india hook elementary school addition

ADDENDUM NO.3

INDIA HOOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

ADDITION for the

ROCK HILL SCHOOLS, YORK DISTRICT THREE ROCK HILL, SOUTH CAROLINA

ROCK HILL SCHOOLS BID NUMBER: 21-2202

ARCHITECTURAL COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL

CAMPCO ENGINEERING CIVIL ROCK HILL, SOUTH CAROLINA

Aug 16, 2021 VOLUME 1 OF 1

APN# 581193

INDIA HOOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ADDITION ROCK HILL SCHOOLS; ROCK HILL, SC

Bid Number: 21-2202 Architect’s Project No: 581193

GENERAL: 1

Planholders are requested to attach this Addendum to the inside front cover of each Project Manual. 2 Inform all concerned that the Bidding Documents are modified by this Addendum. 3 The following modifications and clarifications are hereby made a part of the Bidding Documents and 4 supersede or otherwise modify the provisions of the published Project Manual and Drawings, dated 5 July 2, 2021. 6 Refer to the Drawings and Specification Sections, if any, attached to this Addendum, which are 7 hereby made a part of this Addendum. 8 9 10

MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT MANUAL 11 12 SECTION 004100 – Bid Form: 13

DELETE 004100 and ADD 004100 attached to the end of this addendum 14 15 CLARIFICATIONS & INFORMATION: 16 17 General Clarification – 18 Clarifications and General Information 19 20 21 END OF ADDENDUM NO. 3 22

BID FORM (AD03)

BID FORM BF-1

INDIA HOOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ADDITION ROCK HILL SCHOOLS; ROCK HILL, SC

Bid Number: 21-2202 Architect’s Project No: 581193

DATE: ___________ TO: Rock Hill Schools Central Office 386 East Black Street, Rock Hill, SC 29730 FROM: Bidder’s Name Bidder’s Address Bidder’s Address FOR: India Hook Elementary School Addition Having carefully examined the site, and all of the Bidding and Contract Documents, and in compliance with the “Invitation to Bid,” “Instructions to Bidders,” and “Supplementary Instructions to Bidders,” the undersigned proposes to provide all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, services, and perform all Work necessary for the construction of this Project in accordance with the Bid Documents, dated July 2nd, 2021 prepared by Moseley Architects.

Complete this Bid Form in blue or black ink or by typewriter. Discrepancies in the multiplications of units of work and the unit prices will be resolved in favor of the correct multiplication of the unit prices. Discrepancies between the indicated sum of any column of figures and the correct sum thereof will be resolved in favor of the correct sum. BASE BID PRICE:

The Base Bid No. 1 Price includes all Work required by and in strict accordance with the Bid Documents for this Project to be performed, for the Lump Sum of:

$ (Figures only).

RECEIPT OF ADDENDA

We acknowledge the receipt of the following Addenda:

Addendum No. , dated




BID FORM (AD03)

BID FORM BF-2

SUB-CONTRACTORS LIST Bidders Submitting a Single prime Contract are required to list the names of sub-contractors used in determining their bid. List the names of sub-contractors below and include license number for each. (If using separate sub-contractors for the combined bid list both subs and identify the project they are to construct.) • Electrical: _____________________________________License #: __________________________ • Mechanical:_____________________________________License #: __________________________ • Plumbing: _____________________________________License #: __________________________

TIME OF COMPLETION – BASE BID

Work shall be substantially complete and ready for occupancy by July 8th, 2022. (AD03) Work shall be finally complete by August 5th, 2022. (AD03) LIQUIDATED DAMAGES Liquidated Damages in the amount of Five Hundred Dollars ($500) per calendar day for failure to Substantially Complete the Work on time will be charged by the Owner to the Contractor for not completing his work by the date established for Substantial Completion. This amount is agreed upon as the proper measure of liquidated damage that the Owner will sustain per day by the failure of the undersigned to complete the Work by the stipulated dates and is not to be construed in any sense as a penalty.

Liquidated Damages in the amount of Five Hundred Dollars ($500) per calendar day for failure to Finally Complete the Work on time will be charged by the Owner to the Contractor for not completing his work by the date established for Final Completion. This amount is agreed upon as the proper measure of liquidated damage that the Owner will sustain per day by the failure of the undersigned to complete the Work by the stipulated dates and is not to be construed in any sense as a penalty.

BID SECURITY

Attached hereto is a Bid Bond for Five Percent (5%) of the Base Bid, made payable Rock Hill Schools.

AGREEMENT TO EXECUTE CONTRACT

Within sixty (60) days after the opening of Bids or any time thereafter before withdrawing this Bid, the Undersigned will, within ten (10) days after receipt of written Notice of Acceptance of this Bid, execute and deliver to the Owner the Contract Agreement Forms, together with Performance and Payment Bonds as required by the Contract Documents and Bids as accepted. The Undersigned designates as his office to which Notice of Acceptance shall be mailed or otherwise delivered:

(Name) (Address) Bidder is: Individual ( ) (check appropriate box) Partnership ( ) Corporation ( ) Residence of Bidder: (if individual)

BID FORM (AD03)

BID FORM BF-3

Name of Partners: (if partnership)

State of Incorporation: (if corporation)

Corporate Seal

SIGNATURE: _______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________ (Typed Name of Bidder)

By: ________________________________________________________ Title: ________________________________________________________

Submitted this _____day of ________________2021 (This form may be reproduced in exact detail.).

END OF BID FORM

Information:

- The Geotechnical report will be provided separately from this addendum. - The existing FSSSS report will be provided separately from this addendum.

General Clarifications & Information:

- What is the name brand of the Fire Alarm System? o FCI by Honeywell

- Question about information for HB1 panel:

o The existing panel is manufactured by Seimens

- Where would the over excavation detail apply? Ref S3.0.1 o On drawing S0.0.1, "Flowable Fill" note 1 allows the contractor to submit flowable fill (for

approval) as a substitute for compacted fill at foundation undercut locations. The "overexcavation detail" on drawing S3.0.1 would apply when the contractor requests to use flowable fill as an approved substitute to compacted fill.

- Can the geotechnical report for the site be made available to us? o The Geotechnical report will be provided separately from this addendum.

- Existing soffit appears to be vinyl and plans call for metal soffit. What material would be preferred?

o The original drawings call for "ALUM SOFFIT PANEL," match existing type.

- Where will materials be staged for construction? Where will subcontractors and supervisors be able to park? Where can we locate a job trailer on site?

o There is space available on site for parking, material storage, and a job trailer; the designated area is the grassed area between the north loop and service entrance. The exact location and directions will come from the owner to the awarded bidder.

- How will joist/deck lead times be addressed if material can not be made available before needed on site to reach desired construction end date?

o See revised bid form apart of this addendum addressing substantial and final completion dates.

- What landscaping will be required for the project? o There are no landscaping requirements for the project

- Will spray applied fire proofing be required for the steel structure above the lowered ceiling?

o No spray applied fire proofing will be required for the structure above the ACT ceiling.

- Section 033000 Cast-in-Place Concrete, Paragraph 1.6 A. required ACI-certified Flatwork Technician and Finisher and an ACI-certified Concrete Flatwork Technician as supervisor. The is such a small project. Can this requirement be waived?

o ACI-certified Concrete Flatwork Technician requirement can be waived.

- Is there an FSSSS for the project that can be made available to bidders? o A new flow test has been requested. The existing FSSSS report will be provided separately from

this addendum.

REPORT OF

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

INDIA HOOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ADDITION

FORT MILL, SOUTH CAROLINA

ESP Project No. E4-EO66.311

Prepared For:

Rock Hill School District 3 of York County

c/o JM Cope Construction Company

1069 Bayshore Drive

Rock Hill, South Carolina 29732

Prepared By:

ESP Associates, Inc.

3475 Lakemont Boulevard

Fort Mill, South Carolina 29708

May 21, 2019

ESP Associates, Inc.

3475 Lakemont Boulevard • Fort Mill, SC 29708

1.800.960.7317 • 803.802.2440, fax 803.802.2515

www.espassociates.com

May 21, 2019

Rock Hill School District 3 of York County

c/o Mr. Grant Alumbaugh

JM Cope Construction Company

1069 Bayshore Drive

Rock Hill, SC 29732

Reference: REPORT OF PRELIMINARY SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

India Hook Elementary School Addition

Rock Hill, South Carolina

ESP Project No. E4-EO66.311

Dear Mr. Alumbaugh:

ESP Associates, Inc. (ESP) has completed the subsurface exploration for the proposed addition

to the existing India Hook Elementary School in Rock Hill, South Carolina. This exploration

was performed in general accordance with our Proposal No. E4-19198, dated March 13, 2019.

Authorization to proceed with this study was provided by written execution of our proposal by

Mr. Grant Alumbaugh on March 18, 2019.

The purpose of the exploration was to evaluate the general subsurface conditions within the

proposed addition areas with regard to the design and construction of the foundation system.

This report presents our findings, conclusions and recommendations for foundation design, as

well as construction considerations for the proposed addition foundations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................... 1

1.2 PURPOSE OF SERVICES ........................................................................................... 1

2.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES ..................................................................................... 1

2.1 FIELD ............................................................................................................................ 1

2.2 LABORATORY ............................................................................................................ 2

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 3

3.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND AREA GEOLOGY ............................................................. 3

3.2 SUBSURFACE ............................................................................................................. 3

3.3 SUBSURFACE WATER .............................................................................................. 4

3.4 EXISTING FOUNDATION EMBEDMENT .............................................................. 4

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 5

4.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................... 5

4.2 FOUNDATION SUPPORT .......................................................................................... 5

4.3 FLOOR SLABS ............................................................................................................. 6

4.4 DRAINAGE .................................................................................................................. 7

5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................... 8

5.1 SITE PREPARATION .................................................................................................. 8

5.2 FILL MATERIAL AND PLACEMENT ...................................................................... 9

6.0 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT .......................................................................................... 10

APPENDIX

FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

LABORATORY PROCEDURES

BORING LOCATION PLAN WITH SITE VICINITY MAP

LEGEND TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS

TEST BORING RECORDS (B-1 THROUGH B-6)

ATTERBERG LIMITS’ RESULTS (B-3)

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION (B-3)

Report of Subsurface Exploration ESP Project No. E4-EO66.311

India Hook Elementary School Addition May 21, 2019

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Based on the referenced documents and correspondence with Mr. Alumbaugh, we understand the

addition will be a single-story building constructed of concrete masonry unit walls supported on

shallow foundations and a concrete slab-on-grade. No other design information, such as anticipated

structural loads, are available at this time. If this information becomes available, ESP requested the

opportunity to revise this report accordingly, if needed

1.2 PURPOSE OF SERVICES

The purpose of the exploration was to evaluate the general subsurface conditions within the

proposed building and pavement areas with regard to the design and construction of the

foundation and pavement systems. This report presents our findings, conclusions and

recommendations for foundation design, as well as construction considerations for the proposed

foundations and paved areas. This report also contains a brief description of the field and

laboratory testing procedures performed for this study and a discussion of the soil conditions

encountered at the site.

2.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

2.1 FIELD

Six (6) soil test borings (Borings B-1 through B-6) were performed at the approximate locations

shown on the attached “Boring Location Plan.” The borings were located in the field by a

project professional from our office using a handheld GPS devise. The soil test borings were

extended to a depths of 25 feet below the existing ground surface using a Mobile CME-45 drill

rig mounted on an ATV carrier. Hollow-stem, continuous flight augers were used to advance the

borings into the ground.



2

Standard Penetration Tests were performed at designated intervals in the soil test borings in

general accordance with ASTM D 1586 in order to obtain data for estimating soil strength and

consistency. In conjunction with the penetration testing, split-spoon soil samples were recovered

for soil classification and potential laboratory testing. Water level measurements were attempted

at the termination of drilling. A brief description of the field testing procedures is included in the

Appendix.

While in the field, a representative of the geotechnical engineer visually examined each sample

to evaluate the type of soil encountered, soil plasticity, moisture condition, organic content,

presence of lenses and seams, colors and apparent geological origin. The results of the visual

soil classifications for the borings, as well as field test results, are presented on the individual

“Test Boring Records,” included in the Appendix. Similar soils were grouped into strata on the

logs. The strata lines represent approximate boundaries between the soil types; however, the

actual transition between soil types in the field may be gradual in both the horizontal and vertical

directions.

One test pit was performed at the approximate location shown on the attached “Boring Location

and Site Vicinity Plan.” The test pit was extended to a depth of approximately 3 feet below the

existing ground surface using a CAT211 LC track mounted backhoe. The excavator was

operated by a representative of Russell Alan Trucking Company. The test pit was backfilled

upon completion of our evaluation on the date excavated.

2.2 LABORATORY

Select samples of the on-site soils obtained during the field testing program were tested in the

laboratory. Tests performed included Atterberg limits and grain size distribution tests. The limited

testing program was designed to determine selected engineering properties of the on-site soils

relative to their use for the project. The results of the soil tests performed for this study, along with

a brief description of the laboratory procedures used, are presented in the Appendix.



3

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND AREA GEOLOGY

The referenced property is located in Rock Hill, South Carolina which is in the Piedmont

Physiographic Province. The Piedmont Province generally consists of hills and ridges which are

intertwined with an established system of draws and streams. The Piedmont Province is

predominately underlain by igneous rock (formed from molten material) and metamorphic rock

(formed by heat, pressure and/or chemical action), which were initially formed during the

Precambrian and Paleozoic eras.

The virgin soils encountered in this area are the residual product of in-place chemical weathering

of rock which was similar to the rock presently underlying the site. In areas not altered by

erosion or disturbed by the activities of man, the typical residual soil profile consists of clayey

soils near the surface, where soil weathering is more advanced, underlain by sandy silts and silty

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

“partially weathered rock” is normally found overlying the parent bedrock. Partially weathered

rock is defined, for engineering purposes, as residual material with Standard Penetration

Resistances in excess of 100 blows per foot. Weathering is facilitated by fractures, joints and by

the presence of less resistant rock types. Consequently, the profile of the partially weathered

rock and hard rock is quite irregular and erratic, even over short horizontal distances. Also, it is

common to find lenses and boulders of hard rock and zones of partially weathered rock within

the soil mantle, well above the general bedrock level.

3.2 SUBSURFACE

Subsurface conditions as indicated by the borings generally consist of topsoil, and fill underlain

by residual soils. The residual soils have formed from the weathering of the parent bedrock.

The residual soils generally transition with depth into partially weathered rock. The generalized

subsurface conditions at the site are described below and are graphically depicted on the

Subsurface Profiles which are included in the Appendix. For more detailed soil descriptions and



4

stratifications at a particular boring location, the respective “Test Boring Record” should be

reviewed. The Test Boring Records are included in the Appendix.

Surface: A topsoil/grass layer approximately 3 inches thick was encountered within all of the

borings.

Fill: Underlying the topsoil in all of the soil test borings, fill soils were encountered. The fill

consists of firm to very stiff sandy clays and silts. Standard Penetration Resistances (N-values)

in the fill ranged from 5 to 13 blows per foot (bpf). The fill extends to depths ranging between 6

and 13.5 feet below existing ground surface.

Residuum: Beneath the fill in the soil test borings residual soils were encountered. The

residuum generally consists of firm to hard sandy clay and loose to dense silty fine sand. N-

values in the residuum varied between 7 and 38 bpf.

3.3 SUBSURFACE WATER

All borings were dry when water level measurements were attempted at the termination of

drilling. Subsequent water levels were not measured due to the boreholes backfilled upon

termination for safety concerns. Hole cave-in depths averaged approximately 18 feet below the

existing ground. Hole cave-in depths may provide an indication of water present.

Subsurface water levels tend to fluctuate with seasonal and climatic variations, as well as with

some types of construction operations. Therefore, water may be encountered during construction

at depths not indicated during this study

3.4 EXISTING FOUNDATION EMBEDMENT

Based on the test pit observations performed at Test Pit TP-1, the bottom of the existing building

foundation was observed to be approximately 2’10” below the existing ground surface. Test Pit



5

TP-1 was extended approximately 4 feet below the existing ground surface. Underlying the

topsoil, fill soil was encountered. The fill consisted of sandy clay.

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 GENERAL

Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the project information previously discussed

and on the data obtained from the field and laboratory testing program. If the structural loading,

geometry or proposed building locations are changed or significantly differ from those discussed,

or if conditions are encountered during construction that differ from those encountered by the

borings, ESP requests the opportunity to review our recommendations based on the new

information and make any necessary changes.

4.2 FOUNDATION SUPPORT

For satisfactory performance, the foundation for any structure must satisfy two independent

design criteria. First, it must have an acceptable factor of safety against bearing failure of the

foundation soils under the maximum design loads. Second, the settlement of the foundations due

to consolidation of the underlying soils should be within tolerable limits for the structures.

As previously indicated, existing fill soils were encountered in all of the soil test borings

performed within the proposed building areas and extended to depths ranging from 6 to 13.5 feet.

Compaction testing or fill placement documentation was not provided to us for use in this

exploration. Concentrated organics, debris and other deleterious materials were not observed in

the soil test borings performed by ESP Associates. However, due to the limited testing

performed and the wide spacing of the borings, the possibility of deleterious inclusions and

variable density material in or under the existing fill cannot be completely ruled out. If the fill

contains wood fragments, trash, organics, voids or soft lenses, excessive settlement could result

causing building and slab-on-grade distress.



6

The results of the soil test borings indicate that the proposed structures can be adequately

supported on shallow foundations bearing on the low-plasticity residual soils, existing fill

encountered or newly placed structural fill, provided the site preparation and fill placement

procedures outlined in this report are implemented. A net allowable bearing pressure of up to

2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) can be used for design of the foundations bearing on residual

soils exhibiting N-values of 5 bpf or greater, or on suitable structural fill compacted to at least 95

percent of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density.

Total and differential settlement potentials for the building have not been determined as column

and wall loads have not been made available at this time. Minimum wall and column footing

dimensions of 18 and 24 inches, respectively, should be maintained to reduce the possibility of a

localized, punching-type shear failure. Exterior foundations and foundations in unheated areas

should be designed to bear at least 18 inches below finished grade for frost protection.

We recommend that the subgrade soils be observed by a representative of the geotechnical

engineer prior to foundation installation. This is to assess their suitability for foundation support

and confirm their consistency with the conditions upon which our recommendations are based.

The subgrade materials can be sensitive to moisture variations; therefore, foundation excavations

should be opened for a minimum amount of time, particularly during inclement weather. Soils

exposed to moisture variations may become highly disturbed and require undercutting prior to

placing foundations.

4.3 FLOOR SLABS

The slab-on-grade should be completely isolated from the structural components to allow

independent movements between the slab and the foundations of the structure. The slab-on-

grade floor system can be adequately supported on the existing fill or residual soils or newly

compacted fill, provided the site preparation and fill placement procedures outlined in this report

are implemented. Based on our experience on the subject site and on our boring information, we

recommend a modulus of subgrade reaction (ks) of 100 pounds per square inch per inch (pci) for



7

point load conditions. This assumes the slab subgrade soils are determined to be suitable or any

disturbed slab subgrade soils are reworked or stabilized prior to slab construction. If a stone base

material is used, an adjusted (composite) modulus of subgrade reaction may be appropriate for

slab design.

The need for a base material between the soil subgrade and the slab-on-grade is dependent on

subgrade soil strength characteristics, variability of subgrade soil constituents and the free

draining characteristics of the subgrade soils. The inclusion of a water vapor retarder beneath the

floor slab is a design element based on the subgrade constituents and design use of the structure

and floor covering systems. For design guidance, refer to ACI 360R Design of Slabs on Grade,

ACI 302.1R-15 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction and ASTM E1643 Standard

Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill

Under Concrete Slabs.

Immediately prior to constructing the floor slabs, we recommend that the areas be proofrolled or

otherwise evaluated to detect unstable, low consistency/relative density areas or areas that may

have been exposed to wet weather or construction traffic. Areas that are found to be unstable or

indicate low consistency/relative density during the evaluation should be undercut and replaced

with adequately compacted structural fill. The evaluation should be performed by a

representative of the geotechnical engineer.

4.4 DRAINAGE

Soil strength and settlement potential is highly dependent upon the moisture condition of the

supportive soil. Soil characteristics can change dramatically when moisture conditions change. As

such, building pads, roadways, structures and surrounding grades should be properly designed and

constructed to properly control water (surface and subsurface). Building pads should be designed to

shed surface water prior to building construction. Grades surrounding structures should be

adequately sloped away from the structure to promote positive drainage and prevent water from

ponding near or against the structure. Swales and/or storm drainage structures should be

constructed to collect and remove all surface water run-off. All roof drain downspouts should be



8

connected to drain leaders that are properly daylighted or connected to storm drainage structures

such that water is removed from structural areas. Interior and/or exterior foundation drains, if

utilized, should be installed in accordance with current International Building Code (IBC) and/or

local municipal standards to properly protect foundations from changing moisture conditions.

Foundation drains constructed should be properly daylighted or connected to storm drain structures

to remove all water from foundation areas. Roof drain lines and foundation drain lines should

always remain independent of each other. Any subsurface water that may rise near structural grades

should be controlled by adequately constructed subsurface drainage mechanisms.

5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 SITE PREPARATION

The entire buildings and pavement areas should be stripped of all topsoil, high plasticity near

surface soils, trash, debris and other organic materials to a minimum of 10 feet beyond the

structural and pavement limits. Upon completion of the stripping operations, the exposed

subgrade in areas to receive fill should be proofrolled with a loaded dump truck or similar

pneumatic tired vehicle (minimum loaded weight of 20 tons) under the observation of a

representative of the geotechnical engineer. The proofrolling procedures should consist of

complete passes of the exposed areas, with half of the passes being in a direction perpendicular

to the preceding ones. After excavation of the site has been completed, the exposed subgrade in

cut areas should also be proofrolled as previously described. Any areas which deflect, rut or

pump excessively during proofrolling or fail to improve sufficiently after successive passes

should be undercut to suitable soils and replaced with structural fill.

Existing fill soils were encountered in all of the soil test borings performed at the site. The depth

of the fill varied between 6 and 13.5 feet below existing grades. The existing fill and possible fill

observed did not contain concentrated organics or deleterious materials. However, unsuitable fill

soils may be encountered between the borings during site grading or excavation for foundations,

that were not encountered in the borings. Some undercutting of the soft near surface soils as well

as the areas where high plasticity materials are present within the upper 3 feet of subgrade should



9

be anticipated. The extent of the undercut required should be evaluated in the field by an

experienced representative of the geotechnical engineer while monitoring construction activity.

The evaluation should consist of a comprehensive proofrolling program and thorough field

evaluation during construction. After the proofrolling operation has been completed and

approved, final site grading should proceed immediately. If construction progresses during wet

weather, the proofrolling operation should be repeated with at least one pass in each direction

immediately prior to placing base course in the parking areas. If unstable conditions are exposed

during this operation, then undercutting should be performed.

5.2 FILL MATERIAL AND PLACEMENT

All fill used for site grading operations should consist of a clean (free of organics and debris),

low plasticity soil (Plasticity Index less than 30). The proposed fill should have a maximum dry

density of at least 90 pounds per cubic foot as determined by a Standard Proctor compaction test,

ASTM D 698. All fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness and

compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its Standard Proctor maximum dry density, with at

least 100 percent achieved in the upper 12 inches. We recommend that field density tests,

including one-point Proctor verification tests, be performed on the fill as it is being placed at a

frequency determined by an experienced geotechnical engineer to verify the compaction criteria.

Any fills that may be constructed greater than 15 feet in height should be evaluated with regard

to long term settlement, consolidation and slope stability. These analysis should be requested of

the geotechnical engineer once grading plans are complete and available.

Based on the results of the soil test borings performed in the cut areas and our past experience

with similar type materials, all existing residual soils, except for the high plasticity clay soil, can

be used as structural fill. All high plasticity soils should be undercut from within a minimum of

3 feet of subgrade in any structural or pavement areas. The silty clayey soils can be used in deep

fill areas (more than 5 feet of fill) or in landscaped areas.



10

6.0 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT

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

practice with regard to the specific conditions and requirements of this site. The conclusions and

recommendations contained in this report were based on the applicable standards of our practice

in this geographic area at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or

implied, is made.

The analysis and recommendations submitted herein are based, in part, upon the data obtained

from the subsurface exploration. The nature and extent of variations between the borings will

not be known until construction is underway. If variations appear evident, then we request the

opportunity to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. In the event that any changes in

the nature, design, or location of the structures are planned, the conclusions and

recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes are

reviewed and conclusions modified or verified in writing by ESP.

In order to verify that earthwork and foundation recommendations are properly interpreted and

implemented, we recommend that ESP be provided the opportunity to review the final plans and

specifications. Any concerns observed will be brought to our client’s attention in writing.

FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

Soil Test Boring: Six (6) soil test borings were drilled at the approximate locations shown on

the attached Boring Location Plan. Soil sampling and penetration testing were performed in

accordance with ASTM D 1586.

The borings were advanced with hollow-stem augers and, at standard intervals, soil samples

were obtained with a standard 1.4-inch I.D., 2-inch O.D., split-tube sampler. The sampler was

first seated six (6) inches to penetrate any loose cuttings, then driven an additional foot with

blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows is designated the

“Standard Penetration Resistance.” When properly evaluated, the Standard Penetration

Resistances provide an index to soil strength, relative density, and ability to support foundations.

Select portions of each soil sample were placed in sealed containers and taken to our office. The

samples were examined by a representative of the geotechnical engineer for classification. Test

Boring Records are attached showing the soil descriptions and Standard Penetration Resistances.

Test Pits: One test pit was excavated at the approximately locations indicated on the Boring

Location Plan. The test pits were excavated by a tractor mounted backhoe. A representative of

the geotechnical engineer was present to observe excavation of the test pits. The soil excavated

from the test pit was classified by the a representative of the geotechnical engineer. A

“Summary of Test Pit” sheet giving the general soil stratigraphy is included in the Appendix.

LABORATORY PROCEDURES

Grain Size Test: Grain size tests were performed to determine the particle size and distribution

of the samples tested. The grain size distribution of soils coarser than a No. 200 sieve was

determined by passing the samples through a set of nested sieves. The results are presented on

the attached Grain Size Distribution Sheets.

Soil Plasticity Tests (Atterberg Limits Test): Select samples were identified for Atterberg

Limits testing to determine the soil’s plasticity characteristics. The Plasticity Index (PI) is

representative of this characteristic and is determined utilizing the Liquid Limit (LL) and the

Plastic Limit (PL). The Liquid Limit is the moisture content at which the soil will flow as a

heavy viscous fluid and is determined in accordance with ASTM D 4318. The Plastic Limit is

the moisture content at which the soil transitions between the plastic and semi-solid states and is

determined in accordance with ASTM D 4318. The data obtained is presented on the attached

Atterberg Limits’ Results sheet.

www.espassociates.com

N.T.S.

Projectl NO.:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:DATE: May 2, 2019

SHEET TITLE:

Boring Location PlanIndia Hook Elementary School Addition

ROCK HILL, SOUTH CAROLINAESP Associates, Inc.

P.O. Box 7030Charlotte NC, 28241

Phone: 803-802-2440

E4- EO66.311

AM

DM

This drawing is intended to show approximate boring locations only. No other information is expressed or implied.

&< Boring Location

B-1B-2

B-3 B-4

B-5B-6TP-1

&<

"S

&<

&<&<

&<&<

Site Vicinity Map

SITE

The reproduction,alteration, copying, or other use of this drawingwithout written consent is prohibited and any infringement will besubject to legal action. ¯

LEGEND TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS

Asphalt / Concrete Organic Sandy Silt

Clayey SiltTopsoil Sandy

Sandy ClayGravel Silty

Silty ClaySand Clayey

Partially Weathered RockSilt Silty Sand

Cored RockClay Clayey Sand

SOIL TYPES(Shown in Graphic Log)

SAMPLER TYPES(Shown in Samples Column)

CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS

Shelby Tube

Split Spoon

No Recovery

Rock Core

CONSISTENCY BLOWS / FOOTVery Soft

STD. PENETRATIONRESISTANCE

0 to 2Soft 3 to 4

StiffFirm

9 to 155 to 8

HardVery Stiff

31 to 5016 to 30

Very Hard Over 50

CONSISTENCY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS

Very DenseDense

Medium DenseLoose

CONSISTENCYVery Loose

31 to 50Over 50

11 to 305 to 100 to 4

STD. PENETRATION

BLOWS / FOOTRESISTANCE

Dynamic Cone -PenetrometerTest Data

The Number of Blows of a 15 lb.Hammer Falling 20 in. Requiredto Drive a Cone Point 1 3/4 in.When Properly Evaluated, it canbe compared to the StandardPenetration Resistance.

Standard -PenetrationResistance

The Number of Blows of a 140 lb. Hammer Falling 30 in.Required to Drive a 1.4 in I.D. Split Spoon Sampler 1 Foot(N-Value) As Specified in ASTM D-1586.

REC - Total Length of Rock Recovered in the Core Barrel Dividedby the Total Length of the Core Run Times 100 (expressedas a percentage).

RQD - Total Length of Sound Rock Segments Recovered that areLonger Than or Equal to 4" (mechanical breaks included)Divided by the Total Length of the Core Run Times 100(expressed as a percentage).

TERMS

= Water Level at Termination of Boring

= Water Level at 1 Day

= Loss of Drilling Water

= Hole Cave

WATER LEVELS(Shown in Water Level Column)

HC

Clayey Gravel

Silty Gravel

DEP

TH(ft

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

GR

APH

ICLO

G SOIL DESCRIPTION

TopsoilFILL: Firm Reddish Brown Sandy SILT, (moist)

FILL: Stiff Tannish Orange Sandy CLAY, (moist)

RESIDUUM: Firm Tan Sandy SILT, (moist)

RESIDUUM: Very Stiff Tan and Gray Sandy CLAY, (moist)

RESIDUUM: Medium Dense To Dense Tan Silty Fine SAND

Boring was terminated at 25.0 feet. Cave-in depth at 18.0 feet. Backfilled with soil.

WAT

ER

LEVE

L

HC

SAM

PLE

ELEV

. (ft

)

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0

-20.0

-25.0

-30.0

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA(Blows/ft)

10 30 50 70 90

BPF

5

9

10

8

21

29

38

PROJECT: India Hook Elementary School AdditionRock Hill, SC

TEST BORING RECORDB-1

PROJECT No.: ELEVATION: DRILLING METHOD: AUGER I.D.: DRILLING COMPANY:EO66.311 Existing Ground Surface Hollow Stem Auger 2.25 in Patriot Drilling

LOGGED BY: BORING DEPTH: DRILL RIG: NOTES:Ashley McGovern

DATE DRILLED:04/18/19

25.0 Feet

WATER LEVEL:Dry @ TOB

CME45

N/A

Boring backfilled at the completion of drilling due to safety concerns.

Page 1 of 1

DEPTH MEASUREMENTS ARE SHOWN TO ILLUSTRATE THE GENERAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE SOIL TYPES ENCOUNTERED AT THE BOREHOLE LOCATIONS. DO NOT USE DEPTH MEASUREMENTS FOR DETERMINATION OF DISTANCES OR QUANTITIES.

DEP

TH(ft

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

GR

APH

ICLO

G SOIL DESCRIPTION

TopsoilFILL: Firm Reddish Brown Fine Sandy CLAY

FILL: Medium Dense Tannish Orange Silty SAND

RESIDUUM: Firm Tan Fine Sandy CLAY

RESIDUUM: Loose Tan Silty SAND

RESIDUUM: Very Stiff Tan and Gray Fine Sandy CLAY


WAT

ER

LEVE

L

HC

SAM

PLE

ELEV

. (ft

)

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0

-20.0

-25.0

-30.0


10 30 50 70 90

BPF

7

13

8

7

22

27

27






25.0 Feet


CME45

N/A


Page 1 of 1


DEP

TH(ft

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

GR

APH

ICLO

G SOIL DESCRIPTION

TopsoilFILL: Stiff Reddish Brown Fine Sandy SILT

FILL: Firm Reddish Brown Sandy CLAY

FILL: Stiff Reddish Brown Fine Sandy SILT

RESIDUUM: Stiff To Hard Tan and Gray Fine Sandy CLAY

RESIDUUM: Medium Dense Tan Fine SAND


WAT

ER

LEVE

L

HC

SAM

PLE

ELEV

. (ft

)

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0

-20.0

-25.0

-30.0


10 30 50 70 90

BPF

10

6

13

10

15

34

24






25.0 Feet


CME45

N/A


Page 1 of 1


DEP

TH(ft

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

GR

APH

ICLO

G SOIL DESCRIPTION

TopsoilFILL: Firm To Stiff Reddish Brown Fine Sandy CLAY

FILL: Firm To Stiff Tannish Orange Fine Sandy SILT


RESIDUUM: Hard Tan Silty Fine SAND


WAT

ER

LEVE

L

HC

SAM

PLE

ELEV

. (ft

)

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0

-20.0

-25.0

-30.0


10 30 50 70 90

BPF

8

13

8

9

16

26

36






25.0 Feet


CME45

N/A


Page 1 of 1


DEP

TH(ft

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

GR

APH

ICLO

G SOIL DESCRIPTION

TopsoilFILL: Firm To Stiff Reddish Brown Fine Sandy SILT

FILL: Stiff Tannish Orange Fine Sandy SILT, with sand seams

FILL: Stiff Reddish Brown Fine Sandy SILT

RESIDUUM: Very Stiff Tan Fine Sandy CLAY

RESIDUUM: Very Stiff Tan Fine To Medium Sandy SILT


WAT

ER

LEVE

L

HC

SAM

PLE

ELEV

. (ft

)

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0

-20.0

-25.0

-30.0


10 30 50 70 90

BPF

6

11

10

7

16

27

18






25.0 Feet


CME45

N/A


Page 1 of 1


DEP

TH(ft

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

GR

APH

ICLO

G SOIL DESCRIPTION

TopsoilFILL: Firm Reddish Brown Clayey SILT

FILL: Firm To Stiff Tannish Orange Fine To Medium Sandy SILT


RESIDUUM: Stiff Tan Fine To Coarse Sandy SILT


WAT

ER

LEVE

L

HC

SAM

PLE

ELEV

. (ft

)

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0

-20.0

-25.0

-30.0


10 30 50 70 90

BPF

7

9

8

9

17

22

13






25.0 Feet


CME45

N/A


Page 1 of 1


LL PL PI

� 53 26 27

Lab Technician:

Telephone: 803-802-2440 Number: EO66.311

tsummers Project Manager: amcgovern

ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS

Address:3475 Lakemont Blvd

Fort Mill, SC 29708Project: India Hook Elementary

Specimen Identification Fines Classification

B-3 (3.5'-5') 61.4 Sandy fat clay CH

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100LIQUID LIMIT

CHCL

MLCL-ML

MH

P

L

A

S

T

I

C

I

T

Y

I

N

D

E

X

The test results shown are specific to the specimen/sample numbers tested, as noted above. 1 of 1

�

�

Grainsize Requirement Limits:

Lab Technician: Project Manager:

Telephone: 803-802-2440 Number: EO66.311

tsummers amcgovern

NA GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Address:3475 Lakemont Blvd

Fort Mill, SC 29708Project: India Hook Elementary

61.4

% Sand % Silt % Clay

B-3 (3.5'-5') 4.7 38.6

Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 % Gravel

Cc Cu

B-3 (3.5'-5') Sandy fat clay CH 53 26 27

Specimen Identification Classification LL PL PI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.11101001000

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

%

GRAIN SIZE IN MM

COBBLEGRAVEL

coarse fine

SAND

finemediumSILT OR CLAY

coarse

6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 60 1404 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER

The test results shown are specific to the specimen/sample numbers tested, as noted above. 1 of 1

800.960.7317www.espassociates.com

Raleigh2200 Gateway Centre Blvd.

Suite 216 Morrisville, NC 27560

919.678.1070

ESP Corporate Office3475 Lakemont Blvd.Fort Mill, SC 29708

803.802.2440

MailingPO Box 7030

Charlotte, NC 28241

Concord7144 Weddington Rd., NW

Suite 110Concord, NC 28027

704.793.9855

Lake Norman20484 Chartwell Center Dr.

Suite DCornelius, NC 28031

704.990.9428

Columbia2711 Alpine Rd.

Suite 200Columbia, SC 29223

803.705.2229

Greensboro7011 Albert Pick Rd.

Suite EGreensboro, NC 27409

336.334.7724

Charleston2154 North Center St.

Suite E-503North Charleston, SC 29406

843.714.2040

Indianapolis8673 Bash St.

Indianapolis, IN 46256317.537.6979

Wilmington211 Racine Dr.

Suite 101 Wilmington, NC 28403

910.313.6648

Bradenton518 13th Street West Bradenton, FL 34205

941.345.5451

Nashville500 Wilson Pike Cir.

Suite 310Brentwood, TN 37024

615.760.8300

PittsburghOne Williamsburg Pl.Suite G-5, Box 13

Warrendale, PA 15086878.332.2163