foundation report for proposed addition at the …

Corporate Headquarters (610) 277-0880 FAX 277-0878

Southern New Jersey (856) 768-1001 FAX 768-1144

Central Pennsylvania (717) 697-5701 FAX 697-5702

Lehigh Valley 149 Main Street

Emmaus, PA 18049 (610) 967-4540 FAX 967-4488

[email protected] www.earthengineering.com

FOUNDATION REPORT

FOR

PROPOSED ADDITION AT THE

ADAMSTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

COCALICO SCHOOL DISTRICT

ADAMSTOWN BOROUGH

LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Prepared For:

AEM Architects, Incorporated 3700 Perkiomen Avenue Reading, Pennsylvania 19606-2795

EEI Project Number: 31241.00

November 21, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. PROJECT OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF WORK ................................................. 1

II. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................. 1

III. FIELD INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................ 4

IV. LABORATORY TESTING ...................................................................................... 5

V. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................... 6

A). GEOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 6

B). SOIL / BEDROCK ............................................................................................ 6

C). GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................. 9

VI. GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 10

VII. FLOOR SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 13

VIII. SITE PREPARATION ............................................................................................ 14

IX. EXCAVATION METHODS ..................................................................................... 15

X. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES........................................................................... 17

XI. SITE SEISMICITY .................................................................................................. 18

XII. FILL AND COMPACTION ...................................................................................... 19

A). FILL CRITERIA ................................................................................................ 19

B). COMPACTION CRITERIA ............................................................................... 21

XIII. CONSTRUCTION QUALITY CONTROL ............................................................... 22

XIV. LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................... 22

APPENDIX

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF SITE BEDROCK GEOLOGIC MAP OF SITE

BORING LOCATION PLAN BORING PROFILES

LABORATORY TESTING BORING LOGS

KEY TO BORING LOGS

1

I. PROJECT OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF WORK

Earth Engineering Incorporated (EEI) completed the Foundation Report for the proposed

addition to the Adamstown Elementary School located in Adamstown Borough, Lancaster County,

Pennsylvania. The objective of this project was to investigate, document, and analyze the

subsurface conditions beneath the proposed building addition. Based upon the subsurface

conditions, recommendations regarding foundation system determination and design for the

proposed addition, as well as general earthwork and construction recommendations, were

developed and are included within this Report.

The scope of work for this project included a field investigation, a geologic analysis of the

site conditions, laboratory testing of soil samples obtained in the field and a geotechnical

engineering analysis. The work was performed in general accordance with EEI proposal LV4676,

dated October 31, 2018. This Report presents the results of our work.

II. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS

The Adamstown Elementary School is located at 256 West Main Street in Adamstown

Borough, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. The school is bordered by Adamstown Road to the

north, West Main Street to the east and south, and an athletic field and wooded properties to the

west. Currently, the existing school occupies the central and southern portions of the site. The

proposed location of the addition is asphalt and grass covered. A steepen slope is located adjacent

to the eastern wall of the proposed addition. A stormwater management basin is located to the

east of the proposed addition. The topography of the site slopes gently downward to the east.

Based on the surface elevations of the borings, the maximum relief across the footprint of the

addition is approximately 6.5 feet. Plate 1, included within the Appendix of this Report, shows the

general location of the overall site on a topographic map of the area. The following photographs

show the site conditions at the time of the field investigation:

2

Looking South across the Western Portion of the Looking East from the Western Portion of the Existing School (Photograph 1) School Grounds (Photograph 2)

Looking Southwest from the Northern Portion of Looking South at the Existing School School Grounds (Photograph 3) (Photograph 4)

3

The following aerial photograph from Google Maps; Satellite View, shows the location of the

entire site:

Based on the Test Boring Plan prepared by AEM Architects, Incorporated, a single story,

4,690 square foot building addition is proposed for this project. The addition will be adjacent to the

northern wall of the existing school, and will have a finished floor elevation of 540.0 feet. The

structural loadings were not established at the time of report preparation. However, based on our

experience with similar types of projects, EEI estimates maximum column and wall loads will not

exceed 100 kips and 3.0 kips per linear foot, respectively. The proposed construction, in relation to

the existing site features, is shown on the Boring Location Plan, EEI Drawing Number: 31241.00-A-

101.

4

III. FIELD INVESTIGATION

A total of ten (10) borings, designated B-101 through B-110, were conducted for this

investigation. The borings were performed on November 12 and 13, 2018, by Corcoran Drilling

Company of West Chester, Pennsylvania. Supervision and monitoring of the boring program were

performed by a representative of EEI. The boring locations were field determined by a

representative of EEI, based on the location of the borings depicted on the Test Boring Plan. The

surface elevations for the boring locations were determined by utilizing a concrete entranceway

area as a reference datum. Based on the provided plans, the concrete entranceway elevation was

539.94 feet. The location of each test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan included in the

Appendix of this Report.

The test borings were advanced using two inch (2”) outer diameter (O.D.) split barrel

samplers and six inch (6’’) O.D. solid stem augers. Split-barrel samples, conducted in accordance

with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard D1586, were taken at regular

intervals throughout the depths of all the borings. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values were

recorded for each sample. The SPT values, which are a measure of soil density and consistency,

are the number of blows required to drive the two inch (2”) O.D. split-barrel sampler six inches (6”)

using a one hundred forty pound (140#) weight dropped thirty inches (30”). The number of blows

required to advance the sampler over the 12 inch interval from 6 to 18 inches is considered the "N"

value. The test boring logs, which provide sample depths, description of the materials encountered

and sampling data, are included in the Appendix of this Report. The information presented on

these logs was used to generate boring profiles that graphically represent the subsurface conditions

encountered at the boring locations. The Boring Profiles, EEI Drawing Sheet Number: 31241.00-A-

102, are also included within the Appendix of this Report.

The borings were conducted to auger refusal at depths ranging from 8.8 to 18.8 feet below

the existing ground surface. Auger refusal is typically interpreted as the drilling apparatus

encountering the bedrock surface. Hard augering, which is indicative of very dense soil conditions

and/or weathered rock, was encountered at each boring location at depths ranging from 2.0 to 14.0

feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater was not encountered within any of the boring

locations conducted, to the depths achieved. However, perched water within the FILL materials

was documented at boring locations B-108 and B-109 at depths of 8.0 and 1.5 feet below the

5

existing ground surface, respectively. The total depth of each boring and the conditions

encountered can be observed on the Boring Logs and the Boring Profiles included in Appendix of

this Report.

IV. LABORATORY TESTING

Two (2) representative soil samples recovered during the subsurface investigation were

tested in the laboratory. The laboratory testing conducted on these samples consisted of

classification, in accordance with ASTM D2487, to verify visual classifications and to establish

engineering parameters required for analysis. The tests performed include: Particle Size Analysis

(ASTM D422), Atterberg Limits Determination (ASTM D4318) and Natural Moisture Content (ASTM

D2216). A Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Group Symbol and ASTM Group Name were

assigned to each soil based upon the laboratory testing. The results of the laboratory testing

conducted are presented in Table I. Gradation curves, numerically and graphically depicting the

results of the analyses, are presented in the Appendix.

TABLE I

LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS

Sample Location B-104 B-107 & B-108

Sample Number S-2. S-3 S-3 & S-3

Sample Depths, ft. 3.0’-6.0’ 6.0’-7.0’ & 5.5’-7.0’

Stratum II I

Atterberg Limits

Liquid Limit Non Plastic 30

Plastic Limit Non Plastic 25

Plasticity Index Non Plastic 5

Natural Moisture Content (%) 14.4 22.2

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Group Symbol

ML ML

ASTM Group Name Sandy Silt Silt with Sand

6

V. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

A). GEOLOGY

According to the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, PA

DCNR Interactive Map, reprinted November 1, 2018, the site is underlain by the Triassic Period

Hammer Creek Formation (Geologic Symbol: Trh) Plate 2, included in the Appendix, shows the

location of the site on a geologic map of the area.

According to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Topographic and Geological Survey,

Engineering Characteristics of The Rocks of Pennsylvania, Fourth (4th) series, Revised 1982, the

Hammer Creek Formation is composed of reddish brown, coarse grained sandstone having

interbeds of red shale and quartz pebble conglomerate. Bedding within this formation is well

bedded, and are thick and massive. Fracturing within this formation is moderately developed and

moderately abundant and occur regularly. The joints have a blocky pattern with displays an open

and steeply dipping. This rock type is moderately resistant, with shales highly weathered to a

moderate depth, and sandstone which weathers less rapidly. The thickness of the overlying soil

mantle is moderately thick. The ease of excavation is considered difficult.

Based upon the conditions observed during the field operation, sandstone bedrock of the

Hammer Creek Formation was determined to exist at this site, along with residual soils resulting

from the weathering of this formation.

B). SOIL / BEDROCK

The soil and weathered rock samples obtained during the field investigation were examined

and classified by EEI, both in the field and in the laboratory. Based upon the classifications and the

laboratory testing conducted, a generalized subsurface profile was developed for this site. One (1)

material designated as FILL and three (3) naturally occurring strata were characterized by EEI to

exist above the sandstone bedrock. Asphalt was encountered at the surface of six (6) boring

locations to depths ranging from 0.6 and 0.8 feet. Beneath the asphalt, a layer of subbase stone

was encountered to total depths ranging from 1.0 to 1.4 feet. The subbase stone can be described

as 2A modified aggregate. Topsoil was encountered at the surface of the remaining four (4) boring

locations to depths ranging from 0.2 to 0.3 feet below the surface. It should be noted that a 0.7 foot

thick layer of remnant topsoil was encountered at boring location B-108 at a depth of 4.8 feet below

the existing ground surface.

7

Cross sections of each testing location, displaying the various strata, as well as other

information obtained from the field investigation, are included within the Appendix on the Boring

Profiles. The testing information is also shown on the Boring Logs. A general description of the

materials encountered is as follows:

FILL

The material designated as FILL is visually described as brown, red brown to gray sandy

clay to silty sand with gravel, concrete fragments, some root fibers and topsoil, and trace slag. The

FILL material was encountered within nine (9) boring locations, excluding B-101. Where

encountered, the FILL material extended to depths ranging from 2.5 to 8.0 feet below the existing

grade.

The SPT (N) values recorded during the sampling of the FILL material ranged from 3 to 43

blows on the sample barrel per foot of penetration. The SPT (N) results indicate that the density of

the FILL material is very loose to dense. The dense portion was encountered at boring location B-

106 and can be attributed to encountering larger rock fragments, slag or concrete contained within

the soil matrix of the FILL material. The very loose portions were encountered just below the topsoil

layer at boring locations B-102, B-103 and B-104. In general, the FILL is medium dense. Based on

the variable composition and density, the FILL material was most likely not placed under

engineering supervision.

STRATUM I

The soil designated as Stratum I is visually described as brown sandy clay to silt with sand.

As determined by laboratory testing, the USCS Group Symbol for a representative sample of this

soil is ML. The assigned ASTM Group Name is Silt with Sand. The Stratum I soil was encountered

within six (6) boring locations. Where encountered, Stratum I extended to depths ranging from 6.0

to 14.0 feet below the existing grade.

The SPT (N) values recorded during the sampling of this soil ranged from 6 to 24 blows on

the sample barrel per foot of penetration. The SPT (N) results indicate that the consistency of the

Stratum I soil is soft to very stiff.

8

STRATUM II

The soil designated as Stratum II is visually described as red brown sandy silt to silty sand

with some gravel. As determined by laboratory testing, the USCS Group Symbol for a

representative sample of this soil is ML. The assigned ASTM Group Name is Sandy Silt. The

Stratum II soil was encountered at seven (7) boring locations. Where encountered, Stratum II

extended to depths ranging from 1.0 to 12.5 feet below the existing grade.

The SPT (N) values recorded during the sampling of this soil ranged from 7 to 34 blows on

the sample barrel per foot of penetration. The SPT (N) results indicate that the density of the

Stratum II soil is loose to dense.

STRATUM III

The material designated as Stratum III is visually described as weathered sandstone in the

form of red brown silty sand to sand and gravel with sandstone fragments. The Stratum III material

was encountered at each boring location, which extended to the conclusion of these borings at

depths ranging from 8.8 to 18.8 feet below the existing grade.

The SPT (N) values recorded during the sampling of this material ranged from 40 blows on

the sampling barrel per foot of penetration to 50 blows with 1 inch of penetration. The SPT (N)

results indicate that Stratum III is in a dense to very dense state.

BEDROCK

Auger refusal was encountered at each boring location at depths ranging from 8.8 to 18.8

feet below the existing ground surface. Auger refusal is typically interpreted as the drilling

apparatus encountering the bedrock surface. The corresponding bedrock elevations, where

encountered, are presented in Table II.

9

TABLE II BEDROCK ELEVATIONS

Boring Location *Surface

Elevation* (Ft.) Depth to Auger

Refusal (Ft.) Bedrock

Elevation (Ft.)

B-101 543.6 11.7 531.9

B-102 452.6 11.6 531.0

B-103 540.9 11.8 529.1

B-104 540.1 11.2 528.9

B-105 539.6 10.7 528.9

B-106 539.1 8.8 530.3

B-107 538.6 15.5 523.1

B-108 538.1 15.2 522.9

B-109 537.8 16.8 521.0

B-110 537.5 18.8 518.7

Note: * The surface elevations for each boring location were determined by utilizing a concrete entranceway area as a reference datum. Based on the provided plans, the entrance way elevation was 539.94 feet.

C). GROUNDWATER

Groundwater was not encountered within any of the testing locations conducted, to the

depths achieved. However, perched water within the FILL materials was documented at boring

locations B-108 and B-109 at depths of 8.0 and 1.5 feet below the existing ground surface,

respectively. Based upon the planned construction and subsurface conditions encountered, it is

anticipated that difficulties associated with groundwater/perched water may be experienced during

construction. If these difficulties occur during construction, the appropriate measures to be taken

for groundwater/perched water control during construction should be determined in the field at the

time of excavation and is the responsibility of the contractor. It should be noted that these

observations were made at the time of the field operations and that groundwater table elevations

may fluctuate with daily, seasonal, and climatic variations.

Also note, even if there is a lack of shallow groundwater that does not eliminate the

possibility of water-related issues, such as surficial instabilities and saturated soils, caused by

precipitation. Dewatering, whether required as a result of groundwater, surface water or

precipitation, is the responsibility of the contractor.

10

VI. GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

The results of the field investigation, supported by laboratory testing, revealed that the

general geotechnical cross-section across this site consists of one (1) FILL material and three (3)

naturally occurring soil strata within the proposed addition footprint. The anticipated finished floor

elevation for the structure is 540.0 feet. Please note the building loads were not made available at

the time of report preparation. However, EEI estimates that the column loads will not exceed 100

kips, nor will the wall loads exceed 3 klf.

Based on the finished floor elevation of 540.0 feet, excavations up to approximately 3.6 feet

and structural fill placement up to 2.5 feet will be required. Based on the borings the existing FILL

materials are variable in both composition and density. Also, a remnant topsoil layer was

encountered at boring location B-108, and topsoil was observed to be mixed with the FILL material

at boring location B-109. Finally, slag was encountered at within the FILL boring location B-106.

Therefore, EEI is recommending a Soil Exchange program be implemented to ensure proper

support of the proposed addition.

A Soil Exchange consists of the complete removal of the existing FILL materials and

remnant topsoil from within the building area containing loose FILL materials and remnant topsoil (if

encountered), and subsequent replacement with controlled, compacted lifts of structural fill. The

lateral and vertical extent of the overexcavation should be field determined at the time of

construction by a qualified representative of the Geotechnical Engineer of Record following the

segregation of all deleterious materials and organics. The removal of the FILL material should

extend a minimum of ten feet (10’) beyond the footprint of the addition.

Following the removal of the FILL materials within the above mentioned area, the

underlying natural soils should be proof-rolled and densified in accordance with the SITE

PREPARATION section of this Report. It is noted that soft/loose existing FILL materials and natural

soils were encountered throughout the investigation at several boring locations. Therefore, over

excavations of the soft/loose material to a firm and stable base may be necessary as well, or these

materials can be stabilized in-place. The Soil Exchange and over excavations should be backfilled

with compacted lifts of structural fill, to the originally proposed subgrade elevation. The structural fill

should be placed and compacted to ninety eight percent (98%) of the material’s maximum dry

density in accordance with ASTM D698. The FILL material as well as implementation of the

11

foundation preparation program must be evaluated by a qualified representative of the Geotechnical

Engineer of Record. The placement of structural fill should be performed immediately after removal

of the FILL materials and commencement of the proof-rolling effort, in order to reduce the time

available for water to collect and infiltrate the open excavations.

It is very important to note that the Soil Exchange will be conducted adjacent to the existing

building. The foundation elevations are not known for the existing building. Utmost care during the

Soil Exchange operation must be taken not to undermine the existing foundations. If the

foundations are undermined, underpinning may be required.

Upon proper implementation of the Soil Exchange program and site preparations, EEI

recommends supporting the anticipated structure utilizing a shallow foundation system, bearing on

the suitably dense, approved FILL materials (areas around B-101 through B-104), natural soils

and/or newly placed structural fill. The following foundation system and soil bearing capacity

recommendations are provided by EEI, in addition to those discussed above:

1. Following implementation of the Soil Exchange program, along with site and

foundation preparation activities, a foundation system consisting of strip and spread footings along with a slab-on-grade floor system is recommended for the proposed addition.

2. The base of the strip and spread foundations should be situated within the suitably dense approved natural soil and/or structural fill placed and compacted as detailed in the FILL AND COMPACTION section of this Report. FILL materials, and/or soft/loose natural soils encountered at the footing bottom elevation should be undercut and replaced with compacted lifts of structural fill, or lean concrete. Alternately, the foundation base can be lowered to the approved soil bearing elevation. Foundations shall not bear on or above FILL materials, soft/loose residual soils and/or remnant topsoil.

3. Following these site preparation recommendations, the foundations should be designed for a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 psf, if the foundations are situated on the suitably dense, natural soils and/or newly placed structural fill. A minimum eighteen inch (18”) wide strip footing and thirty six inch (36”) spread footing should be utilized for shear and overturning considerations.

12

4. Supported on the suitably dense natural soils, weathered rock, and/or properly placed structural fill, total and differential settlements are estimated not to exceed 1.0 inch. These settlements were calculated using a bearing capacity of 3,000 psf along with the assumed maximum column (100 kips) and wall (3 klf) loads. Angular distortion of the proposed foundation is anticipated to be within the tolerable limits. Should the anticipated loads be different, EEI must be notified so that our recommendations can be reviewed and if necessary revised.

5. The elevation of the base of the new foundations should match the base elevation of the adjacent existing footings. Alternately, foundations bearing at different elevations should be positioned so that the base of the closest points of the adjacent foundation is located a minimum of one horizontal to one vertical (1:1) from each other. Care should be taken not to undermine existing foundations. Should foundations be undermined, underpinning or shoring will be required.

6. The bottom of exterior footings and footings in unheated areas should be placed at least thirty six inches (36”) below the final exterior grade for protection from frost heave.

7. All footing bottoms should be dry, tamped and completely cleaned of loose material or debris immediately prior to the placement of concrete.

8. The actual bearing conditions of the soil at the footing bottom elevation should be confirmed in the field during excavation, by inspection under the supervision of a Professional Engineer qualified in Geotechnical Engineering.

It should be noted that foundation excavation adjacent to the existing building will likely

encounter loose backfill material. Backfill material for exterior foundation walls is often not placed

and compacted under engineering control. Therefore, localized over-excavation adjacent to the

existing building foundation(s) should be anticipated. The extent of the over-excavation should be

field determined at the time of construction by a qualified representative of the Geotechnical

Engineer of Record.

13

VII. FLOOR SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS

Following the site preparations and implementation of the Soil Exchange, floor slabs may be

supported on suitably dense, approved residual soils and/or new structural fill placed and

compacted over approved subgrade soils in accordance with the FILL AND COMPACTION section

of this Report. Due to the possibility of soft/loose existing residual soils, overexcavation and

replacement may be required for proper support of the slab(s).

Floor slabs for the proposed addition may be designed as a slab-on-grade with a

recommended Modulus of Subgrade Reaction value of 150 psi/inch. The subgrade should be

prepared in accordance with the procedures described in this Report. In order to reduce capillary

rise resulting in damp floor slabs, a granular subbase is recommended. The granular subbase will

also provide uniform support distribution between the subgrade soils and the base of the concrete

slab. It is recommended that a minimum of six inches (6”) of clean, coarse-graded aggregate, (such

as PA DOT 2B) be placed and compacted beneath all floor slab areas. The floor slabs should be

suitably reinforced to control shrinkage cracking. Proper joints should be provided at the junction of

the slabs and foundation system so a small amount of independent movement can occur without

causing damage.

Furthermore, from a geotechnical perspective, a vapor retarder/barrier is not required to

address any issues with moisture intrusion from shallow groundwater. The need for a vapor

retarder/barrier from a general construction perspective depends on the floor covering and/or

humidity control requirements in the proposed building spaces. Refer to appropriate documentation

from the Portland Cement Association for guidance on the need and location of a vapor

retarder/barrier. If a moisture sensitive floor covering is used, or the building spaces are not

equipped with humidity control, then a vapor retarder/barrier is recommended. Additionally, the

location of the vapor retarder/barrier would depend on when slab construction is completed with

respect to placement of a water tight roofing system. There is some debate in the industry on the

use and location of vapor retarder/barrier. Regardless, these issues are not of a geotechnical

nature. Therefore, EEI recommends that these issues be evaluated by the Architect and/or

Structural Engineer accordingly, to determine the need for and location of a vapor retarder/barrier.

14

VIII. SITE PREPARATION

EEI performed a cursory analysis of the excavations and fill placements necessary for the

development of this site. Based on a finished floor elevation of 540.0 feet, excavations up to 3.6 feet

and fill placements up to approximately 2.5 feet will be required. Deeper excavations will be

necessary for Soil Exchange, foundation installation, stormwater management construction and

utility installation. Prior to the placement of any required fill, areas extending a minimum distance of

ten feet (10’) beyond each of the building footprint or twice (2X) the fill placement height, whichever

is greater, should generally be stripped of all vegetation, topsoil, root mats, and other deleterious

materials. Following removal of the surface materials and after excavation to the proposed grades,

the building pads should be proof-rolled and compacted. It is recommended that a steel drum

vibratory roller having a minimum static weight of ten (10) tons be utilized for this purpose. Proof-

rolling should be conducted with a minimum of two (2) passes in each direction with a smooth drum

roller in static mode. Proof-rolling and compaction procedures are necessary to densify and verify

the integrity of the upper zones of the soils. The proof-rolling effort will be an important aspect of

the development of this site, as portions of the existing FILL materials and natural soils were

encountered in a soft/ loose state. Due to the soft and loose existing soils encountered during the

field investigation, EEI anticipates that unstable areas will be encountered during the proof-rolling

effort. Any loose or unstable areas encountered during proof-rolling are most likely loose and

unstable due to excessive moisture within the soil matrix. These soils can be aerated and dried in-

place. Following adequate drying time, these soils can be densified in-place. Alternately, any loose

or soft zones of soil can be removed and replaced with structural fill, as outlined in the FILL AND

COMPACTION section of this Report.

The need to excavate and replace the soft materials will be reduced if the development of

the site occurs during periods of dry and warm conditions, such as the summer months. During

these periods, the effectiveness of scarifying and aerating will be greatly enhanced while reducing

the need to over-excavate and replace soft soils. The proof-rolling effort should be observed and

evaluated in the field by a qualified representative of the Geotechnical Engineer of Record.

15

Due to the fine-grained natural soils, it should be noted that repeated construction traffic

across the site will lead to instabilities. Therefore, construction traffic should be limited across the

site. The site should be graded during development to convey surface runoff away from

construction. The work areas should be sealed by rolling on a daily basis to promote runoff.

Careful grading and management of surface water runoff will help minimize disturbance of the

subgrade. Furthermore, it is recommended that all construction areas, including those which were

excavated to achieve the planned subgrade elevation, be proof-rolled immediately prior to the

placement of the subbase stone section and again before installation of any asphalt/concrete

sections. This will allow for soft and weak areas to be identified and remediated prior to the slab

placement and/or pavement construction.

IX. EXCAVATION METHODS

As previously mentioned, excavations up to 3.6 will be required to achieve the proposed

finished floor elevation of 540.0 feet. Deeper excavations will be necessary for implementing the

Soil Exchange, as well as for foundation and utility installation. Based on the borings conducted,

excavations to achieve the proposed grades are expected to occur within the existing FILL

materials, residual soils, weathered rock, and possibly bedrock. Based on the results of the drilling

operation, the existing FILL, Stratum I and Stratum II soils, and upper portions of the Stratum III

weathered rock, will be easy to excavate with conventional equipment and techniques.

Very dense weathered rock, as indicated by high SPT values or hard augering, was

encountered at each boring location, at depths ranging from 1.0 to 14.0 feet. As shown in the

Boring Profiles accompanying this Report, very dense weathered rock (Stratum III) varies across

the site and will be encountered during site grading activities. Table III lists the depths to the very

dense weathered rock and bedrock, as well as the corresponding elevations, at the boring

locations. Additional information regarding the foundations is presented in the GEOTECHNICAL

ANALYSIS section of this Report.

16

TABLE III DEPTHS AND REMOVAL OF VERY DENSE WEATHERED AND BEDROCK ELEVATIONS

Boring Number

1) Surface Elevation,

ft.

2) Proposed Cut Depth

for Foundation Elevation, ft.

Depth to Weathered

Rock, ft.

Weathered Rock

Elevation, ft.

Depth to Bedrock,

ft.

Bedrock Elevation,

ft.

Removal of Weathered

Rock, ft.

Removal of Bedrock, ft.

B-101 543.6 537.0 1.0 542.6 11.7 531.9 5.6 --- B-102 542.6 537.0 7.5 535.1 11.6 531.0 3)Localized ---B-103 540.9 537.0 7.5 533.4 11.8 529.1 --- ---B-104 540.1 537.0 6.0 534.1 11.2 528.9 --- ---B-105 539.6 537.0 7.5 532.1 10.7 528.9 --- ---B-106 539.1 537.0 7.5 531.6 8.8 530.3 --- ---B-107 538.6 537.0 11.5 527.1 15.5 523.1 --- ---B-108 538.1 537.0 12.5 525.6 15.2 522.9 --- ---B-109 537.8 537.0 12.0 525.8 16.8 521.0 --- ---B-110 537.5 537.0 14.0 523.5 18.8 518.7 --- ---

Notes: 1) The surface elevations for each boring location were determined by utilizing a concrete entranceway area as a reference datum. Based on the provided plans, the sill elevation was 539.94 feet. 2) The Proposed Cut Depth Elevation was based on three feet (3’) below the provided finished floor elevation, which correlates to the anticipated foundation elevation. 3) Localized – Indicates very dense weathered rock are within two feet (2’) of the proposed cut depth.

Our evaluation indicates that areas will require removal of up to approximately 5.6 feet of

very dense weathered rock during excavations for the anticipated foundation elevation in the vicinity

of boring location B-101. At boring location B-102 the very dense weathered rock was just below

(within 2’) the anticipated foundation elevation. At this juncture and based on the provided

elevations, bedrock removal is not anticipated.

As noted on the Boring Logs, the borings were advanced through the very dense weathered

rock using six inch (6”) O.D. solid stem augers. However, slow excavation rates are anticipated if

typical excavation equipment (i.e. standard backhoe) is utilized. Improved excavation rates,

specifically within the very dense portions of the weathered materials, will be realized utilizing a late

model, high power track-mounted hoe in lieu of a standard backhoe. In open excavations, the

upper portions of bedrock are expected to be rippable with a late model Caterpillar D-8 Dozer or

equivalent/larger, equipped with a hydraulic ripper. Deeper excavations for utilities are expected to

encounter the bedrock surface. Rock excavation within confined foundation and utility trenches is

expected to require hydraulic hammering, ripping or other rock removal techniques. The final

determination of the rock removal method(s) should comply with all Township regulations and

generally accepted safety guidelines.

17

As required, temporary slopes and support for excavations should be designed and installed

by the contractor in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA),

Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, 29 CFR 1926, Subpart P. A competent person as

defined by the aforementioned regulation is required to confirm stability of all excavations during

construction. If required, the design of temporary bracing and shoring by the contractor needs to

consider an active earth pressure and passive earth pressure on the temporary shoring as

appropriate. Effects of any surcharges also need to be considered in the bracing design.

Permanent slopes should be designed at 3 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter.

In the event that the excavation package for this project is not being bid as “unclassified”, it

may be prudent to include definitions for weathered rock and bedrock, as well as unit costs for

weathered rock and/or bedrock excavation/removal within the contract documents.

X. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

The lateral earth pressure coefficients that may be used for designing below grade walls and

retaining walls, if necessary, are shown in Table IV. Retaining walls that are restrained from

deflection should be designed for the at-rest (Ko) condition. Retaining walls that are free to deflect,

such as landscape walls, should be designed for the active (Ka) condition. Considered somewhat

conservative, the earth pressure data for the on-site materials was determined from the soil

classification testing and visual classification of the soil samples, and was compared to generally

accepted and published values for the various properties.

EEI recommends that a drainage system be installed for walls constructed below grade.

The presence of a drainage system will serve to minimize hydrostatic pressures caused by water

trapped against the walls. If adequate drainage is not provided, the walls should be designed to

resist hydrostatic loads. Additionally, consideration should be given to any surcharge loads at the

top of walls.

18

TABLE IV SOIL PROPERTIES FOR THE COMPUTATION OF LATERAL LOADS

STRATUM I FILL &

STRATUM II STRATUM III

Effective Stress Angle of Friction – φ 28.0° 28.0º 32.0º Dry Unit Weight - γd 110.0pcf 115.0pcf 120.0pcf Submerged Unit Weight - γw 47.6pcf 56.6pcf 57.6pcf Rankine Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure - Ka 0.36 0.36 0.31 Rankine Coefficient of Passive Earth Pressure - Kp 2.77 2.77 3.25 Rankine Coefficient of at Rest Earth Pressure - Ko 0.53 0.53 0.47

It should be noted that for the design of a Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW), the National

Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) suggests that all soil placed within the reinforced zones of

the system have no more than 35% passing the #200 sieve. The soil classifications, conducted by

EEI as part of this investigation, indicate that placement of the Stratum I and Stratum II soils in the

reinforced zone of an SRW (or any MSES) is not permitted. EEI recommends additional laboratory

testing, namely a direct shear test (ASTM D3080), to be conducted on the backfill material for any

proposed SRW system’s reinforced zone after this material is identified. The results of this test may

provide more aggressive soil parameters to be used in retaining wall design, which may effectively

reduce retaining wall cost.

XI. SITE SEISMICITY

The 2009 edition of the International Building Code (IBC) specifies seismic design

requirements applicable to the structural design of the proposed addition to the Adamstown

Elementary School. In particular, Chapter 16, Sections 1613 through 1620 are relevant to this

structural design. This in turn requires that the project site be classified geotechnically as either

“Site Class” A through F based on Table 1613.5.2 of IBC 2009.

19

IBC Table 1613.5.2 SITE CLASS DEFINITIONS

SITE CLASS SOIL PROFILE

NAME AVERAGE PROPERTIES IN TOP 100 FEET, SEE SECTION

1613.5.5

Soil Shear wave velocity, Vs (ft/s)

Standard Penetration

resistance, N

Soil undrained shear strength, Su (psf)

A Hard Rock Vs>5,000 N/A N/A B Rock 2,000<Vs<5,000 N/A N/A

C Very dense soil and soft rock

1,200<Vs<2,500 N>50 Su>2,000

D Stiff soil profile 600<Vs<1,200 15<N<50 1,000<Su<2,000 E Soft soil profile Vs<600 N<15 Su<1,000

E --

Any profile with more than 10 feet of soil having the following characteristics: 1. Plasticity index PI>20 2. Moisture content w>40% and 3. Undrained shear strength Su<500 psf

F --

Any profile containing soils having one or more of the following characteristics: 1. Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic loading such as liquefiable soils, quick and highly sensitive clays, collapsible weakly cemented soils. 2. Peats and/or highly sensitive clays (H>10 feet of peat and/or highly organic clay where H= thickness of soil ) 3. Very high plasticity clays (H>25 with plasticity index PI>75 4. Very thick soft/medium stiff clays (H>120 feet)

For SI: 1 foot = 304.8mm, 1 square foot = 0.0929m2, 1 pound per square foot = 0.0479 kPA, N/A = Not Applicable In this regard, based on a comparison of the criteria of Table 1613.5.2 with the field data

accumulated during the drilling for this site in November, 2018, the project site should be classified

as Site Class “D” for purposes of implementing the IBC 2009 seismic structural design requirement.

According to the IBC 2009, a Site Class “D” indicates a “stiff soil” profile.

XII. FILL AND COMPACTION

A). FILL CRITERIA

Fill material which supports foundations, floor slabs, and pavements, as well as fill for

retaining wall backfill and berm construction, is considered structural fill. Excavations required to

achieve the proposed grades will make the existing FILL materials, Stratum I and Stratum II soils,

and Stratum III weathered rock available for reuse as structural fill material.

20

Based on visual observations, the existing FILL is currently considered unsuitable for use as

structural fill. Any soils or deleterious materials (i.e., metal, wood, organics, etc.) which are

unsuitable for reuse as structural fill should be stockpiled separately, and removed from the site or

placed in non-structural areas. EEI recommends that the FILL material be further evaluated by a

representative of the Geotechnical Engineer of Record at the time of excavation for reuse as

structural fill.

One (1) sample of the Stratum I soil was tested in the laboratory for natural moisture

content. The results yielded a natural moisture content of 22.2 percent. Based on visual

observations, supported by laboratory testing, this material is above optimum moisture content for

the soil type. Therefore, these soils will require time for aerating and drying prior to use as structural

fill. When these soils are encountered during construction, they should be mixed with suitable soils

for re-use or processed with a drying agent, such as lime.

One (1) sample of the Stratum II soil was tested in the laboratory for natural moisture

content. The results yielded a natural moisture content of 14.4 percent. Based on visual

observations, supported by laboratory testing, this material is at optimum moisture content for the

soil type. If moist zones are encountered, they will require time for aerating and drying prior to use

as structural fill.

Visual observations of the Stratum III weathered sandstone indicate that these materials are

suitable for use as structural fill. Rock fragments from weathered rock, and bedrock should be

processed to less than three inches (3”) in size and mixed with suitable soil materials during

placement to provide a well-graded structural fill.

The on-site soils will require careful moisture control as they are sensitive to moisture

changes. Materials stockpiled for use as structural fill should be graded to shed water and rolled to

maintain the soils. During periods of wet site conditions, travel upon the building pads and

construction areas should be limited to minimize disturbance of the subgrade which will lead to

instabilities.

21

Any structural fill imported to the site should meet the following criteria:

Granular soils such as GW, GP, GM, SW, SP or SM as classified by ASTM D2487 are preferred, however soils having soil classifications GC, SC, ML or CL may be acceptable provided the Geotechnical Engineer of Record approves the soil;

the largest particles within the fill should be no greater than three (3) inches in diameter;

not include deleterious materials such as construction debris, wood, glass, ash trash, refuse, roots and other organic matter;

not contain frozen clumps of soil, snow or ice;

have moisture contents within two (2) to three percent (3%) of the soil’s optimum moisture content and

meets the definition of clean fill according to PADEP Management of Fill Policy, Document Number 258-2182-773.

The criteria are provided as a general guideline for soil materials imported to the site. Soil

materials available for use as structural fill should be submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer of

Record for evaluation prior to use at the site.

B). COMPACTION CRITERIA

Structural fill should generally be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches (8”) in

loose thickness and compacted with a sheepsfoot or smooth drum vibratory roller with a minimum

static weight of ten (10) tons. Due to the fine grained nature of the upper soils, a sheepsfoot roller

is recommended for this site to aerate the moist soils during placement and compaction. Where

compaction by hand-operated equipment is necessary, structural fill should be placed in minimum

horizontal lifts of six inch (6”) loose thickness. The optimum lift thickness and number of repetitions

necessary to achieve the required percentage compaction values should be determined in the field

with test passes of the chosen compaction equipment. The fill material should be placed at its

optimum moisture content (+/- 2%) as determined in accordance with ASTM D698 and compacted

to a minimum percentage of the maximum dry density as indicated in Table V.

22

TABLE V COMPACTION CRITERIA

Fill Area Percent of Maximum Dry Density as

per ASTM Standard D698 Foundation Support and Slab-on-Grade 98

Paved Areas, Walkways, and Berms 95

Non-Structural 92

XIII. CONSTRUCTION QUALITY CONTROL

As documented within this Report, the proposed construction is anticipated to include

significant earthwork procedures and foundation construction activities. The quality of this work is

an integral part of the development of this site and directly impacts the validity of the

recommendations presented in this Report. Based upon past experience, the most effective and

economical earthwork inspection is obtained through the on-site presence of a qualified

representative of the Geotechnical Engineer of Record during the placement of structural fill and the

installation of structural elements. Therefore, it is recommended that the proof-rolling effort,

excavation and placement of fill, Soil Exchange and verification of the installation of foundation and

slab elements be tested and confirmed by Earth Engineering Incorporated. However, it must be

noted, the presence of any third party Inspection Agency does not relieve the contractor from

responsibility for Means and Methods of construction and proper performance of the components

included in their work scope.

XIV. LIMITATIONS

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon the

subsurface data collected, and on details stated in this Report, as well as the assumption that the

subsurface conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by the test borings

performed.

Unless specifically indicated to the contrary in this Report, the scope of this Report is limited

only to investigations and evaluation of the geotechnical aspects of the site conditions, and does

not include any consideration of potential site pollution, contamination or other environmental

issues. This Report offers no opinions, conclusions or recommendations related to potential

pollution or contamination of the site.

23

The procedures followed for the subsurface exploration, analysis and conclusion

development have followed generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices, and make no

other warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the professional advice provided under the

terms of EEI’s agreement and included in this Report. The conclusions and recommendations

presented in this Report assume that recognized proper construction practices are followed

throughout construction and that a Professional Engineer qualified in geotechnical engineering will

be retained to oversee the inspection of site preparations, proof-rolling, foundation construction,

implementation of the Soil Exchange, and other critical earthwork operations.

It is important to note that at the time of report preparation, the building loads were not

established. This information is vital to providing a recommended foundation type, as well as

accurate recommendations regarding bearing capacity and settlement estimates. After the loads

are determined, EEI can better establish the foundation design recommendations best suited for the

structure.

It is emphasized that this analysis was made for the proposed addition to Adamstown

Elementary School located in Adamstown Borough, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Earth

Engineering Incorporated does not assume any responsibility in using this Report to generate

foundation design other than at the specific site addressed.

Respectfully submitted, EARTH ENGINEERING INCORPORATED

Michael J. Carmosky, SEO Assistant Director ~ Lehigh Valley Division Michael O. Meixell, P.E. Director of Engineering ~ Lehigh Valley Division Paul J Creneti, P.G. Director~ Lehigh Valley Division

G:\PROJECTS\31000\31241.00 - ADAMSTOWN ELEM SCHOOL - LV GEO\REPORT\31241.00 - ADAMSTOWN ES ADDITION REPORT.DOC

APPENDIX

PLATE 1 - TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF SITE

Visit us at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us

Created using PA DCNR Map Viewer Copyright 2011 Esri. All rights reserved Terre Hill Quadrangle Map created on Thu Nov 1 2018

PLATE 2 - BEDROCK GEOLOGY MAP OF SITE

Visit us at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us

Created using PA DCNR Map Viewer Copyright 2011 Esri. All rights reserved Terre Hill Quadrangle Map created on Thu Nov 1 2018

6

29

0.3'

3.9'

6.0'

7.5'

11.8'

B-103EL. 540.9'

Auger RefusalHard Augering

6.0'-11.2'

7

22

3

11

33

0.2'

2.5'

7.5'

11.6'

B-102EL. 542.6'

50/4''

19

50/4''


7.5'-11.8'

B-104EL. 540.1'

56

4

1.4'

4.0'

7.5'

10.7'

B-105EL. 539.6'


7.5'-8.8'

6.0'

14

43

24

40

0.8'1.2'

47

0.2'

3.0'

13

11.2'

50/5''


7.5'-10.7'

0.6'

48

520

Date:

24

32

EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

544

Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists

EARTHENGINEERINGINCORPORATED

31241.00 A-102

TOPSOIL

540

Project Number: SHEET:F.F.E.= Finished Floor Elevation

F.F.E.=

Lithology Graphics

540.0'

520

522

524

526

528

530

532

534

536

538

540

542

544

522

524

526

528

530

532

534

536

538

542

75

0.2'1.0'

11.7'

B-101EL. 543.6'

50/2''

63/9''


7.5'-11.6'

16

4.5'

5

50/5''

Subsequent Perched Water Level

ASPHALT

SUBBASE STONE - Gray 2A Modified Aggregate

ADAMSTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLADDITION

STRATUM II - Red Brown Sandy Silt to Silty Sand with SomeGravel

STRATUM III - Red Brown Silty Sand to Sand and Gravelwith Sandstone Fragments (Weathered Sandstone)

Initial Perched Water Level


2.0'-11.7'

11/14/2018

BORING PROFILESPREPARED FOR

ADAMSTOWN BOROUGH, LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

www.earthengineering.com

FILL - Brown, Red Brown to Gray Sandy Clay to Silty Sandwith Gravel, Concrete Fragments, Some Root Fibers andTopsoil, and Trace Slag

1.0'

6.0'

7.5'

15.5'

8.0'


12.5'-15.2'

26

50/1''

16

14

22

0.7'

12

34

18

6

31

18

1.1'

7.5'

0.6'

5.5'

7.5'

24

8

17

15


12.0'-16.8'

11.5'

50/4''

4.8'5.0'

50/2''

B-108EL. 538.1'

15.2'

12.5'

69

B-110EL. 537.5'

14.0'

8.0'

1.1'0.7'

18.8'

19

50/1''

14

21

15

24

B-107EL. 538.6'

28

1.5'

STRATUM I - Brown Sandy Clay to Silt with Sand

8.8'

B-106EL. 539.1'

1.2'


14.0'-18.8'

B-109EL. 537.8'

16.8'

12.0'

6.8'

0.6'


11.5'-15.5'

14.4 Odor:

% Gravel: Coarse: 5.7 Fine: 6.8 Diameter, mm % Finer

% Sand: Coarse: 4.1 Medium: 13.1 Fine: 9.9 75 100.038.1 100.019.0 94.39.5 91.84.75 87.52.00 83.4

0.425 70.30.150 62.4

0.075 60.4

0.005 NR

0.001 NR

Gs: N/A Cu: N/A Cc: N/A

Project: LL: NP PL: NP PI: NP

Job #:

Client:

Sample:Depth:

Comments:

East Norriton, PA - (610) 277-0880 Central PA: (717) 697-5701 Southern NJ: (856) 768-1001Classification of Soils, ASTM D 2487-00 / D 2488-00

3.0'-6.0'

USCS Classification: ML, Sandy Silt

B-104 / S-2, S-3

AASHTO Classification: A-6

November 21, 2018

№ 200

Hydrometer AnalysisClay Size

Colloids

SAND

Coarse № 10Medium № 40

№ 100

Particle SizeUS Standard Sieve Size

GRAVELCoarse

3"1½"¾"

Fine

FineDilatency: N/R

⅜"№ 4

Stratum II NP - Indicates Sample is Non Plastic

Adamstown Elementary School Addition31241.00

AEM Architects

Cementation: moderate Dry Strength: medium

Reaction to HCl: N/R Toughness: N/R

Structure: homogeneous

Sand Description: rounded, flat pieces, weathered, sandstone, quartz, red, white, brown

Consistency: firm Hardness: N/R

As-rec'd water content: N/R

12.527.1

Gravel Description: rounded, flat pieces, weathered, sandstone, quartz, red, white, brown

3" 1½" ¾" ⅜" №4 №10 №40 №100 №200

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.1110100

Per

cen

t P

assi

ng

Sie

ve

Sieve Opening, mm

Particle Size Analysis of Soils

149 Main Street, Emmaus, PA 18049Tel: 610-967-4540 Fax: 610-967-4488

22.2 Odor:

% Gravel: Coarse: 0.0 Fine: 2.4 Diameter, mm % Finer

% Sand: Coarse: 1.1 Medium: 10.1 Fine: 6.8 75 100.038.1 100.019.0 100.09.5 97.84.75 97.62.00 96.6

0.425 86.50.150 81.6

0.075 79.7

0.005 NR

0.001 NR

Gs: N/A Cu: N/A Cc: N/A

Project: LL: 30 PL: 25 PI: 5

Job #:

Client:

Sample:Depth:

Comments:

East Norriton, PA - (610) 277-0880 Central PA: (717) 697-5701 Southern NJ: (856) 768-1001Classification of Soils, ASTM D 2487-00 / D 2488-00

6.0'-7.0' & 5.5'-7.0'

USCS Classification: ML, Silt with Sand

B-107 & B-108 / S-3 & S-3

AASHTO Classification: A-4

November 21, 2018

№ 200

Hydrometer AnalysisClay Size

Colloids

SAND

Coarse № 10Medium № 40

№ 100

Particle SizeUS Standard Sieve Size

GRAVELCoarse

3"1½"¾"

Fine

FineDilatency: N/R

⅜"№ 4

Stratum I

Adamstown Elementary School Addition31241.00

AEM Architects

Cementation: moderate Dry Strength: medium

Reaction to HCl: N/R Toughness: N/R

Structure: homogeneous

Sand Description: sub-angular, weathered, mica

Consistency: soft to firm Hardness: N/R

As-rec'd water content: N/R

2.418.0

Gravel Description: sub-angular, weathered, mica

3" 1½" ¾" ⅜" №4 №10 №40 №100 №200

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.1110100

Per

cen

t P

assi

ng

Sie

ve

Sieve Opening, mm

Particle Size Analysis of Soils

149 Main Street, Emmaus, PA 18049Tel: 610-967-4540 Fax: 610-967-4488

M

.

D

D

26

25

50

50/2''

50/5''

50/2''

3

13

50/3''

0.7'

11.7

1.0

0.2

BORINGLOG

Hard Augering 2.0'-11.7'NA

-

543.4

S-2

S-3

S-1

sm

sm

sm

531.9

542.6

S-4

-

-

-

Auger Refusal

DEPTH:

EQUIPMENT USED Truck Mounted Drilling Rig - CME 55

WATER:

1

;

START 11/13/18

REMARKS

CHECKED BY: MJC


0.0'

BLO

WS

/0.5

FT

.O

N S

AM

PLE

R

SA

MP

LE N

O./

TY

PE

/CO

RE

RU

N

TIME:DEPTH:R

EC

OV

ER

Y(F

t.)

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

DEPTH (feet)

PROJECT LOCATION Adamstown Borough, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

PROJECT NUMBER 31241.00

SURFACEELEV. (FT) 543.6

NOT ENCOUNTERED

H2O

CO

NT

EN

T

DEPTH:

DRILLING METHODS 2 inch O.D. Split Barrel Sampler; 6 inch O.D. Solid Auger

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%)

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT NAME Adamstown Elementary School Addition

DATE: 11/14/2018

DATE:


TIME:

CASING: SIZE: N/A

DATE:

ELEVATION (feet)


STRATUM III - Red Brown Sand andGravel with Sandstone Fragments(Weathered Sandstone)

STRATUM II - Red Brown Sandy Silt toSilty Sand

TOPSOIL

OF

;

SHEET

AA

SH

TO

INSPECTOR NAME D. Folk

RQ

D (

%)

END 11/13/18

DATE:

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

BORING NO. B-101

0.4'

DRILLER NAME/COMPANY Bob Corcoran/Corcoran Drilling Company

1

X

** D = DRY, M = MOIST, W = WET

US

CS

1.5'

4.4

0.0

1.3

2.0

4.0

7.0

8.7

2.2

D

M

M

M

M

50/4''

14

16

17

32

4

5

6

10

5

6

7

8

1

2

3

6

S-1 - PP=1.50 tsf

11.6

7.5

2.5

0.2

Auger Refusal

Hard Augering 7.5'-11.6'

BORINGLOG

542.4

-

PP=Pocket Penetrometer (tsf=tons persquare foot)

S-3 - PP=3.00 tsf

S-5

S-4

S-3

S-2

S-1

sm

ml

ml

ml

cl

531.0

535.1

540.1

-

-

-

-

S-4 - PP=3.25 tsf

US

CS

WATER:

1

;

START 11/13/18

REMARKS

RE

CO

VE

RY

(Ft.

)


S-2 - PP=4.25 tsf

CHECKED BY: MJC

BLO

WS

/0.5

FT

.O

N S

AM

PLE

R

SA

MP

LE N

O./

TY

PE

/CO

RE

RU

N

TIME:DEPTH:


DATE:

DEPTH:

DEPTH (feet)




NOT ENCOUNTERED

H2O

CO

NT

EN

T

DEPTH: TIME:

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

DESCRIPTION


DATE: 11/14/2018

DATE:

www.earthengineering.comGeotechnical Engineers & Geologists

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%)

ELEVATION (feet)

STRATUM III - Red Brown Sandy Silt withSandstone Fragments (WeatheredSandstone)


RQ

D (

%)

TOPSOIL

CASING: SIZE: N/A

0.2'

1.3'

1.0'

0.5'

0.7'

FILL - Red Brown Sandy Clay with Gravel


OF

DATE:


1

X

BORING NO. B-102



AA

SH

TO

SHEET

;

END 11/13/18

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

8.38.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

23

50/4''D

M

M

M

M

-

12

13

16

32

2

2

4

10

8

9

10

9

1

2

2

3

S-1 - PP=0.75 tsf

11.8

7.5

6.0

3.9

0.3

Auger Refusal

BORINGLOG

540.6 PP=Pocket Penetrometer (tsf=tons persquare foot)

-S-4 - PP=4.25 tsf

S-5

S-4

S-3

S-2

S-1

sm

ml

cl

cl

cl

529.1

533.4

534.9

537.0

-

-

-


DESCRIPTION

WATER:

1

;

START 11/13/18

REMARKS

RE

CO

VE

RY

(Ft.

)DEPTH:

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

S-3 - PP=0.50 tsf

CHECKED BY: MJC

SA

MP

LE N

O./

TY

PE

/CO

RE

RU

N

TIME:DEPTH:


DATE:

US

CS

ELEVATION (feet)DEPTH (feet)




NOT ENCOUNTERED

H2O

CO

NT

EN

T

DEPTH: TIME:

DE

PT

H (

FT

)



DATE: 11/14/2018

DATE:


BLO

WS

/0.5

FT

.O

N S

AM

PLE

R

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%)

END 11/13/18



STRATUM I - Brown Sandy Clay

TOPSOIL

0.5'

1.9'

0.9'

0.4'

0.8'

FILL - Brown Clay with Gravel



OF1

X

BORING NO. B-103

DATE:


RQ

D (

%)

CASING: SIZE: N/A

AA

SH

TO

SHEET

;


8.8

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

ML4

3

4

12

S-5

S-4

S-3

S-2

S-1

10

11

11

10

1

2

1

5

-

-

-

sm

ML

DESCRIPTION

1

;

START 11/13/18

REMARKS

RE

CO

VE

RY

(Ft.

)DEPTH:


BLO

WS

/0.5

FT

.O

N S

AM

PLE

R

SA

MP

LE N

O./

TY

PE

/CO

RE

RU

N

TIME:DEPTH:


DATE:

US

CS

ELEVATION (feet)


-

cl

528.9

534.1

537.1

539.9

DEPTH: TIME:R

EC

OV

ER

Y(%

)

WATER:

sm

DATE: 11/14/2018

DATE:


CHECKED BY: MJC

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

AA

SH

TO

BORING NO. B-104

OF

DATE:

1.2'



-

25

27

29

24

1.7'

SHEET

;

1.3'

1.0'

1

X



RQ

D (

%)

CASING: SIZE: N/A

STRATUM III - Red Brown Sand andGravel with Sandstone Fragments andSome Silt (Weathered Sandstone)

STRATUM II - Red Brown Sandy Silt toSilty Sand with Trace Clay

FILL - Red Brown Sandy Clay with GravelTOPSOIL

6.0

M

D

M

M

M

12

11

36

40

BORINGLOG

S-3 - PP=0.75 tsf

1.5'

3.0

0.2

Auger Refusal


END 11/13/18

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

NOT ENCOUNTERED

11.2

S-2 - PP=2.50 tsf


S-1 - PP=0.50 tsf




DEPTH (feet)

H2O

CO

NT

EN

T

2.0

10.0

8.0

4.0

0.0

6.0

50/5'' M

M

M

M

M

-

18

22

26

24

6

9

23

21

12

12

12

14

5

6

10

11

S-1 - PP=4.00 tsf

10.7

7.5

4.0

1.4

0.6

Auger Refusal

BORINGLOG

539.0PP=Pocket Penetrometer (tsf=tons persquare foot)

-

S-3 - PP=4.25 tsf

S-6

S-4

S-3

S-2

S-1

sm

sm

ml

ml

ml

528.9

532.1

535.6

538.2

-

-

-


DESCRIPTION

WATER:

1

;

START 11/12/18

REMARKS

RE

CO

VE

RY

(Ft.

)DEPTH:

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

S-2 - PP=4.50 tsf

CHECKED BY: MJC

SA

MP

LE N

O./

TY

PE

/CO

RE

RU

N

TIME:DEPTH:


DATE:

US

CS

ELEVATION (feet)DEPTH (feet)




NOT ENCOUNTERED

H2O

CO

NT

EN

T

DEPTH: TIME:

DE

PT

H (

FT

)



DATE: 11/14/2018

DATE:


BLO

WS

/0.5

FT

.O

N S

AM

PLE

R

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%)

END 11/12/18



FILL - Red Brown to Gray Sandy Silt withGravel and Trace Root Fibers

ASPHALT (7'')

0.4'

1.7'

1.4'

0.4'

1.2'

SUBBASE STONE - Gray 2A ModifiedAggregate



OF1

X

BORING NO. B-105

DATE:


RQ

D (

%)

CASING: SIZE: N/A

AA

SH

TO

SHEET

;


9.49.0

7.0

5.0

3.0

1.0

S-4

S-3

S-2

S-1

1.2'

0.8'

0.9'

1.0'

BORINGLOG

4

6

8

8

-

-

-

-M

M

M


16

17

23

50/2''

3

10

14

13

5

23

20

6

M

8.8

ml

sm

gm

sm

530.3

531.6

534.6

537.9

7.5

4.5

1.2

0.8

Auger Refusal

S-4 - PP=4.25 tsf


S-1 - Slag Observed within SampleBarrel

538.3

DATE:


DATE:

DATE: 11/14/2018


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

END 11/12/18

;

SHEET


RE

CO

VE

RY

(Ft.

)


CHECKED BY: MJC


WATER:

1

;

START 11/12/18

DEPTH: TIME:DEPTH:

ELEVATION (feet)

DESCRIPTION

BLO

WS

/0.5

FT

.O

N S

AM

PLE

R

SA

MP

LE N

O./

TY

PE

/CO

RE

RU

N

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

REMARKS

STRATUM III - Silty Sand with Gravel andSandstone Fragments (WeatheredSandstone)

CASING: SIZE: N/A

AA

SH

TO



FILL - Brown to Gray Sandy Silt withGravel and Slag


ASPHALT (9'')

OF

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%)

TIME:DEPTH:

H2O

CO

NT

EN

T


NOT ENCOUNTEREDDATE:

RQ

D (

%)




BORING NO. B-106


DEPTH (feet)


1

X

US

CS

3.0

8.8

5.0

1.0

7.0

3

6

6

8

-

50/1''

10

18

16

15

6

19

12

15

M

7

9

9

9

M

-

-

-

-

1.0

2

2

4

4

537.90.7

Auger Refusal


S-3 - PP=0.25 tsf

S-2 - PP=2.75 tsf

S-1 - PP=2.50 tsf


D

M

M

M

ML

-

STRATUM I - Brown Sandy Clay to Siltwith Sand

S-6

S-5

S-4

S-3

S-2

S-1

gm

sm

gm

ml

ml

523.1

527.1

531.1

532.6

537.6

;

START 11/12/18

REMARKS

RE

CO

VE

RY

(Ft.

)DEPTH:

ELEVATION (feet)

DESCRIPTION

SHEET

6.0

TIME:DEPTH:


DATE:

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

END 11/12/18

;

BLO

WS

/0.5

FT

.O

N S

AM

PLE

R


BORINGLOG

DEPTH (feet)




NOT ENCOUNTERED

H2O

CO

NT

EN

T

DEPTH: TIME:R

EC

OV

ER

Y(%

)

1

WATER:

DATE: 11/14/2018

DATE:


CHECKED BY: MJC


DE

PT

H (

FT

)

ASPHALT (8'')

0.1'

SUBBASE STONE - Gray 2A ModifiedAggregateFILL - Red Brown to Brown Sandy Siltwith Trace Clay

SA

MP

LE N

O./

TY

PE

/CO

RE

RU

N


AA

SH

TO

7.5

11.5

15.5

0.8'

0.9'

0.7'

1.5'

0.7'

1




RQ

D (

%)

CASING: SIZE: N/A


BORING NO. B-107

OF

X


DATE:

9.0

7.0

5.0

3.0

1.0

13.013.1

11.0

6

7

8

9

-

.

W

50/2''

M

6

8

9

10

3

3

5

6

7

10

14

13

3

11

7

8

-

0.6

Auger Refusal


S-5 - PP=3.25 tsf

*Perched Water @ 8.0' (4hr.)

S-4 - PP=3.50 tsf

S-3 - PP=3.00 tsf

S-2 - PP=1.75 tsf

S-1 - PP=3.75 tsf


STRATUM I - Brown Sandy Clay to Siltwith Sand

M

537.5

-

NA

M

M

-

S-6

S-5

S-4

S-3

S-2

S-1

ml

ml

cl

ml

522.9

525.6

530.6

532.6

533.3

537.0

-

-

START 11/12/18

REMARKS

RE

CO

VE

RY

(Ft.

)DEPTH:

ELEVATION (feet)

DESCRIPTION

BLO

WS

/0.5

FT

.O

N S

AM

PLE

R

1

WATER: TIME:

1.1


DATE:

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

END 11/12/18

;

SHEET

AA

SH

TO

SA

MP

LE N

O./

TY

PE

/CO

RE

RU

N

ML

BORINGLOG

DEPTH (feet)




NOT ENCOUNTERED

H2O

CO

NT

EN

T

DEPTH: *8.0 TIME: 4 hr.;

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

DEPTH:


DATE: 11/14/2018

DATE:


CHECKED BY: MJC


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%)

1.5'

RESIDUAL TOPSOIL


FILL - Red Brown Sandy Silt with Gravel

ASPHALT (7'')


0.0'

0.7'

1.0'

0.8'

1.8'


1


CASING: SIZE: N/A

RQ

D (

%)


4.8


BORING NO. B-108

OF

DATE: 11/12/2018


7.5

15.2

5.5

12.5

5.0

13.2

1.0

13.0

11.0

9.0

7.0

3.0

8

10

12

16

50/4''

8

7

8

11

-

5

8

6

23

M

6

16

10

12

-

-

-

S-5 - PP=2.50 tsf

8

8

8

12

S-4 - PP=2.25 tsf

S-3 - Some Topsoil Observed @ 6.5'

S-3 - PP=2.75 tsf

*Perched Water @ 5.0' (Encountered)

S-1 - PP=2.00 tsf

* Perched Water @1.5' (4hr.)


BORINGLOG

M

537.2

M

M

W

W

-

S-6

S-5

S-4

S-3

S-2

S-1

-

gm

cl

cl

ml

sm

ml

521.0

525.8

531.0

536.6

START 11/12/18

REMARKS

RE

CO

VE

RY

(Ft.

)DEPTH:

ELEVATION (feet)

DESCRIPTION

BLO

WS

/0.5

FT

.O

N S

AM

PLE

R

AA

SH

TO

WATER:


DEPTH: *5.0'


DATE:

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

END 11/12/18

;

SHEET

SA

MP

LE N

O./

TY

PE

/CO

RE

RU

N

DEPTH (feet)




NOT ENCOUNTERED

H2O

CO

NT

EN

T

DEPTH: *1.5 TIME: 4 hr.R

EC

OV

ER

Y(%

)

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

;


1

DATE: 11/14/2018

DATE: 11/12/2018


CHECKED BY: MJC


TIME: 0.25 hr.

1.2'



0.2'


Auger Refusal

0.6

1.2

6.8

12.0

1.3'

0.8'

0.5'

1.0'

FILL - Brown to Gray Sandy Silt withGravel, Concrete Fragments and SomeTopsoil

16.8


ASPHALT (7'')

CASING: SIZE: N/A

RQ

D (

%)

BORING NO. B-109


DATE: 11/12/2018


OF1


9.0

7.0

5.0

3.0

1.0

13.013.3

11.0

D

M

NA

M

M

M

M

.

BORINGLOG

50/1''

14

19

50

9

9

10

15

6

6

8

10

30

13

8

7

15

13

11

20

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3

13

15

17

gmS-7

S-6

S-5

S-4

S-3

S-2

S-1

sm

cl

sm

ml

ml

518.7

523.5

529.5

536.4

536.8


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

US

CS

DATE:


TIME:

SA

MP

LE N

O./

TY

PE

/CO

RE

RU

N

BLO

WS

/0.5

FT

.O

N S

AM

PLE

R

DESCRIPTION

ELEVATION (feet)

DEPTH:


X

1

END 11/12/18

RE

CO

VE

RY

(Ft.

)DATE:


AA

SH

TO

SHEET

;

BORING NO. B-110

H2O

CO

NT

EN

T


DE

PT

H (

FT

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%)

DEPTH:

DEPTH:NOT ENCOUNTERED




DEPTH (feet)

TIME:



REMARKS

START 11/12/18

;

1

DATE: 11/14/2018CHECKED BY: MJC

Geotechnical Engineers & Geologistswww.earthengineering.com

DATE:WATER:

0.0'

1.5'

0.1'

OF

0.7'

ASPHALT (8'')

SUBBASE STONE - Gray 2A ModifiedAggregateFILL - Red Brown to Gray Sandy Silt withGravel


14.0


S-1 - PP=3.00 tsf

S-2 - PP=3.25 tsf

S-3 - PP=2.25 tsf


Auger Refusal

0.7

1.5'8.0

0.5'

18.8

1.2'

1.1


CASING: SIZE: N/A

RQ

D (

%)

13.0

18.1

14.5

11.0

9.0

7.0

5.0

3.0

18.0

1.0

INCHES

3/4"-3.0"

and

3.0"-12.0"

Loose

3/16"-3/4"

Dense

Clean Gravels (Less than 5% fines)

Over 50

> 12"

some

Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures

Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, littleor no fines

Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little orno fines

(more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size)

(50% or more of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size)

GC

SW

CLAY

Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures

SILT

SC

OL

Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures

CL

ML

soils; fine grained soils usually soft or very soft; granular soils exhibit no apparent cohesion

Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures

SP

31 - 50

Moist

GeneralClassification

DESCRIPTIONSYMBOL

Slight moisture perceptible by touch; fine grained soils are usually firm;

No visible free water; sample may be cool to the touch; at or above optimum moisture;

Dr

>30

Damp

(tons/sq.ft.)

W

Dry

Very dense

Medium dense

Very loose

APPARENTDENSITY

SPT# Blows/ft

Da

No. 10

trace

Passing #200 Seive

Passing #200 Seive

#200 Seive-#40 Seive

#40 Seive-#10 Seive

KEY TO LOG OFBORINGS

AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION

CONSISTENCY - FINE-GRAINED SOIL

PERCENT OR

little

silty soilsgravel and

sandSignificant Constituent

Materials

Sieve AnalysisPercent Passing

No. 40

Unconfined Compressive Strength

11 - 30

SANDS

Liquid limit50% or greater

COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous finesandy or silty soils, elastic silts

Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravellyclays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays

SILTSANDCLAYS

Liquid limit lessthan 50%

SILTSANDCLAYS

50% or more ofcoarse fractionsmaller thanNo. 4 sieve

size

More than 50%of coarse

fraction largerthan No. 4sieve size

ASTM D 422-63 AND ASTM D2487-92

Peat and other highly organic soils

FINE-GRAINED SOILS

Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or nofines

COMPONENT NAME FOR VARIOUS

GRAVELS

Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty orclayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART

Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays

Gravels with fines (More than 12% fines)

Clean Sands (Less than 5% fines)

Sands with fines (More than 12% fines)

Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity

35 max

Coarse SAND

Medium SAND

Fine SAND

OH

PT


EARTH

ENGINEERING

INCORPORATED

20 - 35%


GW

GM

SMSOIL MOISTURE

M

PROPORTION OF SOIL

51 max

PARTICAL SIZE RANGES

MH

3/32"-3/16"

Fine GRAVEL

Coarse GRAVEL

COBBLE

BOULDER

0 - 10%

COMPONENT NAME

GP

Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organicsilts

35 max

Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or nofines

0 - 4

CH

CONSISTENCY

COARSE-GRAINED SOILRELATIVE DENSITY

RELATIVEAMOUNT

DESCRIPTION

10 - 20%

Visible free water; usually soil is below water table; contains significantly more mosture than moist

HIGHLY ORGANICSOILS

granular soils have very little apparent cohesion

> 4.0

2 - 4

A-1-b

SPT# Blows/ft

A-2-4

Absence of moisture; dusty; completely dry to the touch

< 0.25

0.25 - 0.50

1.0 - 2.0

<2

40 max

Silt-Clay Materials(More than 35% of total sample

passing No. 200 sieve size)

6 max

finesand

Granular Materials(35% or less of total sample passing No. 200 sieve size)

NP

A-1-a

35 max

silty and clayeygravel and sand

10 max

36 min 36 min 36 min

A-2-5

35 maxNo. 200

5 - 10

Extruded between fingers when squeezed

Very stiff

Stiff

Medium stiff

Soft

Very soft

0.50 - 1.0

Molded by light finger pressure

Field Test

Molded by strong finger pressure

Readily indented by thumb but penetrated only with great effort

Readily indented by thumbnail

Indented with difficulty by thumbnail

41 min

granular soils might exhibit slight apparent cohesion

Hard

Plastic Index, Ip

Liquid Limit, wi

Characteristics ofFraction Passing

Wet

10 max

No. 40

41 min40 max

10 max

50 max

30 max

41 min

35 - 50%

2.0 - 4.0

GroupClassification

16 - 30

MOISTURE

10 max 36 min15 max

A-7-5A-7-6

A-2

11 min

9 - 15

11 min 11 min10 max

A-5 A-7

A-2-6 A-2-7

11 min

41 min40 max

A-4 A-6

5 - 8

40 max

A-3A-1

50 max

25 max

clayey soils

foundation report for proposed addition at the …

Documents