickness of the fills placed and the amount of compactive effort placed on each lift. The final footing elevation should be evaluated by ECS personnel to document that the bearing soils are capable of supporting the recommended net allowable bearing pressure and are suitable for foundation construction. These evaluations should include visual observations, hand rod probing, and dynamic cone penetrometer (ASTM STP 399) testing, or other methods deemed appropriate by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction, in each column footing excavation and at intervals not greater than 25 feet in continuous footing excavations.

https://hazards.atcouncil.org/


Table 4-3 Shallow Foundation Design

Design Parameter Wall Footing Column Footing Net Allowable Bearing Pressure1 2,000 psf 2,000 psf Acceptable Bearing Soil Material Stratum I or approved

structural fill Stratum I or approved structural

fill Minimum Width 30 inches 18 inches

Minimum Footing Embedment Depth (below slab or finished grade) 12 inches 12 inches

Estimated Total Settlement2 1 inch 1 inch Estimated Differential Settlement Less than 0.5 inches Less than 0.5 inches

1. Net allowable bearing pressure is the applied pressure in excess of the surrounding overburden soils above the base of the foundation.

2. The settlement of a structure is a function of: the compressibility of the bearing materials, bearing pressure, actual structural loads, the depths of fill, and the bearing elevation of footings with respect to the final ground surface elevation. These settlements are in addition to the estimated liquefaction induced settlement reported in Section 4.1.1. The settlement calculations were based on a maximum footing size of 6 ft for column footings and 2 ft wide for wall footings.

Most of the soils at the foundation bearing elevation are anticipated to be suitable for support of the proposed structure. If soft or unsuitable soils are observed at the footing bearing elevations, the unsuitable soils should be undercut and removed. Any undercut should be backfilled up to the original design bottom of footing elevation with one of the following:

• Lean concrete (f’c ≥ 1,000 psi at 28 days); the original footing shall be constructed on top of the hardened lean concrete.

• Over poured footing concrete (ensure that footing reinforcing steel is placed at the project specified elevation).

• Number 57 stone; the original footing shall be constructed on top of the stone.

• Compacted structural fill (with additional compaction testing and soil bearing evaluation); the original footing shall be constructed on top of the fill.

4.1.3 Floor Slabs

It appears that the slabs for the structure will bear on Stratum I or approved structural fill. This material is likely suitable for the support of a slab-on-grade, although moisture control during earthwork operations, including the use of disking or appropriate drying equipment may be necessary. There may be areas of soft or yielding soils that should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill in accordance with the recommendations included in this report. Figure 4-1 depicts our soil-supported slab recommendations.

Subgrade Modulus: Provided the placement of Structural Fill and Granular Drainage Layer per the recommendations discussed herein, the slab may be designed assuming a modulus of subgrade reaction, k1 of 175 pci (pounds per cubic inch). The modulus of subgrade reaction value is based on a 1 ft by 1 ft plate load test basis.


1. Drainage Layer Thickness: 4 inches

2. Drainage Layer Material: GRAVEL (GP, GW), SAND (SP, SW)

3. Subgrade compacted to 95% maximum dry density per ASTM D1557

Figure 4-1 Concrete slab-on-grade diagram

Slab Isolation: Ground-supported slabs should be isolated from the foundations and foundation-supported elements of the structure so that differential movement between the foundations and slab will not induce excessive shear and bending stresses in the floor slab. Where the structural configuration prevents the use of a free-floating slab, the slab should be designed with suitable reinforcement and load transfer devices to preclude overstressing of the slab.

Design Considerations: We recommend that slabs-on-grade be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of open graded aggregate to help prevent the capillary rise of subsurface moisture from adversely affecting the slab. If open graded aggregate is not available, clean sand with less than 3 percent fines can be used provided the placement and compaction of the sand complies with the above recommendations. If floor covering such as tile or carpet will be utilized for interior finishes, a polyethylene vapor barrier may be used beneath the floor slab for moisture control considerations.

A vapor barrier should be installed on top of the subgrade in areas to receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings to help reduce dampness on the surface of the floor slab. A vapor barrier is generally understood to consist of a minimum 10-mil thickness, overlapping sheets of plastic in which no attempt is made to seal the overlap between the individual sheets. If at least one foot of sandy fill is placed prior to slab placement an open graded aggregate is not required under the slabs; provided that a 10 mil or thicker vapor barrier is provided and suitable placement of the material is considered during construction.

We recommend that the perm rating of the vapor barrier be sufficient to protect the rating of the floor coverings (0.01 perms or less for moisture sensitive floor coverings) and have sufficient puncture resistance according to the expected foot traffic and equipment and materials placed on the barrier. If the vapor barrier is punctured or unsealed during construction, the perm rating will be greatly decreased and vapor intrusion may occur through the slab after construction. Punctures can be caused by concrete finishing, placement of reinforcement, or by equipment and foot traffic. Openings may be caused by unsealed edges at the floor wall interface or laps.

Concrete Slab Vapor Barrier

Granular Capillary Break/Drainage Layer

Compacted Subgrade


4.2 SITE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

4.2.1 Pavement Sections

We have performed design analyses for new flexible (asphalt) and rigid (concrete) pavement. ). As a part of the exploration, a CBR test was interpolated using the results from the Kessler DCP test results, which indicated CBR values ranging from about 1 to 100. Based on CBR values interpolated from the Kessler DCP test results and local experience, we based our pavement analyses on a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 6 percent. The recommended minimum pavement sections are as follows.

Table 4-4 Recommended Minimum Pavement Sections

Material Flexible Pavement Rigid Pavement

Heavy Duty Light Duty Heavy Duty Light Duty

Graded Aggregate Base Course 8 inches 6 inches 6 inches 6 inches

Asphaltic Concrete Surface

Course (9.5 mm or 12.5 mm) 2 inches 1 1/2 inches - -

Asphaltic Concrete Surface

Course (19 mm) 3 inches 2 inches - -

Portland Cement Concrete

(f’c = 4000 psi) - - 6 inches 4 inches

Based on previous designs/analyses, we anticipate the light duty and heavy duty flexible pavement sections listed above can sustain the anticipated traffic loads over 20 years. Light duty pavement is suitable for parking and drive areas subject only to automobile traffic. Heavy duty pavements should be used in any areas subject to bus traffic and occasional truck traffic. Materials and workmanship should follow the latest edition of the Georgia Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Highway Construction.

The light and heavy-duty rigid pavement sections should be a minimum of 4 inch and 6 inch thick concrete, respectively. Heavy duty rigid pavements are recommended for trash dumpster and other areas (such as drive thru lanes) where wheel loads will be concentrated. Construction traffic (i.e., concrete trucks, dump trucks, etc.) should be considered when determining the actual traffic volume.

A stable subgrade is very important to pavement performance. Immediately prior to paving, the subgrade should be proofrolled and any unstable areas repaired. The base course should be compacted to at least 100% of the maximum dry density, as determined by the modified Proctor Compaction Test (ASTM D 1557). To document that the base course has been uniformly compacted, in-place field density tests should be performed by a qualified Materials Technician and the area should be methodically proofrolled under their observation.

The performance of pavements will be dependent upon a number of factors, including subgrade conditions at the time of paving, rainwater runoff, and traffic. Rainwater runoff should not be allowed to seep below pavements from adjacent areas. Therefore, drainage swales or underdrains may be required. Immediately prior to paving, the exposed subgrade should be thoroughly

Beach High School Auditorium March 14, 2019 ECS Project Number 23:3065 Page 17 evaluated using thorough proofrolling and any unstable areas should be repaired. These recommendations are very important for long-term performance of the pavements. Because pavement design typically has relatively low factors of safety, it will be very important that the specifications are followed closely during pavement construction. Our recommendations are based on a 20-year design life; however, some isolated areas could require repair in a shorter period of time.

Please note that large, front-loading trash dumpsters frequently impose concentrated front-wheel loads on pavements during loading. This type of loading typically results in rutting of bituminous pavements and ultimately pavement failures and costly repairs. Consequently, we recommend the use of a 6 inch thick, concrete slab that extends the entire length of the truck. Concrete pavements should be properly jointed and reinforced as needed to help reduce the potential for cracking and to permit proper load transfer. 4.3 SITE DRAINAGE

The proper diversion of surface water during site grading and construction will help reduce the potential for delays associated with periods of inclement weather. The proper diversion of surface water is especially critical due to the presence of clayey near surface soils. Based upon our past experience, the use of “crowning” large areas of exposed soils should be useful to help divert surface water from the prepared subgrades.

Positive drainage should be provided around the perimeter of the structure to minimize the potential for moisture infiltration into the foundation and slab subgrade soils. We recommend that areas adjacent to the structure be sloped away from the construction and maintain a fall of at least 6 inches for the first 10 feet outward from the structures.


5.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 SUBGRADE PREPARATION

5.1.1 Subgrade Preparation

The subgrade preparation should consist of stripping all vegetation, rootmat, topsoil, existing pavement, and any other soft or unsuitable materials from the footprint of foundations and slabs and to 5 feet beyond the limits of structural fills. We anticipate approximately 4 to 6 inches of undercutting may be required within the building area in order to completely remove existing asphalt pavement materials. The underlying aggregate base material may remain in place, provided that the subgrade is stable. Up to 8 inches of undercutting may be required in the planned parking expansion in order to remove soft surficial soils. Hand augers performed across the site contained up to 8 inches of topsoil; additional stripping may be required to completely remove organic-laden topsoil. Deeper undercutting may be required in unexplored areas. ECS should be called on to verify that unsuitable surficial materials have been completely removed prior to the placement of structural fill or construction of structures.

5.1.2 Proofrolling

After removing all unsuitable surface materials, cutting to the proposed grade, and prior to the placement of any structural fill or other construction materials, the exposed subgrade should be examined by the Geotechnical Engineer or authorized representative. The exposed subgrade should be thoroughly proofrolled with previously approved construction equipment having a minimum axle load of 10 tons (e.g. fully loaded tandem-axle dump truck). The areas subject to proofrolling should be traversed by the equipment in two perpendicular (orthogonal) directions with overlapping passes of the vehicle under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer or authorized representative. This procedure is intended to assist in identifying any localized yielding materials. Proposed parking areas containing gravel or stone base may remain in-place if found stable under proofrolling.

In the event that unstable or “pumping” subgrade is identified by the proofrolling, those areas should be marked for repair prior to the placement of any subsequent structural fill or other construction materials. Methods of repair of unstable subgrade, such as undercutting or moisture conditioning, should be discussed with the Geotechnical Engineer to determine the appropriate procedure with regard to the existing conditions causing the instability. A test pit(s) may be excavated to explore the shallow subsurface materials in the area of the instability to help in determining the cause of the observed unstable materials and to assist in the evaluation of the appropriate remedial action to stabilize the subgrade.

5.1.3 Site Temporary Dewatering

Subsurface Water: Based upon our subsurface exploration at this site, as well as significant experience on sites in nearby areas of similar geologic setting, we believe construction dewatering will be limited to mainly removing accumulated rain water and runoff. If excavations are at or near the current groundwater table, dewatering may be required to maintain water levels at least 1 foot below excavations for foundations and utilities. Dewatering can be accomplished by using pumps in sumps for smaller areas. If larger areas required dewatering, a well point system should be designed and installed by a specialty contractor.

Beach High School Auditorium March 14, 2019 ECS Project Number 23:3065 Page 19 5.2 EARTHWORK OPERATIONS

5.2.1 Structural Fill Materials

Product Submittals: Prior to placement of structural fill, representative bulk samples (about 50 pounds) of on-site and off-site borrow should be submitted to ECS for laboratory testing, which will include Atterberg limits, natural moisture content, grain-size distribution, and moisture-density relationships for compaction. Import materials should be tested prior to being hauled to the site to determine if they meet project specifications.

Satisfactory Structural Fill Materials: Materials satisfactory for use as structural fill should consist of inorganic soils classified as SM, SC, SW, SP, GW, GP, GM, and GC, or a combination of these group symbols, per ASTM D 2487. Natural fine-grained soils classified as clays or silts (CL, ML) should generally not be considered for use as engineered fill, but may be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to determine their suitability at the contractor’s request. The materials should be free of organic matter, debris, and should contain no particle sizes greater than 3 inches in the largest dimension. Open graded materials, such as gravels (GW and GP), which contain void space in their mass should not be used in structural fills unless properly encapsulated with filter fabric. Suitable structural fill material should have the index properties shown in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1 Structural Fill Index Properties

Location with Respect to Final Grade LL PI Max % Fines Passing # 200 Sieve

Equipment Footprint Area 35 max 9 max 20

Parking and Drive Areas 35 max 9 max 20

Unsatisfactory Materials: Materials that should not be used as engineered fill include topsoil, organic materials (OH, OL), and high plasticity clays and silts (CH, MH). Such materials removed during grading operations should be either stockpiled for later use in landscape fills, or placed in approved on or off-site disposal areas.

5.2.2 Compaction

Structural Fill Compaction: Structural fill should be moisture conditioned as necessary to within -2 and +2 % of the soil’s optimum moisture content and be compacted with suitable equipment to a dry density of at least 95% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) or at least 98% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698). Beyond these areas, compaction of at least 90% should be achieved. ECS should be called on to document that proper fill compaction has been achieved.

Fill Compaction Control: The expanded limits of the proposed construction areas should be well defined, including the limits of the fill zones for the proposed construction area, at the time of fill placement. Grade controls should be maintained throughout the filling operations. All filling operations should be observed on a full-time basis by a qualified representative of the construction testing laboratory to determine that the minimum compaction requirements are being achieved. Field density testing of fills will be performed at the frequencies shown in Table 5-2, but not less than 1 test per lift.


Table 5-2 Frequency of Compaction Tests in Fill Areas

Location Frequency of Tests Equipment Footprint Area 1 test per 2,500 sq. ft.

Pavement Areas 1 test per 10,000 sq. ft.

Compaction Equipment: Compaction equipment suitable to the soil type being compacted should be used to compact the subgrades and fill materials. A vibratory steel drum roller should be used for compaction of coarse-grained soils (sands) as well as for sealing compacted surfaces. A sheepsfoot roller should be used for compaction of fine-grained soils (silts, clays).

The maximum loose lift thickness depends upon the type of compaction equipment used. For isolated excavations around footing locations or within utility excavations, a hand tamper will likely be required. We recommend the following maximum loose lift thickness based on the utilized compaction equipment:

Table 5-3 Lift Thickness Recommendations

Equipment Maximum Loose Lift Thickness

(inches)

Large, Self-Propelled Equipment 12

Small, Self-Propelled or Remote Controlled (Rammax, etc.) 8

Hand Operated (Plate Tamps, Jumping Jacks, Wacker-Packers) 6

Fill Placement Considerations: Fill materials should not be placed on excessively wet soils. Borrow fill materials should not be excessively wet at the time of placement. Excessively wet soils or aggregates should be scarified, aerated, and moisture conditioned.

At the end of each work day, all fill areas should be graded to facilitate drainage of any precipitation and the surface should be sealed by use of a smooth-drum roller to limit infiltration of surface water. During placement and compaction of new fill at the beginning of each workday, the Contractor may need to scarify existing subgrades to a depth on the order of 4 inches so that a weak plane will not be formed between the new fill and the existing subgrade soils.

Drying and compaction of wet soils is typically difficult during the winter months. Accordingly, earthwork should be performed during the drier times of the year, if practical. Proper drainage should be maintained during the earthwork phases of construction to prevent ponding of water which has a tendency to degrade subgrade soils.

We recommend that the grading contractor have equipment on site during earthwork for both drying and wetting fill soils. We do not anticipate significant problems in controlling moisture within the fill during dry weather, but moisture control may be difficult during winter months or extended periods of rain. The control of moisture content of higher plasticity soils is difficult when these soils become wet. Further, such soils are easily degraded by construction traffic when the moisture content is elevated.

Beach High School Auditorium March 14, 2019 ECS Project Number 23:3065 Page 21 5.3 FOUNDATION AND SLAB OBSERVATIONS

Protection of Foundation Excavations: Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the footing bearing level if the foundation excavations remain open for too long a time. Therefore, foundation concrete should be placed the same day that excavations are made. If the bearing soils are softened by surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation excavation bottom immediately prior to placement of concrete. If the excavation must remain open overnight, or if rainfall becomes imminent while the bearing soils are exposed, a 1 to 3-inch thick “mud mat” of “lean” concrete should be placed on the bearing soils before the placement of reinforcing steel.

Footing Subgrade Observations: We anticipate that most of the soils encountered at the planned foundation bearing elevation will be suitable for support of the proposed structure. It will be important to have the Geotechnical Engineer of Record, or his appointed representative, observe the foundation subgrade prior to placing foundation concrete, to confirm the bearing soils are what was anticipated. If soft or unsuitable soils are observed at the footing bearing elevations, the unsuitable soils should be undercut and removed. Any undercut should be backfilled in accordance with the recommendations of this report or by the recommendations given by the geotechnical engineer of record or their representative during construction.

Slab Subgrade Verification: A representative of ECS should be called on to observe exposed subgrades within the expanded building limits prior to structural fill placement to assure that adequate subgrade preparation has been achieved. A proofroll using a loaded dump truck should be performed in their presence at that time. Once subgrades have been prepared to the satisfaction of ECS, subgrades should be properly compacted and new structural fill can be placed. Existing subgrades to a depth of at least 10 inches and all structural fill should be moisture conditioned to within 2 +/- percentage points of optimum moisture content then be compacted to the required density. If there will be a significant time lag between the site grading work and final grading of concrete slab areas prior to the placement of the subbase stone and concrete, a representative of ECS should be called on to verify the condition of the prepared subgrade. Prior to final slab construction, the subgrade may require scarification, moisture conditioning, and re-compaction to restore stable conditions.

5.4 UTILITY INSTALLATIONS

Utility Subgrades: The soils encountered in our exploration are expected to be generally suitable for support of utility pipes. The pipe subgrade should be observed and probed for stability by ECS to evaluate the suitability of the materials encountered. Any loose or unsuitable materials encountered at the utility pipe subgrade elevation should be removed and replaced with suitable compacted Structural Fill or pipe bedding material.

Utility Backfilling: The granular bedding material should be at least 4 inches thick, but not less than that specified by the project drawings and specifications. Fill placed for support of the utilities, as well as backfill over the utilities, should satisfy the requirements for Structural Fill given in this report. Compacted backfill should be free of topsoil, roots, ice, or any other material designated by ECS as unsuitable. The backfill should be moisture conditioned, placed, and compacted in accordance with the recommendations of this report.

Beach High School Auditorium March 14, 2019 ECS Project Number 23:3065 Page 22 Utility Excavation Dewatering: It is possible that perched water may be encountered by utility excavations which extend below existing grades. It is expected that removal of perched water which seeps into excavations could be accomplished by pumping from sumps excavated in the trench bottom and which are backfilled with DOT Size No. 57 Stone or open graded bedding material. Should water conditions beyond the capability of sump pumping be encountered, the contractor should submit a Dewatering Plan in accordance with project specifications.

Excavation Safety: All excavations and slopes should be made and maintained in accordance with OSHA excavation safety standards. The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and slopes and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations and slopes as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractor’s responsible person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor’s safety procedures. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations. ECS is providing this information solely as a service to our client. ECS is not assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor’s activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. 5.5 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Protection of Existing Foundations: Construction operations in the vicinity of existing structures should not undermine or disturb existing foundations. Vibratory rolling should not be performed in the vicinity of existing structures. We recommend the structural engineer consider the zone of load influence from new construction on existing foundations and the potential to induce settlement or create bearing capacity issues.

Moisture Conditioning: During the wetter periods of the year, delays and additional costs should be anticipated. At these times, reduction of soil moisture may need to be accomplished by mechanical manipulation in order to lower moisture contents to levels appropriate for compaction. Alternatively, during the drier times of the year, such as the summer months, moisture may need to be added to the soil to provide adequate moisture for successful compaction according to the project requirements.

Subgrade Protection: Measures should also be taken to limit site disturbance, especially from rubber-tired heavy construction equipment, and to control and remove surface water from development areas, including structural and pavement areas. It would be advisable to designate a haul road and construction staging area to limit the areas of disturbance and to prevent construction traffic from excessively degrading sensitive subgrade soils and existing pavement areas. Haul roads and construction staging areas could be covered with excess depths of aggregate to protect those subgrades. The aggregate can later be removed and used in pavement areas.

Surface Drainage: Surface drainage conditions should be properly maintained. Surface water should be directed away from the construction area, and the work area should be sloped away from the construction area at a gradient of 1 percent or greater to reduce the potential of ponding water and the subsequent saturation of the surface soils. At the end of each work day, the subgrade soils should be sealed by rolling the surface with a smooth drum roller to minimize infiltration of surface water.

Excavation Safety: Cuts or excavations may require forming or bracing, slope flattening, or other physical measures to control sloughing and/or prevent slope failures. Contractors should be

Beach High School Auditorium March 14, 2019 ECS Project Number 23:3065 Page 23 familiar with applicable OSHA codes to ensure that adequate protection of the excavations and trench walls is provided.

Erosion Control: The surface soils may be erodible. Therefore, the Contractor should provide and maintain good site drainage during earthwork operations to maintain the integrity of the surface soils. All erosion and sedimentation controls should be in accordance with sound engineering practices and local requirements.


6.0 CLOSING

ECS has prepared this report of findings, evaluations, and recommendations to guide geotechnical-related design and construction aspects of the project.

The description of the proposed project is based on information provided to ECS by J.W. Robinson & Associates, Inc. and Parsons Project Management Team. If any of this information is inaccurate, either due to our interpretation of the documents provided or site or design changes that may occur later, ECS should be contacted immediately so that we can review the report in light of the changes and provide additional or alternate recommendations as may be required to reflect the proposed construction.

We recommend that ECS be allowed to review the project’s plans and specifications pertaining to our work so that we may ascertain consistency of those plans/specifications with the intent of the geotechnical report.

Field observations, monitoring, and quality assurance testing during earthwork and foundation installation are an extension of and integral to the geotechnical design recommendation. We recommend that the owner retain these quality assurance services and that ECS be allowed to continue our involvement throughout these critical phases of construction to provide general consultation as issues arise. ECS is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based on the data in this report.

APPENDIX A – Drawings & Reports Figure 1 Site Location Diagram Figure 2 Test Location Diagram

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase,

²

PARSONS PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TEAM

SITE LOCATION DIAGRAMBEACH HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM

3001 HOPKINS STREET, SAVANNAH, GA

0 4,0002,000Feet

3/5/2019

ENGINEER

SCALE

23:3065

1

PROJECT NO.

FIGURE

DATE

NAL1 " = 2000 '

C-5

C-3

C-4 C-1

C-2HA-6

HA-4

HA-3

HA-5

HA-2 HA-1

HA-10HA-7

D-1

D-2

K-1

K-2

K-3

K-4

K-5

K-6

K-7

K-8

K-9 I-2

I-1

PROJECT NO.

ENGINEER

SCALE

FIGURE

DATE

23.3065

NAL

1" = 100'

2

MARCH 2019

BEACH HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM

3001 HOPKINS STREETSAVANNAH, GA

TEST LOCATION DIAGRAMSAVANNAH-CHATHAM COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM

N

S

E

W

LEGENDAPPROXIMATE LOCATION OF CPT/HAND AUGER BORING.

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF HAND AUGER BORING.

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF KESSLER DCP/HAND AUGERBORING.

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SOWERS DCP/HAND AUGER BORING.

Base imagery was obtained via Google Earth (2019) and boring locations were provided by Parsons Project Management Team. Testlocations are approximate. This drawing should not be used for design or construction.

Approximate Scale

50' 100'50'0'

C-1

HA-1

K-1

D-1

APPENDIX B – Field Operations CPT Reference Notes CPT Soundings C-1 through C-5 Hand Auger Logs Kessler DCP Logs

REFERENCE NOTES FOR CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPT) SOUNDINGS

In the CPT sounding procedure (ASTM-D-5778), an electronically instrumented cone penetrometer

is hydraulically advanced through soil to measure point resistance (qc), pore water pressure (u2),

and sleeve friction (fs). These values are recorded continuously as the cone is pushed to the

desired depth. CPT data is corrected for depth and used to estimate soil classifications and

intrinsic soil parameters such as angle of internal friction, preconsolidation pressure, and undrained

shear strength. The graphs below represent one of the accepted methods of CPT soil behavior

classification (Robertson, 1990).

1. Sensitive, Fine Grained 6. Clean Sands to Silty Sands2. Organic Soils-Peats 7. Gravelly Sand to Sand3. Clays; Clay to Silty Clay 8. Very Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand4. Clayey Silt to Silty Clay 9. Very Stiff Fine Grained5. Silty Sand to Sandy Silt

The following table presents a correlation of corrected cone tip resistance (qt) to soil consistency or relative density:

SAND SILT/CLAY

Corrected Cone Tip Resistance (qt) (tsf)

Relative Density Corrected Cone Tip Resistance (qt) (tsf)

Relative Density

<20 Very Loose <5 Very Soft

20-40 Loose 5-10 Soft

40-120 Medium Dense 10-15 Medium Stiff 15-30 Stiff

120-200 Dense 30-45 Very Stiff

>200 Very Dense 45-60 Hard

>60 Very Hard

Pore Pressure Ratio, Bq

Cone R

esis

tance, Q

t

Cone R

esis

tance, Q

t

Friction Ratio, Fr (%)

Project: Beach High School Auditorium (ECS Project # 23.3065)

ECS Southeast, LLP3820 Faber Place Drive, Suite 200North Charleston, SC 29405(843) 654-4448

Savannah, GA

CPT: C-1Total depth: 58.18 ft, Date: 2/20/2019

Surface Elevation: Approx +10 ft (NAVD88)Cone Type: Vertek S4 15cm2

Cone Operator: Longview Explorations, LLCLocation:

SBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay

4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand

7. Gravelly sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grained

Cone resistance

Tip resistance (tsf)250200150100500

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20

Cone resistance Sleeve friction

Friction (tsf)43.532.521.510.50

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20

Sleeve friction Pore pressure u

Pressure (psi)250200150100500

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20

Pore pressure u Soil Behaviour Type

SBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20

Soil Behaviour TypeSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt

Sand & silty sand

Silty sand & sandy silt

Silty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClaySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt

Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt

Silty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clay

Sand & silty sand

SandSand & silty sand

Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt

Very dense/stiff soil

SPT N60

N60 (blows/ft)50403020100

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20

SPT N60

CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/12/2019, 2:40:01 PM 1Project file: A:\Projects\ACTIVE - Charleston GEO\3550 - (23.3065) Beach High School Auditorium\Analysis\CPeT-IT.cpt



Savannah, GA







Cone resistance


Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20


Friction (tsf)43.532.521.510.50

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20


Pressure (psi)250200150100500

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20


SBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20

Soil Behaviour Type

Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand

Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClaySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clay

Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt


Sand & silty sand

SPT N60

N60 (blows/ft)50403020100

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20

SPT N60




Savannah, GA







Cone resistance


Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20


Friction (tsf)43.532.521.510.50

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20


Pressure (psi)250200150100500

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20


SBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20

Soil Behaviour Type

Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt


Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClayClay & silty clayClayClay

Clay & silty clayClayClay & silty clay

Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sand

Sand & silty sand

SPT N60

N60 (blows/ft)50403020100

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20

SPT N60




Savannah, GA






7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grained

Cone resistance


Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20


Friction (tsf)43210

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20


Pressure (psi)2001000

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20


SBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20Soil Behaviour Type

Clay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand

Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClayClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy silt

Sand & silty sand

Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clay

Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clay

Sand & silty sand

Sand

Silty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sand

SPT N60

N60 (blows/ft)40200

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20

SPT N60

Vs (ft/s)0

58

5654

52

5048

46

4442

40

3836

3432

30

2826

24

2220

1816

14

1210

8

64

2

0Shear Wave Velocity


500



Savannah, GA







Cone resistance


Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20


Friction (tsf)43.532.521.510.50

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20


Pressure (psi)250200150100500

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20


SBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20

Soil Behaviour TypeSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty claySand & silty sandClayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySand & silty sandClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty clay

Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy silt

SPT N60

N60 (blows/ft)50403020100

Dep

th (

ft)

6058

56545250

48464442

40383634

323028

26242220

18161412

10864

20

SPT N60


0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5

(SM) SILTY FINE SAND [PROBABLE FILL], trace gravel, dark brown, moist,very loose to medium dense

(SM) SILTY FINE SAND, brownish orange, moist, medium dense to loose

END OF HAND AUGER @ 4'

2 13.7

PROJECT NAME:

Beach High School Auditorium

HAND AUGER #

C-1CLIENT:

Parsons Program Management Team

Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION

LOCATION:3001 Hopkins Street, Savannah, Chatham

County, GA

ARCH./ENG:

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

REMARKS:

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.

GROUND WATER: While Drilling SHWT EXCAVATION EFFORT: E - EASY M - MEDIUM D - DIFFICULT VD - VERY DIFFICULT

ECS REP.:

AE & NL

DATE:

03/20/19

UNITS: Cave-in Depth: Groundwater While Drilling:

DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5

(ML) SANDY SILT, dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense

(SP-SM) FINE SAND WITH SILT, light orange, moist, dense to medium dense


1 22

PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

C-2CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE & NL

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5

Graded Aggregate Base Thickness [12.0"]

(SM) SILTY FINE SAND, orange and gray, moist, loose

(SP-SC) FINE SAND WITH CLAY, orange and gray, moist, loose to mediumdense


2 17.4

PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

C-3CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE & NL

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5

(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, orange and gray, moist, very loose to loose

(SP-SC) FINE SAND WITH CLAY, light orange, moist, loose


1 25.9

PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

C-4CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE & NL

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5

Asphalt Thickness [4.5"]


(SP) FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, tan, moist, very loose to medium dense

(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, orange and gray, moist, medium dense

(SP-SM) FINE SAND WITH SILT, light orange, moist, loose


PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

C-5CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE & NL

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5

(SP) FINE SAND, brownish orange, moist, very loose to loose, contains claynodules


3-4-6

6-10-10

10-15-15

15-15-15

10-15-15

15-15-15

PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

D-1CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE & NL

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5

(SP) FINE SAND, brownish orange, moist, loose, contains clay nodules


3-4-4

11-15-15

8-15-15

10-15-15

15-15-15

15-15-15

PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

D-2CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE & NL

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5



(SP) FINE SAND [PROBABLE FILL], orangish tan, moist

(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, orange and tannish white, moist

(SM) SILTY FINE SAND, orange and tannish white, moist


PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

HA-1CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE & NL

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5



(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, gray/ red/ orange, moist

(SM) SILTY FINE SAND, orange and tan, moist


PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

HA-2CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE & NL

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5



(SP) FINE SAND [PROBABLE FILL], brown, moist, contains clay nodules

(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, orange and gray, moist

(SP) FINE SAND, orangish brown to tan, moist


PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

HA-3CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE & NL

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5



(SP) FINE SAND [PROBABLE FILL], orangish brown, moist

(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, orange and gray, moist

(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, orange and gray, moist


PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

HA-4CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE & NL

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5

Asphalt Thickness [3.0"]Graded Aggregate Base Thickness [5.0"]

(SP) FINE SAND, brownish orange, moist, contains clay nodules


PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

HA-5CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE & NL

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5

Topsoil Thickness [8.0"]

(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, brownish gray and brownish orange, moist

(SP) FINE SAND, brownish orange, moist


PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

HA-6CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE & NL

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5



(SP-SM) FINE SAND WITH SILT, brown/ gray/ orange, moist

(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, gray and orange, moist

(SP-SM) FINE SAND WITH SILT, orangish brown to light tan, moist


PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

HA-7CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE & NL

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5



(SP) FINE SAND, tan, moist, contains clay nodules


PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

HA-8CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE & NL

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5

(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, dark brown, moist

(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, grayish brown mottled brownish brown, moist

(SP-SC) FINE SAND WITH CLAY, grayish tan, moist

(SM) SILTY FINE SAND, dark brownish red, moist, weakly cemented

(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, light gray mottled orange, moist to wet

END OF HAND AUGER @ 7.5'

PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

I-1CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

NL

DATE:

02/20/19


4.67

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5

(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND [PROBABLE FILL], dark brown, moist

(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND [PROBABLE FILL], contains concrete, orangishbrown, moist

(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, orangish brown, moist

(SP-SM) FINE SAND WITH SILT, tannish brown, moist

(SP) FINE SAND, light orange, moist

(SP-SM) FINE SAND WITH SILT, orange mottled light tan and grayish brown,moist

(SP-SM) FINE SAND WITH SILT, light orange, moist

(SP-SM) FINE SAND WITH SILT, light orange/ white/ brownish light gray,moist

(SP) FINE SAND, white and yellowish light orange, moist to wet

END OF HAND AUGER @ 8.33'

PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

I-2CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

NL

DATE:

02/20/19


8.25

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5

(SP-SC) FINE SAND WITH CLAY, dark grayish brown, moist

(SM) SILTY FINE SAND, brownish gray, moist

(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, orange and gray, moist, contains weakly cementedsand nodules


PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

K-1CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5

(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, dark reddish brown, moist

(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, dark brownish brown, moist


PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

K-2CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5

(SP) FINE SAND, tan, moist

(SP-SC) FINE SAND WITH CLAY, orangish brown, moist


PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

K-3CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5

(SM) SILTY FINE SAND, reddish brown, moist, contains cemented sandnodules [3/8" to 1"]

HAND AUGER REFUSAL @ 1'

PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

K-4CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5

(SM) SILTY FINE SAND, grayish brown, moist

(SP) FINE SAND, light brown to dark orange, moist


PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

K-5CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5

(SP-SC) FINE SAND WITH CLAY [PROBABLE FILL], trace gravel, orangishbrown, moist

(SP) FINE SAND, light brown to yellowish light brown, moist


PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

K-6CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5

(SP) FINE SAND, orangish brown, moist

(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, dark orangish brown, moist

(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, orange and gray, moist

(SP-SC) FINE SAND WITH CLAY, reddish brown, moist, contains cementedsand nodules


PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

K-7CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5

(SP-SM) FINE SAND WITH SILT, orangish brown to light brown, moist,contains cemented sand nodules


PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

K-8CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

0

1.5

3

4.5

6

7.5

9

10.5

(SP-SC) FINE SAND WITH CLAY, grayish brown, moist

(SP) FINE SAND, yellowish orange, moist

(SP-SC) FINE SAND WITH CLAY, brownish orange, moist, contains claynodules


PROJECT NAME:


HAND AUGER #

K-9CLIENT:


Job #:

23:3065

SURFACEELEVATION


County, GA

ARCH./ENG:


REMARKS:



ECS REP.:

AE

DATE:

02/20/19


DRY

Groundwater:

DEPTH(FT.)

ELEV.(FT.)

EXCAV.EFFORT

DCPQP

(TSF)SAMPLE

NO.

MOIST.CONT.

(%)

DCP TEST DATA

Project: 23.3065 Beach High School Date: 3/11/2019

Location: K-1 Soil Type SC, SM, SC-SM

No. of Accumulative Type ofBlows Penetration Hammer

(mm)

0 0 21 50 21 100 21 150 22 200 23 250 23 300 23 350 22 400 22 450 23 500 23 550 23 600 24 650 24 700 23 750 23 800 22 850 25 900 25 950 23 1000 22 1050 22 1100 25 1150 22 1200 23 1250 22 1300 2

10.1 lbs.17.6 lbs.Both hammers used

Soil TypeCHCLAll other soils

Hammer

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.00

150

300

450

600

750

900

1050

1200

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

DE

PT

H,

in.

CBR

DE

PT

H,

mm

DCP TEST DATA




(mm)

0 0 22 50 22 100 26 150 26 200 28 250 28 300 25 350 25 400 24 450 23 500 23 550 23 600 23 650 22 700 23 750 23 800 22 850 22 900 22 950 23 1000 23 1050 24 1100 23 1150 24 1200 23 1250 23 1300 2



Hammer

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.00

150

300

450

600

750

900

1050

1200

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

DE

PT

H,

in.

CBR

DE

PT

H,

mm

DCP TEST DATA




(mm)

0 0 23 50 28 100 210 150 210 200 26 250 25 300 15 350 16 400 16 450 15 500 15 550 16 600 16 650 15 700 15 750 16 800 15 850 25 900 25 950 26 1000 26 1050 15 1100 16 1150 14 1200 15 1250 15 1300 2



Hammer

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.00

150

300

450

600

750

900

1050

1200

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

DE

PT

H,

in.

CBR

DE

PT

H,

mm

DCP TEST DATA




(mm)

0 0 21 50 21 100 23 150 23 200 21 250 22 300 23 350 21 400 21 450 21 500 22 550 22 600 22 650 23 700 22 750 22 800 22 850 21 900 22 950 22 1000 22 1050 21 1100 21 1150 22 1200 22 1250 22 1300 2



Hammer

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.00

150

300

450

600

750

900

1050

1200

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

DE

PT

H,

in.

CBR

DE

PT

H,

mm

DCP TEST DATA




(mm)

0 0 22 50 23 100 23 150 28 200 28 250 29 300 29 350 215 400 215 450 26 500 110 550 16 600 16 650 112 700 16 750 13 800 13 850 16 900 17 950 17 1000 110 1050 110 1100 111 1150 111 1200 110 1250 111 1300 1



Hammer

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.00

150

300

450

600

750

900

1050

1200

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

DE

PT

H,

in.

CBR

DE

PT

H,

mm

DCP TEST DATA




(mm)

0 0 25 50 25 100 26 150 25 200 213 250 216 300 216 350 112 400 110 450 120 500 135 550 120 600 110 650 110 700 110 750 17 800 17 850 16 900 17 950 17 1000 18 1050 18 1100 16 1150 18 1200 17 1250 17 1300 1



Hammer

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.00

150

300

450

600

750

900

1050

1200

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

DE

PT

H,

in.

CBR

DE

PT

H,

mm

DCP TEST DATA




(mm)

0 0 22 50 23 100 25 150 25 200 22 250 22 300 23 350 23 400 226 450 120 500 17 550 17 600 16 650 15 700 15 750 15 800 210 850 26 900 25 950 29 1000 29 1050 29 1100 27 1150 28 1200 28 1250 28 1300 2



Hammer

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.00

150

300

450

600

750

900

1050

1200

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

DE

PT

H,

in.

CBR

DE

PT

H,

mm

DCP TEST DATA




(mm)

0 0 22 50 22 100 24 150 25 200 28 250 27 300 26 350 25 400 25 450 23 500 28 550 28 600 211 650 23 700 24 750 23 800 24 850 23 900 23 950 211 1000 212 1050 220 1100 221 1150 120 1200 123 1250 126 1300 1



Hammer

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.00

150

300

450

600

750

900

1050

1200

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

DE

PT

H,

in.

CBR

DE

PT

H,

mm

DCP TEST DATA




(mm)

0 0 27 50 26 100 212 150 212 200 212 250 29 300 110 350 18 400 18 450 16 500 16 550 16 600 15 650 15 700 14 750 15 800 28 850 28 900 210 950 28 1000 28 1050 28 1100 27 1150 27 1200 26 1250 28 1300 2



Hammer

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.00

150

300

450

600

750

900

1050

1200

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

DE

PT

H,

in.

CBR

DE

PT

H,

mm

`

APPENDIX C – Laboratory Testing ASTM Lab Summary

C-12 1.0 2.0 1.00 13.7 SM NP NP NP 23.1

C-21 0.0 1.0 1.00 22 ML 53.9

C-32 1.0 2.0 1.00 17.4 SM NP NP NP 29.8

C-41 0.0 1.0 1.00 25.9 SC 32.1

Laboratory Testing Summary

Notes: 1. ASTM D 2216, 2. ASTM D 2487, 3. ASTM D 4318, 4. ASTM D 1140, 5. See test reports for test method, 6. See test reports for test method

Definitions: MC: Moisture Content, Soil Type: USCS (Unified Soil Classification System), LL: Liquid Limit, PL: Plastic Limit, PI: Plasticity Index, CBR: California Bearing Ratio, OC: Organic Content (ASTM D 2974)

Project No. 23:3065

Project Name: Beach High School Auditorium

PM: Nicholas Alexander Lacour

PE: Matthew M. Lattin

Printed On: Tuesday, March 12, 2019

SampleSource

SampleNumber

StartDepth(feet)

EndDepth(feet)

SampleDistance

(feet)

MC1(%)

SoilType2 LL

Atterberg Limits3

PL PI

PercentPassingNo. 200Sieve4

MaximumDensity

(pcf)

Moisture - Density (Corr.)5

OptimumMoisture

(%)

CBRValue6 Other

Page 1 of 1

internet.savannah.chatham.k12.ga.usinternet.savannah.chatham.k12.ga.us/district/finance/purchasing... ·...

Documents