preliminary geotechnical xploration 65-acre tract

SAFETY QUALITY

INTEGRITY PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY

RESPONSIVENESS

St. Louis, MO | Erlanger, KY | Memphis, TN | Overland Park, KS | Cincinnati, OH | Fairview Heights, IL Lexington, KY | Dayton, OH | Oxford, MS | Jonesboro, AR

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION 65-ACRE TRACT

COVINGTON, TENNESSEE

Prepared for: A2H, INC.

LAKELAND, TENNESSEE

Prepared by: GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

Date: JANUARY 15, 2020

Geotechnology Project No.: J035609.01

3312 Winbrook Drive | Memphis, Tennessee 38116 (901) 353-1981 | Fax: (901) 353-2248 | geotechnology.com

January 15, 2020

Mr. David Smith, Ph. D., P.E. A2H, Inc. 3009 Davies Plantation Road Lakeland, Tennessee 38002

Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration 65-Acre TractCovington, TennesseeGeotechnology Project No. J035609.01

Dear Mr. Smith:

Presented in this report are the results of the preliminary geotechnical exploration performed by Geotechnology, Inc. for the 65-acre tract in Covington, Tennessee. The report includes our understanding of the project, observed site conditions, conclusions and/or recommendations, and support data as listed in the Table of Contents.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services for this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of any additional service to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Respectfully submitted,

GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC.

Duncan B. Adrian, P.E. Dale Smith, P.E. Project Manager Geotechnical Manager

ASM/DBA:asm/dba

Copies submitted: Client (email/2 mail)

Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration 65-Acre Tract | Covington, Tennessee January 15, 2020 | Geotechnology Project No. J035609.01

i FROM THE GROUND UP

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Site Description ..................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration .................................................................................... 1

4.0 Laboratory Review and Testing ............................................................................................. 2

5.0 Subsurface Conditions .......................................................................................................... 3 5.1 Stratigraphy ..................................................................................................................... 3 5.2 Groundwater ................................................................................................................... 3

6.0 Preliminary Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................... 4 6.1 Site Preparation and Earthwork ....................................................................................... 4 6.2 Seismic Site Classification and Seismic Design Parameters ........................................... 5 6.3 Preliminary Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement ........................................................... 6 6.4 Preliminary Shallow Foundations .................................................................................... 6

7.0 Recommended Additional Services ....................................................................................... 6

8.0 Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 7

Appendices Appendix A – Important Information About this Geotechnical-Engineering Report Appendix B – Figures Appendix C – Boring Information Appendix D – Laboratory Test Data

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Groundwater Depths. ................................................................................................... 4

Table 2. Site Class and Seismic Parameters. ............................................................................ 5

1

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION 65-ACRE TRACT

COVINGTON, TENNESSEE January 15, 2020 | Geotechnology Project No. J035609.01

1.0 INTRODUCTION Geotechnology, Inc. prepared this preliminary geotechnical exploration report for A2H, Inc. for the 65-acre tract located east of US-51 and its intersection with Ervin Lane in in Covington, Tennessee. Our services in this report were provided in general accordance with the scope of services described in our Proposal P035609.01, dated October 11, 2019. Our services were authorized by Mr. Logan Meeks’ signed acceptance of the contract terms and conditions on January 13, 2020.

The purposes of the preliminary geotechnical exploration were to develop a general subsurface profile at the site and prepare preliminary recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of the design and construction of the project as defined in our proposal. A design phase geotechnical exploration is required to finalize the geotechnical recommendations. Our scope of services included site reconnaissance, geotechnical borings, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and preparation of this report.

A copy of “Important Information About This Geotechnical-Engineering Report,” published by Geotechnical Business Council (GBC) of the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA), is included in Appendix A for your review. The publication discusses report limitations and ways to manage risk associated with subsurface conditions.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The project area is a 65-acre plot located east of the intersection of Ervin Lane and US-51/TN-3 Highway as shown on Figure 2 (Site Location and Topography) in Appendix B. The site is currently developed for agricultural purposes. Topographic information was not provided for the site. However, based on site reconnaissance performed by a representative of Geotechnology, the site is essentially level. The site is bordered to the south by residential and commercial development, to the north by agricultural and commercial development, to the east by a railway, and to the west by US-51 Highway. We understand this preliminary geotechnical exploration is needed for due-diligence for future development.

3.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION The preliminary geotechnical exploration consisted of ten borings, designated as Borings B-1 through B-10. The borings were located in the field by a representative of Geotechnology. The boring locations shown on Figure 2 (Aerial Photograph of Site and Boring Locations) in Appendix


2 FROM THE GROUND UP

B are approximate; if elevations or more specific locations are required, the client should retain a registered land surveyor to establish boring locations and elevations.

The borings were drilled December 19 through 23, 2019 with a track-mounted, rotary drill rig (Diedrich D-50) using hollow-stem augers mud-rotary drilling methods, as indicated on the boring logs presented in Appendix C. Soil sampling was accomplished ahead of the augers at the depths indicated on the boring logs using 2-inch-outside-diameter (O.D.) split-spoons and 3-inch-O.D., thin-walled Shelby tube samplers in general accordance with the procedures outlined by ASTM D1586 and ASTM D1587, respectively. Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were performed on the split-spoon samples using an automatic hammer to obtain the standard penetration resistance or N-value1 of the sampled material.

The drill crew recorded the subsurface profile noting the soil types and stratifications, groundwater, SPT results, and other pertinent data. Observations for groundwater were made in the borings during drilling.

Representative portions of the split-spoon samples were placed in glass jars to preserve sample moisture. The Shelby tubes were capped and taped at their ends to preserve sample moisture and unit weight, and the tubes were transported and stored in an upright position. The glass jars and Shelby tubes were marked and labeled in the field for identification, then returned to our laboratory in Memphis.

4.0 LABORATORY REVIEW AND TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on soil samples to assess engineering and index properties. The soil testing consisted of moisture contents (ASTM D2216), Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318), grain size (sieve) analyses (ASTM D6913), unconfined compression (UC; ASTM D2166), and unconsolidated-undrained triaxial compression (UU; ASTM D2850). Most of the laboratory test results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix C. The Atterberg limit, grain size analysis, and UU test outputs are also provided in Appendix D.

The boring logs were prepared by a geotechnical engineer from the field logs, visual classification of the soil samples in the laboratory, and laboratory test results. Terms and symbols used on the boring logs are presented on the Boring Log: Terms and Symbols in Appendix C. Stratification lines on the boring logs indicate approximate changes in strata. The transition between strata could be abrupt or gradual.

1 The standard penetration resistance, or N-value, is defined as the number of blows required to drive the split-spoon sampler 12 inches with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. Since the split spoon sampler is driven 18 inches or until refusal, the blows for the first 6 inches are for seating the sampler, and the number of blows for the final 12 inches is the N-value. Additionally, “refusal” of the split-spoon sampler occurs when the sampler is driven less than 6 inches with 50 blows of the hammer.



5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 Stratigraphy The ground surface at the boring locations was generally covered with 1 to 6 inches of topsoil. Below the topsoil, the soil stratigraphy generally consisted of predominately fine-grained soils underlain by predominantly coarse-grained soils to the boring termination depths, with the exception of Borings B-6 and -8. The fine-grained soils extended to the boring termination depth in Borings B-6 and -8. More specific descriptions of the soil layers are provided below and in the boring logs in Appendix C.

Predominately Fine-Grained Soils. Soils classified as low plasticity, silt (ML) and lean clay (CL), high plasticity, fat clay (CH), and elastic silt (MH) were encountered at the ground surface and extended to approximate depths ranging from 23 to 38 feet . Moisture contents of the tested samples ranged from 18 to 64 percent. Atterberg limits performed on select samples yielded liquid limits (LL) of 33 to 77 percent and plasticity indices (PI) of 13 to 51 percent. UU tests performed on relatively undisturbed Shelby tube samples recovered in the fine-grained stratum yielded undrained shear strengths of 760 to 1,540 pounds per square foot (psf). SPT N-values ranged from 0 to 12 blows per foot (bpf). Results of the field and laboratory testing were indicative of very soft to stiff conditions in the fine-grained soils.

Predominately Coarse-Grained Soils. Soils classified as clayey sand (SC), silty sand (SM), and poorly graded, intermixed sand (SP and SP-SM) were encountered below the fine-grained material as shown on the boring logs. SPT N-values ranged from 2 to 43 bpf, indicative of very loose to dense conditions.

5.2 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at the depths and in the borings listed in Table 1. Groundwater was measured during drilling operations and at specific times after completing the boring as shown in Table 1. Groundwater levels will vary over time due to the effects of seasonal variation in precipitation or other factors not evident at the time of exploration.



Table 1. Groundwater Depths.

Boring Approximate Time

of Measurement (hours) a, b Approximate Groundwater

Depth (feet) B-1 ATD 8

B-2 ATD 8 4 3

B-3 ATD 10 24 5

B-4 ATD 8

B-5 ATD 8 ½ 24 ½

B-6 ATD 20 24 5

B-7 ATD 6 B-8 ATD 8

B-9 ATD 8 24 3

B-10 ATD 12 24 0

a ATD = At Time of Drilling b Number of hours is in reference to time of boring completion

6.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Site Preparation and Earthwork Overview. The following paragraphs outline the preliminary site grading recommendations for the project site. The site is currently used for agricultural purposes and will require stripping of topsoil to remove organic materials, if any. Grading plans were not provided. The following site preparation and earthwork recommendations are preliminary and will be revised based on a design phase geotechnical exploration.

High Plasticity Clay. High plasticity, fat clay was encountered in the upper 3 to 8 feet in Borings B-3, -4, -7, and -8. These soils may be encountered at different depths and locations across the site. High plasticity clays are potentially expansive; pavements and lightly loaded structures could become distressed by shrinking and swelling of subgrade soils unless these soils are mitigated. Mitigation recommendations for high plasticity clays will be provided in the design phase geotechnical exploration.

Site Preparation. In general, cut areas and areas to receive new fill should be stripped of topsoil, vegetation, soft soils, and other deleterious materials. Topsoil should be placed in landscape areas or disposed of off-site. Vegetation and tree roots should be over-excavated.

The exposed subgrade should be proof-rolled using a tandem axle dump truck loaded to approximately 20,000 pounds per axle (or equivalent proof-rolling equipment). Soft areas that develop should be over-excavated and backfilled with soil compacted to the densities specified in



subsequent paragraphs. A geotechnical engineer should be on site to observe proof-roll operations and make recommendations for improvements.

Cut Areas. After excavation, the top 6 inches of the resulting subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 98% of the maximum dry unit weight as determined by a standard Proctor test (ASTM D 698).

Fill Materials, Placement, and Compaction. Fill materials should consist of natural soils classifying as lean clay, silty sand, or clayey sand (CL, SM, or SC), have a maximum LL of 45 and a PI of no more than 20. Such materials should be free from organic matter, debris, or other deleterious materials, and have a maximum particle size of 2 inches. The high plasticity clay encountered in the boings does meet these requirements, while the lean clay generally does meet the requirements. Moisture content and compaction requirements for fill can be provided during the design phase.

The soils encountered in the borings were relatively wet and will likely require drying. The time for drying will depend on the weather conditions during grading activities. We recommend construction take place during dry weather conditions. Wet weather conditions can cause rutting of the surficial soils which will require drying and recompacting.

6.2 Seismic Site Classification and Seismic Design Parameters The site lies within the influence of the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ). It is our understanding the proposed construction site will be designed in accordance with the 2015 International Building Code (IBC). The 2015 IBC stipulates structures be designed based on an earthquake event with a probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years. Seismic parameters from the 2015 IBC are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Site Class and Seismic Parameters.

Category/ Parameter

Designation/ Value Reference

SS 1.338g* Latitude 35.605965°N/Longitude 89.626670°W S1 0.466g* Seismic Site Class D Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-10

Fa 1.000 2015 IBC Table 1613.3.3(1) Fv 1.534 2015 IBC Table 1613.3.3(2)

FPGA 1.000 ASCE 7-10 Table 11.8-1 SMS 1.338g 2015 IBC Equation 16-37 SM1 0.715g 2015 IBC Equation 16-38 SDS 0.892g 2015 IBC Equation 16-39 SD1 0.477g 2015 IBC Equation 16-40

PGA 0.679g ASCE 7-10 Figure 22-7 PGAM 0.679g ASCE 7-10 Equation 11.8-1

* SS and S1 were computed using the web-based U.S. Seismic Design Maps (https://hazards.atcouncil.org/) using the indicated latitude and longitude coordinates of the project site.

https://hazards.atcouncil.org/



6.3 Preliminary Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement A study was performed to evaluate the liquefaction and dynamic settlement potential at the site. Both field and laboratory data were used to perform the analysis. The field measurements included the depth of the water table and the SPT N-values. The laboratory data included USCS soil classification, soil unit weight, and percent fines of the soil samples obtained from various strata. An earthquake magnitude (MW) of 7.7 and a peak ground acceleration of 0.679g (as obtained from the USGS via the Applied Technologies Council) were considered for a probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years. Groundwater was assumed in the analysis to be at the ground surface during the seismic event.

Subsurface conditions (as characterized by the field and laboratory data) and earthquake characteristics were used to estimate the safety factors against liquefaction in each soil layer, as well as the associated dynamic settlement during the design seismic event. Based on the preliminary analysis, liquefaction potential at the site is low. Additional liquefaction analyses should be performed during the design phase geotechnical exploration.

6.4 Preliminary Shallow Foundations For preliminary design and budgeting purposes, shallow foundations can be proportioned using a maximum net allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 and 1,100 pounds per square foot (psf) for spread and strip footings, respectively. Settlement analyses can be addressed once a design-phase geotechnical exploration is performed.

7.0 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL SERVICES The preliminary conclusions and recommendations given in this report are based on: Geotechnology’s understanding of the proposed design and construction, as outlined in this report; site observations; interpretation of the exploration data; and our experience. A design phase geotechnical exploration is required to finalize geotechnical recommendations. Since the intent of the design recommendations is best understood by Geotechnology, we recommend that Geotechnology be included in the final design and construction process, and be retained to review the project plans and specifications to confirm that the recommendations given in this report have been correctly implemented. We recommend that Geotechnology be retained to participate in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences to reduce the risk of misinterpretation of the conclusions and recommendations in this report relative to the proposed construction of the subject project.

Since actual subsurface conditions between boring locations could vary from those encountered in the borings, our design recommendations are subject to adjustment in the field based on the subsurface conditions encountered during construction. Therefore, we recommend that Geotechnology be retained to provide construction observation services as a continuation of the design process to confirm the recommendations in this report and to revise them accordingly to accommodate differing subsurface conditions. Construction observation is intended to enhance compliance with project plans and specifications. It is not insurance, nor does it constitute a warranty or guarantee of any type. Regardless of construction observation, contractors, suppliers,



and others are solely responsible for the quality of their work and for adhering to plans and specifications.

8.0 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of, the client for specific application to the named project as described herein. If this report is provided to other parties, it should be provided in its entirety with all supplementary information. In addition, the client should make it clear that the information is provided for factual data only, and not as a warranty of subsurface conditions presented in this report.

Geotechnology has attempted to conduct the services reported herein in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality and under similar conditions. The recommendations and conclusions contained in this report are professional opinions. The report is not a bidding document and should not be used for that purpose.

Our scope for this phase of the project did not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or air, on or below or around this site. Any statements in this report or on the boring logs regarding odors noted or unusual or suspicious items or conditions observed are strictly for the information of our client. Our scope did not include an assessment of the effects of flooding and erosion of creeks or rivers adjacent to or on the project site.

Our scope did not include: any services to investigate or detect the presence of mold or any other biological contaminants (such as spores, fungus, bacteria, viruses, and the by-products of such organisms) on and around the site; or any services, designed or intended, to prevent or lower the risk of the occurrence of an infestation of mold or other biological contaminants.

The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on the data obtained from the geotechnical exploration. The field exploration methods used indicate subsurface conditions only at the specific locations where samples were obtained, only at the time they were obtained, and only to the depths penetrated. Consequently, subsurface conditions could vary gradually, abruptly, and/or nonlinearly between sample locations and/or intervals.

The conclusions or recommendations presented in this report should not be used without Geotechnology’s review and assessment if the nature, design, or location of the facilities is changed, if there is a lapse in time between the submittal of this report and the start of work at the site, or if there is a substantial interruption or delay during work at the site. If changes are contemplated or delays occur, Geotechnology must be allowed to review them to assess their impact on the findings, conclusions, and/or design recommendations given in this report. Geotechnology will not be responsible for any claims, damages, or liability associated with any other party’s interpretations of the subsurface data or with reuse of the subsurface data or engineering analyses in this report.



The recommendations included in this report have been based in part on assumptions about variations in site stratigraphy that can be evaluated further during earthwork and foundation construction. Geotechnology should be retained to perform construction observation and continue its geotechnical engineering service using observational methods. Geotechnology cannot assume liability for the adequacy of its recommendations when they are used in the field without Geotechnology being retained to observe construction.


FROM THE GROUND UP

APPENDIX A – IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS GEOTECHNICAL-ENGINEERING REPORT

Geotechnical-Engineering ReportImportant Information about This

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered exposure to problems associated with subsurface conditions at project sites and development of them that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed herein, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.

Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services Provided for this ReportGeotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or affected by construction activities.

The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations. Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions.

Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, and At Specific TimesGeotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer

will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client.

Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical-engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project.

Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it: • for a different client;• for a different project or purpose;• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of

the original site); or• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it;

e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.

Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems.

Read this Report in FullCostly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and refer to the report in full.

You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer About ChangeYour geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect:

• the site’s size or shape;• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation,

function or weight of the proposed structure and the desired performance criteria;

• the composition of the design team; or • project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept

responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.

Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional OpinionsBefore construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.

This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-DependentThe recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.

This Report Could Be MisinterpretedOther design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of the design team, to:

• confer with other design-team members;• help develop specifications;• review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and

specifications; and• be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.

You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction-phase observations.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and GuidanceSome owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note

conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.

Read Responsibility Provisions CloselySome client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not CoveredThe personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not obtained your own environmental information about the project site, ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find environmental risk-management guidance.

Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and MoldWhile your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.

Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written

permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent

Telephone: 301/565-2733e-mail: [email protected] www.geoprofessional.org


FROM THE GROUND UP

APPENDIX B – FIGURES

Figure 1 – Site Location and Topography

Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph of Site and Boring Locations

SITE

SCALE IN FEET

0 5,000 10,000

N

NOTES

1. Plan adapted from a 15 minute U.S.G.S.

map for Rialto, Tennessee quadrangle,

last revised in 1977.

Drawn By: WAH

Date: 1-2-20

Ck'd By:

Date:

App'vd By:

Date:

GEOTECHNOLOGY

INC

FROM THE GROUND UP

65-Acre Tract

Covington, Tennessee

SITE LOCATION

AND TOPOGRAPHY

FIGURE 1

Project Number

J035609.01

DBA1-15-20

DMS

1-15-20

B-1

B-3

B-2

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-10

B-9

B-8

T

N

-3

E

R

V

IN

L

N

.

0 800

SCALE IN FEET

200 400

N

Drawn By: WAH

Date: 1-2-20

Ck'd By:

Date:

App'vd By:

Date:

GEOTECHNOLOGY

INC

FROM THE GROUND UP

65-Acre Tract

Covington, Tennessee

AERAIL PHOTOGRAPH OF SITE

AND BORING LOCATIONS

FIGURE 2

Project Number

J035609.01

NOTES

1. Plan adapted from a July 29, 2015 aerial

photograph courtesy of Google Earth.

2. Borings were located in the field with

reference to site features and are shown

approximate only.

LEGEND

Boring Location

1-15-20

DBA DMS1-15-20


FROM THE GROUND UP

APPENDIX C – BORING INFORMATION

Boring Log Terms and Symbols

Boring Logs

TOPSOIL: 3 inches

Medium stiff to very soft, brown to gray, LEAN CLAY - (CL)

some silt

some silt

Medium dense, gray, SILTY SAND - SM

Boring terminated at 35 feet.

SS1

SS2

SS3

ST4

SS5

SS6

SS7

SS8

SS9

2-2-4

2-2-3

2-2-3

2-1-2

2-2-4

2-1-2

0-0-0

4-5-7

93

DE

PT

HIN

FE

ET

DRILLING DATA

AUGER 3 3/4" HOLLOW STEM

WASHBORING FROM FEET

JCG DRILLER JOK LOGGER

Diedrich D-50 DRILL RIG

HAMMER TYPE Auto

HAMMER EFFICIENCY 97 %

Convington 65 Acre TractCovington, Tennessee

NO

TE

: S

TR

AT

IFIC

AT

ION

LIN

ES

RE

PR

ES

EN

T T

HE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

BO

UN

DA

RIE

S B

ET

WE

EN

SO

IL T

YP

ES

AN

D T

HE

TR

AN

SIT

ION

MA

Y B

E G

RA

DU

AL.

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G F

OR

ILL

US

TR

AT

ION

PU

RP

OS

ES

ON

LY.

GROUNDWATER DATA

Completion Date:

Datum

App'vd. by: DBA

Date: 1/8/20

REMARKS:

ENCOUNTERED AT 8 FEET

LOG OF BORING: B- 1

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

SA

MP

LES

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Project No. J035609.01

Surface Elevation:

NA

12/19/19

Drawn by: AIM

Date: 12/20/19

Checked by: ASM

Date: 1/8/20

NALO

G O

F B

OR

ING

200

2 W

L J

0356

09.0

1.G

PJ

GT

INC

063

8301

.GP

J 1

/8/2

0

10 20 30 40 50

N-VALUE (BLOWS PER FOOT)WATER CONTENT, %

SHEAR STRENGTH, tsf

STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE

- QU/2

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

LL

- SV - UU/2

(ASTM D 1586)

PL

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

SP

T B

LOW

CO

UN

TS

CO

RE

RE

CO

VE

RY

/RQ

D

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TOPSOIL: 3 inches

Soft to medium stiff, brown to brown and gray, LEAN CLAY -(CL)

little sand87% passing No. 200 sieve

Loose to very loose, gray, CLAYEY SAND, clay partings - SC


SS1

SS2

ST3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

SS8

SS9

2-1-3

1-2-2

2-2-3

2-2-3

2-2-3

3-3-3

1-3-4

1-1-1

93

DE

PT

HIN

FE

ET

DRILLING DATA





HAMMER TYPE Auto



NO

TE

: S

TR

AT

IFIC

AT

ION

LIN

ES

RE

PR

ES

EN

T T

HE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

BO

UN

DA

RIE

S B

ET

WE

EN

SO

IL T

YP

ES

AN

D T

HE

TR

AN

SIT

ION

MA

Y B

E G

RA

DU

AL.

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G F

OR

ILL

US

TR

AT

ION

PU

RP

OS

ES

ON

LY.

GROUNDWATER DATA

Completion Date:

Datum

App'vd. by: DBA

Date: 1/8/20

REMARKS:


AT 3 FEET AFTER 4 HOURS

LOG OF BORING: B- 2


SA

MP

LES

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Surface Elevation:

NA

12/19/19

Drawn by: AIM

Date: 12/20/19

Checked by: ASM

Date: 1/8/20

NALO

G O

F B

OR

ING

200

2 W

L J

0356

09.0

1.G

PJ

GT

INC

063

8301

.GP

J 1

/8/2

0

10 20 30 40 50


SHEAR STRENGTH, tsf


- QU/2

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

LL

- SV - UU/2

(ASTM D 1586)

PL

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

SP

T B

LOW

CO

UN

TS

CO

RE

RE

CO

VE

RY

/RQ

D

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

64

TOPSOIL: 1 inch

Medium stiff to soft, brown, FAT CLAY - CH

Soft to medium stiff, brown to gray, LEAN CLAY - CLtrace organics

trace organics

trace gravel

trace silt

Loose, gray SAND - SP


SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

SS8

SS9

2-2-3

2-1-3

2-3-2

1-1-1

1-1-1

2-3-4

1-1-2

2-3-3

3-3-4

DE

PT

HIN

FE

ET

DRILLING DATA





HAMMER TYPE Auto



NO

TE

: S

TR

AT

IFIC

AT

ION

LIN

ES

RE

PR

ES

EN

T T

HE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

BO

UN

DA

RIE

S B

ET

WE

EN

SO

IL T

YP

ES

AN

D T

HE

TR

AN

SIT

ION

MA

Y B

E G

RA

DU

AL.

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G F

OR

ILL

US

TR

AT

ION

PU

RP

OS

ES

ON

LY.

GROUNDWATER DATA

Completion Date:

Datum

App'vd. by: DBA

Date: 1/8/20

REMARKS:



LOG OF BORING: B- 3


SA

MP

LES

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Surface Elevation:

NA

12/18/19

Drawn by: AIM

Date: 12/20/19

Checked by: ASM

Date: 1/8/20

NALO

G O

F B

OR

ING

200

2 W

L J

0356

09.0

1.G

PJ

GT

INC

063

8301

.GP

J 1

/8/2

0

10 20 30 40 50


SHEAR STRENGTH, tsf


- QU/2

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

LL

- SV - UU/2

(ASTM D 1586)

PL

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

SP

T B

LOW

CO

UN

TS

CO

RE

RE

CO

VE

RY

/RQ

D

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TOPSOIL: 3 inches

Soft to medium stiff, brown and black to gray and brown -FAT CLAY - CH

Soft to stiff, gray and orange to gray, LEAN CLAY - (CL)trace organics

trace gravel

trace gravel and sand

Gray SAND, trace silt and clay - SP-SM


SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

ST5

SS6

SS7

SS8

SS9

2-2-2

1-2-4

2-3-3

2-1-2

2-2-3

1-2-2

1-3-9

2-3-7

90

DE

PT

HIN

FE

ET

DRILLING DATA





HAMMER TYPE Auto



NO

TE

: S

TR

AT

IFIC

AT

ION

LIN

ES

RE

PR

ES

EN

T T

HE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

BO

UN

DA

RIE

S B

ET

WE

EN

SO

IL T

YP

ES

AN

D T

HE

TR

AN

SIT

ION

MA

Y B

E G

RA

DU

AL.

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G F

OR

ILL

US

TR

AT

ION

PU

RP

OS

ES

ON

LY.

GROUNDWATER DATA

Completion Date:

Datum

App'vd. by: DBA

Date: 1/8/20

REMARKS:


LOG OF BORING: B- 4


SA

MP

LES

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Surface Elevation:

NA

12/19/19

Drawn by: AIM

Date: 12/20/19

Checked by: ASM

Date: 1/8/20

NALO

G O

F B

OR

ING

200

2 W

L J

0356

09.0

1.G

PJ

GT

INC

063

8301

.GP

J 1

/8/2

0

10 20 30 40 50


SHEAR STRENGTH, tsf


- QU/2

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

LL

- SV - UU/2

(ASTM D 1586)

PL

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

SP

T B

LOW

CO

UN

TS

CO

RE

RE

CO

VE

RY

/RQ

D

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TOPSOIL: 6 inches

Soft to stiff, brown and gray to brown, LEAN CLAY - (CL)

trace silt

trace silt

Soft, gray, FAT CLAY, some silt - CH

Very soft, gray, LEAN CLAY - (CL)

Stiff, gray, sandy, LEAN CLAY, sand partings - CL

Medium dense, gray SAND with silt - (SP-SM)7% passing No. 200 sieve

Medium dense, gray SAND, trace silt - (SP)5% passing No. 200 sieve


SS1

SS2

SS3

ST4

SS5

SS6

SS7

SS8

SS9

SS10

SS11

SS12

2-1-3

2-1-3

2-2-2

2-2-2

2-1-3

2-1-2

0-0-0

2-5-4

11-14-15

11-12-14

9-12-14

94

DE

PT

HIN

FE

ET

DRILLING DATA


WASHBORING FROM 10 FEET

JCG DRILLER WEC LOGGER


HAMMER TYPE Auto



NO

TE

: S

TR

AT

IFIC

AT

ION

LIN

ES

RE

PR

ES

EN

T T

HE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

BO

UN

DA

RIE

S B

ET

WE

EN

SO

IL T

YP

ES

AN

D T

HE

TR

AN

SIT

ION

MA

Y B

E G

RA

DU

AL.

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G F

OR

ILL

US

TR

AT

ION

PU

RP

OS

ES

ON

LY.

GROUNDWATER DATA

Completion Date:

Datum

App'vd. by: DBA

Date: 1/8/20

REMARKS:

ENCOUNTERED AT 8.5 FEET

AT 0.5 FEET AFTER 24 HOURS

LOG OF BORING: B- 5


SA

MP

LES

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Surface Elevation:

NA

12/20/19

Drawn by: AIM

Date: 12/23/19

Checked by: ASM

Date: 1/8/20

NALO

G O

F B

OR

ING

200

2 W

L J

0356

09.0

1.G

PJ

GT

INC

063

8301

.GP

J 1

/8/2

0

10 20 30 40 50


SHEAR STRENGTH, tsf


- QU/2

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

LL

- SV - UU/2

(ASTM D 1586)

PL

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

SP

T B

LOW

CO

UN

TS

CO

RE

RE

CO

VE

RY

/RQ

D

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TOPSOIL: 6 inches

Medium stiff to soft, brown and orange to gray, LEAN CLAY -CL

trace organics

some silt

some silt

Medium stiff to soft, gray, sandy, LEAN CLAY - CL

Soft, gray, FAT CLAY, trace sand - CH


SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

SS8

SS9

2-2-3

1-2-1

2-2-1

2-2-2

2-2-2

2-2-2

2-2-3

2-2-1

1-1-2

DE

PT

HIN

FE

ET

DRILLING DATA



JCG DRILLER EWF LOGGER


HAMMER TYPE Auto



NO

TE

: S

TR

AT

IFIC

AT

ION

LIN

ES

RE

PR

ES

EN

T T

HE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

BO

UN

DA

RIE

S B

ET

WE

EN

SO

IL T

YP

ES

AN

D T

HE

TR

AN

SIT

ION

MA

Y B

E G

RA

DU

AL.

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G F

OR

ILL

US

TR

AT

ION

PU

RP

OS

ES

ON

LY.

GROUNDWATER DATA

Completion Date:

Datum

App'vd. by: DBA

Date: 1/8/20

REMARKS:



LOG OF BORING: B- 6


SA

MP

LES

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Surface Elevation:

NA

12/20/19

Drawn by: AIM

Date: 12/23/19

Checked by: ASM

Date: 1/8/20

NALO

G O

F B

OR

ING

200

2 W

L J

0356

09.0

1.G

PJ

GT

INC

063

8301

.GP

J 1

/8/2

0

10 20 30 40 50


SHEAR STRENGTH, tsf


- QU/2

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

LL

- SV - UU/2

(ASTM D 1586)

PL

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

SP

T B

LOW

CO

UN

TS

CO

RE

RE

CO

VE

RY

/RQ

D

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TOPSOIL: 6 inches

Medium stiff, gray, FAT CLAY - (CH)

Medium stiff to soft, gray to brown and gray, LEAN CLAY -CL

some silt

trace organics

trace sand and silt

Medium stiff, gray, sandy, LEAN CLAY, trace silt - CL

Dense, gray, SILTY SAND, clay pockets - SM


SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

SS8

SS9

2-2-3

2-2-3

1-1-1

1-1-1

2-1-2

1-2-1

1-1-2

2-4-4

13-21-22

DE

PT

HIN

FE

ET

DRILLING DATA





HAMMER TYPE Auto



NO

TE

: S

TR

AT

IFIC

AT

ION

LIN

ES

RE

PR

ES

EN

T T

HE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

BO

UN

DA

RIE

S B

ET

WE

EN

SO

IL T

YP

ES

AN

D T

HE

TR

AN

SIT

ION

MA

Y B

E G

RA

DU

AL.

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G F

OR

ILL

US

TR

AT

ION

PU

RP

OS

ES

ON

LY.

GROUNDWATER DATA

Completion Date:

Datum

App'vd. by: DBA

Date: 1/8/20

REMARKS:


LOG OF BORING: B- 7


SA

MP

LES

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Surface Elevation:

NA

12/23/19

Drawn by: AIM

Date: 12/24/19

Checked by: ASM

Date: 1/8/20

NALO

G O

F B

OR

ING

200

2 W

L J

0356

09.0

1.G

PJ

GT

INC

063

8301

.GP

J 1

/8/2

0

10 20 30 40 50


SHEAR STRENGTH, tsf


- QU/2

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

LL

- SV - UU/2

(ASTM D 1586)

PL

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

SP

T B

LOW

CO

UN

TS

CO

RE

RE

CO

VE

RY

/RQ

D

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

>>69

TOPSOIL: 6 inches

Soft, brown, LEAN CLAY - CL

Soft to stiff, brown to brown and gray, ELASTIC SILT - (MH)

Soft to medium stiff, gray, LEAN CLAY - CL

Medium stiff, gray, FAT CLAY - CH

Medium stiff, gray, LEAN CLAY, silty sand partings - CL


SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

ST6

SS7

SS8

SS9

SS10

1-2-2

1-2-1

1-1-1

1-2-1

1-1-1

2-1-1

2-2-3

2-3-3

2-2-5

67

DE

PT

HIN

FE

ET

DRILLING DATA

Surface Elevation:





HAMMER TYPE Auto


NO

TE

: S

TR

AT

IFIC

AT

ION

LIN

ES

RE

PR

ES

EN

T T

HE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

BO

UN

DA

RIE

S B

ET

WE

EN

SO

IL T

YP

ES

AN

D T

HE

TR

AN

SIT

ION

MA

Y B

E G

RA

DU

AL.

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G F

OR

ILL

US

TR

AT

ION

PU

RP

OS

ES

ON

LY.

GROUNDWATER DATA

SA

MP

LES

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Completion Date:Completion Date:

Datum

App'vd. by: DBA

Date: 1/8/20

REMARKS:

NA

Drawn by: AIM

Date: 12/24/19

Checked by: ASM

Date: 1/8/20

NA




12/23/19

LOG OF BORING: B- 8


LOG

OF

BO

RIN

G 2

002

WL

J03

5609

.01.

GP

J G

TIN

C 0

6383

01.G

PJ

1/1

5/2

0

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

SP

T B

LOW

CO

UN

TS

CO

RE

RE

CO

VE

RY

/RQ

D

10 20 30 40 50


SHEAR STRENGTH, tsf

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

- UU/2

(ASTM D 1586)

PL LL

- SV


- QU/2

>>77

TOPSOIL: 6 inches

Soft, brown and gray, LEAN CLAY - CL

Soft, brown and gray, FAT CLAY - CH

Soft to medium stiff, brown to gray, LEAN CLAY - CLtrace organics

some silt

Stiff, brown and gray, ELASTIC SILT - (MH)

Soft to very soft, gray, sandy, LEAN CLAY - CLsome silt

Loose, gray SAND, trace silt, clay pockets - SP


SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

ST7

SS8

SS9

SS10

1-2-2

1-2-2

1-2-2

1-1-2

1-2-3

2-1-3

2-1-2

0-0-0

2-1-5

70

DE

PT

HIN

FE

ET

DRILLING DATA

Surface Elevation:





HAMMER TYPE Auto


NO

TE

: S

TR

AT

IFIC

AT

ION

LIN

ES

RE

PR

ES

EN

T T

HE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

BO

UN

DA

RIE

S B

ET

WE

EN

SO

IL T

YP

ES

AN

D T

HE

TR

AN

SIT

ION

MA

Y B

E G

RA

DU

AL.

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G F

OR

ILL

US

TR

AT

ION

PU

RP

OS

ES

ON

LY.

GROUNDWATER DATA

SA

MP

LES

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Completion Date:Completion Date:

Datum

App'vd. by: DBA

Date: 1/8/20

REMARKS:

NA

Drawn by: AIM

Date: 12/23/19

Checked by: ASM

Date: 1/8/20

NA





12/21/19

LOG OF BORING: B- 9


LOG

OF

BO

RIN

G 2

002

WL

J03

5609

.01.

GP

J G

TIN

C 0

6383

01.G

PJ

1/1

5/2

0

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

SP

T B

LOW

CO

UN

TS

CO

RE

RE

CO

VE

RY

/RQ

D

10 20 30 40 50


SHEAR STRENGTH, tsf

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

- UU/2

(ASTM D 1586)

PL LL

- SV


- QU/2

>>75

TOPSOIL: 6 inches

Medium stiff to soft, brown to gray, LEAN CLAY - CL

trace organics

some silt

some silt

Loose, gray, SILTY SAND, some clay, clay seams - SM

Medium dense, gray SAND, trace silt - SP


SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

SS8

SS9

2-2-2

2-2-2

2-2-3

2-3-3

3-2-2

2-1-1

2-2-2

1-3-4

5-7-9

DE

PT

HIN

FE

ET

DRILLING DATA





HAMMER TYPE Auto



NO

TE

: S

TR

AT

IFIC

AT

ION

LIN

ES

RE

PR

ES

EN

T T

HE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

BO

UN

DA

RIE

S B

ET

WE

EN

SO

IL T

YP

ES

AN

D T

HE

TR

AN

SIT

ION

MA

Y B

E G

RA

DU

AL.

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G F

OR

ILL

US

TR

AT

ION

PU

RP

OS

ES

ON

LY.

GROUNDWATER DATA

Completion Date:

Datum

App'vd. by: DBA

Date: 1/8/20

REMARKS:



LOG OF BORING: B-10


SA

MP

LES

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Surface Elevation:

NA

12/21/19

Drawn by: AIM

Date: 12/23/19

Checked by: ASM

Date: 1/8/20

NALO

G O

F B

OR

ING

200

2 W

L J

0356

09.0

1.G

PJ

GT

INC

063

8301

.GP

J 1

/8/2

0

10 20 30 40 50


SHEAR STRENGTH, tsf


- QU/2

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

LL

- SV - UU/2

(ASTM D 1586)

PL

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

SP

T B

LOW

CO

UN

TS

CO

RE

RE

CO

VE

RY

/RQ

D

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

CS Continuous SamplerGB Grab SampleNQ NQ Rock Core PST Three-Inch Diameter Piston Tube SampleSS Split-Spoon Sample (Standard Penetration Test)ST Three-Inch Diameter Shelby Tube Sample* Sample Not Recovered

PL Plastic Limit (ASTM D4318)LL Liquid Limit (ASTM D4318)SV Shear Strength from Field Vane (ASTM D2573)UU Shear Strength from Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test (ASTM D2850)QU Shear Strength from Unconfined Compression Test (ASTM D2166)

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

SymbolGWGPGMGCSWSPSMSCMLCLOLMHCHOHPT

SomeAnd

20 to 35%35 to 50%

Relative composition and Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) designations are based onvisual descriptions and are approximate only. If laboratory tests were performed to classify thesoil, the USCS designation is shown in parenthesis.

Parting - Inclusion less than 1/8-inch thickPocket - Inclusion of material that is smaller than sample diameter

Little 10 to 20%

1.0 to 2.0greater than 2.0

Seam - Inclusion 1/8-inch to 3 inches thick

N-Value (Blow Count) is the last two, 6-inch drive increments (i.e. 4/7/9, N = 7 + 9 = 16). Values are shown as a summation on the grid plot and shown in the Unit Dry Weight/SPT column.

TraceRELATIVE COMPOSITION

0 to 10%

greater than 4.0

11 to 3031 to 50

>50

OTHER TERMSLayer - Inclusion greater than 3 inches thick.

Medium DenseDense

Very Dense

0.5 to 1.01.0 to 2.02.0 to 3.0

STRENGTH OF COHESIVE SOILS

Medium StiffStiff

Very StiffHard

Consistency Undrained Shear Strength (tsf)less than 0.1250.125 to 0.250.25 to 0.50.5 to 1.0

Very SoftSoft

Unconfined Comp. Strength (tsf)less then 0.25

0.25 to 0.5

DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILSDescriptive Term Approximate

N 60 -Value RangeVery Loose

Loose0 to 45 to 10

Clayey-Gravel, Gravel-Sand-Clay MixtureSilty Gravel, Gravel-Sand-Silt MixturePoorly-Graded Gravel, Gravel-Sand MixtureWell-Graded Gravel, Gravel- Sand Mixture

Major Divisions Description

Silty Sand, Sand-Silt MixturePoorly-Graded Sand, Gravelly SandWell-Graded Sand, Gravelly Sand

Peat, Humus, Swamp SoilOrganic Clay, Medium to High PlasticityFat Clay, High PlasticitySilt, High PlasticityOrganic Silts or Lean Clays, Low PlasticityLean Clay, Sandy Clay, Silty Clay, Low to Medium PlasticitySilt, Sandy Silt, Clayey Silt, Slight PlasticityClayey-Sand, Sand-Clay Mixture

Silts and Clays

Fine

-Gra

ined

Soi

ls

(Mor

e th

an 5

0%

Smal

ler t

han

No.

20

0 Si

eve

Size

)

Highly Organic Soils

Clean Gravels Little or no Fines

Gravels with Appreciable Fines

Clean Sands Little or no Fines

Sands with Appreciable Fines

Liquid Limit Less Than 50

Liquid Limit Greater Than 50

Gravel and

Gravelly Soil

Sand and Sandy Soils C

oars

e-G

rain

ed

Soils

(Mor

e th

an 5

0%

Larg

er th

an N

o. 2

00

Siev

e Si

ze)

Silts and Clays

BOULDERS

SOIL GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

BORING LOG: TERMS AND SYMBOLSLEGEND

SOIL GRAIN SIZEUS STANDARD SIEVE

SAND SILT CLAYGRAVELCOBBLES

12" 3" 3/4" 4 10 40 200

300 76.2 19.1 4.76 2.00 0.42 0.074 0.005

MH

CL-ML

CL

CH

0 %

10 %

20 %

30 %

40 %

50 %

60 %

70 %

80 %

0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 % 110 %

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

Liquid Limit

Plasticity Chart


FROM THE GROUND UP

APPENDIX D – LABORATORY TEST DATA

Atterberg Limits

Grain Size Analyses

Unconfined Compression

Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Fines Classification

PLASTICITY

INDEX

LIQUID LIMIT

B- 1

B- 2

B- 4

B- 5

B- 5

B- 7

B- 8

B- 9

LL PL PI

LEAN CLAY(CL)

LEAN CLAY(CL)

LEAN CLAY(CL)

LEAN CLAY(CL)

LEAN CLAY(CL)

FAT CLAY(CH)

ELASTIC SILT(MH)

ELASTIC SILT(MH)

ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS

ML

CL

MH

CH

37

44

43

41

33

69

77

75

24

24

28

23

14

18

47

47

13

20

15

18

19

51

30

28

8.0

6.0

13.0

8.0

28.5

1.0

15.0

20.0

CL-ML

Specimen Identification


J035609.01

US

_AT

TE

RB

ER

G_L

IMIT

S J

0356

09.0

1.G

PJ

US

_LA

B.G

DT

1/1

5/2

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

PI Cc

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

coarse

D30

16 20 30 4016 60

fine

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

LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL)

POOLRY GRADED SAND with SILT(SP-SM)

POORLY GRADED SAND(SP)

87.0

6.9

4.7

D100 D60

Cu

2001.5

medium

6 810 14

0.133

0.177

SILT OR CLAY



Classification

503/4 1/23/8

0.0

0.0

0.2

13.0

93.1

95.1

3

%Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay

100 1403 2

D10

4

fine coarse

4

PL

2.88

3.18

1.41

1.13

B- 2

B- 5

B- 5

LL

0.382

0.565

0.106

4.75

9.5

0.268

0.337

23.5

38.5

48.5

B- 2

B- 5

B- 5

23.5

38.5

48.5


J035609.01

US

_GR

AIN

_SIZ

E J

0356

09.0

1.G

PJ

US

_LA

B.G

DT

1/8

/20

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TESTASTM D 2166

Project No.: J035609.01Boring: B-1

Sample: ST-4 - Depth: 8 ft.

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (t

sf)

Axial Strain (%)

P703 (12/14/10) J035609.01_B-1_ST-4UC.xls, Uc-Plot, 1/8/2020




0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0 5 10 15 20

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (t

sf)

Axial Strain (%)





0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0 2 4 6 8 10

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (t

sf)

Axial Strain (%)


UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION TESTASTM D 2850



0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

De

via

tor

Str

es

s (t

sf)

Axial Strain, a (%)

4 (12/17/09) J035609.01_B-5_ST-4UU.xls, Plot, 1/8/2020




0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

De

via

tor

Str

es

s (t

sf)

Axial Strain, a (%)

4 (12/17/09) J035609.01_B-8_ST-6UU.xls, Plot, 1/8/2020




0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

De

via

tor

Str

es

s (t

sf)

Axial Strain, a (%)

4 (12/17/09) J035609.01_B-9_ST-7UU.xls, Plot, 1/8/2020

preliminary geotechnical xploration 65-acre tract

Documents