, Inc. | 48 Brookfield Oaks Drive, Suite F | Greenville, SC 29607 | p 864.297.9944 | f 864.297.0462...

Geotechnical Exploration Report

GSP Airport – New Cargo Ramp

Greer, Spartanburg County, SC

S&ME Project No. 1426-17-019

Prepared for:

W.K. Dickson & Company, Inc.

616 Colonnade Drive

Charlotte, North Carolina 28205

Prepared by:

S&ME, Inc.

48 Brookfield Oaks Drive

Greenville, South Carolina 29607

April 3, 2017

S&ME, Inc. | 48 Brookfield Oaks Drive, Suite F | Greenville, SC 29607 | p 864.297.9944 | f 864.297.0462 | www.smeinc.com

April 3, 2017

W.K. Dickson & Company, Inc.

616 Colonnade Drive

Charlotte, North Carolina 28205

Attention: Mr. Greg Kershaw, P.E. (e-mail: [email protected])

Reference: Geotechnical Exploration Report

Greenville-Spartanburg (GSP) Airport – New Cargo Ramp

Greer, Spartanburg County, South Carolina


Dear Mr. Kershaw:

S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) is pleased to submit this Geotechnical Exploration Report for the referenced project.

The exploration was made in general accordance with our Proposal No. 14-1700119 (dated February 15,

2017), and the Subconsultant Agreement For Professional Services (executed March 5, 2017) between

S&ME and W.K. Dickson & Company, Inc. (WKD). This report presents a description of our understanding

of the project, the exploration results, and our geotechnical conclusions and recommendations regarding

site grading and support for the new Cargo Ramp apron, building and associated pavements.

We appreciate the opportunity to work with W.K. Dickson & Company, Inc. by providing the geotechnical

engineering services for this project. Please contact us should any questions arise regarding the

information in this report or when further services are needed.

Sincerely,

S&ME, Inc.

Tripp Ford, P.E. Gant M. Taylor, P.E.

Project Engineer Senior Engineer

[email protected] [email protected]





April 3, 2017 i

Table of Contents

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

2.0 Exploration and Testing ....................................................................................... 2

3.0 Site Conditions ...................................................................................................... 5

Surface Features ................................................................................................................ 5

Area Geology..................................................................................................................... 6

Subsurface Conditions ..................................................................................................... 7

Surface Material .................................................................................................................. 7

Existing Fill ......................................................................................................................... 8

Cultivated Soils ................................................................................................................... 9

Residual Soils ...................................................................................................................... 9

Partially Weathered Rock / Auger Refusal ........................................................................ 10

Subsurface Water .............................................................................................................. 10

Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................................ 10

4.0 Site Grading Recommendations....................................................................... 11

Site Preparation ............................................................................................................... 12

Stripping ........................................................................................................................... 12

Drainage ............................................................................................................................ 12

Existing Fill ....................................................................................................................... 13

Silty/Clayey Soils .............................................................................................................. 13

Proofrolling and Subgrade Evaluation .............................................................................. 14

Excavation........................................................................................................................ 15

Fill Placement and Compaction .................................................................................... 16

Use of Excavated Soils as Fill ............................................................................................ 16

Use of Off-Site Borrow Materials as Fill ........................................................................... 17

Fill Slopes .......................................................................................................................... 17

Wet Weather Grading ....................................................................................................... 17

5.0 Structure Recommendations ............................................................................. 18

Spread Foundations ....................................................................................................... 18

Foundation Construction Recommendations .................................................................... 18





April 3, 2017 ii

Settlement .......................................................................................................................... 19

Floor Slab ......................................................................................................................... 19

Seismic Conditions ......................................................................................................... 19

Retaining Walls ............................................................................................................... 20

6.0 Pavement Subgrade Recommendations ......................................................... 20

Subgrade Modulus Values ............................................................................................ 21

General Guidelines ......................................................................................................... 22

7.0 Limitations of Report .......................................................................................... 22

Appendix Appendix I - Figures

Boring Location Plans (7) – Figures 1 thr. 7

Generalized Subsurface Profiles (6) – Figures 8 thr. 13

Photographs of Field Conditions (3 pages)

Appendix II – Field Data

Legend to Soil Classification and Symbols

Soil Test Boring Logs (37)

Kessler DCP Test Data Tables (4)

Field Test Procedures

Appendix III – Laboratory Testing

Summary of Laboratory Test Data

Laboratory Test Reports (20)





April 3, 2017 1

1.0 Project Information

We have prepared this report based on the following:

♦ Telephone conversations and e-mail transmittals between Mr. Greg Kershaw, P.E. of W.K. Dickson

(WKD) and Mr. Gant Taylor, P.E. of S&ME during the period of February 13 through 15, 2017;

♦ Review of the Preliminary Cargo Ramp Schematic - Boring/Coring Location Plan (Site Layout)

figure, provided by Mr. Kershaw as an attachment to the referenced February 13th e-mail, and

updated per our subsequent correspondence on February 15th;

♦ Site reconnaissance visits by Mr. Taylor during the period of March 2 through March 9, 2017;

♦ Review of FAA Advisory Circulars AC-150-5370-10G “Standards for Specifying Construction of

Airports” (dated July 21, 2014), and AC-150-5320-6F “Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation

(dated November 10, 2016);

♦ Review of historical aerial photographs of the site, available from the Google Earth website;

♦ Review of the 1958 and 1983 USGS Topographic Maps, which illustrate historic topographic

contours of the site area; and

♦ Review of historical aerial photographs of the site, available from the Spartanburg County GIS

website (which also illustrates the existing topographic contours and spot elevations).

From review of the referenced information and our conversations with Mr. Kershaw, we understand GSP

Airport plans to construct a new Cargo Ramp near the northeast end of the airport property, located

adjacent/southwest of the existing FedEx Distribution Center. Proposed development will include the

following:

• Construction of a 200-foot by 800-foot warehouse/distribution building, oriented perpendicularly

to the existing FedEx building;

• Installation of approximately 500,000 square feet of concrete pavement for the air-side apron;

• Approximately 160,000 square feet of pavement in front (southeast) of the warehouse building,

which includes approximately 137,000 square feet of heavy-duty apron for truck loading and

parking, and approximately 23,000 square feet of land-side light-duty parking lot;

• Approximately 1,350 linear feet of shoulder pavement rehabilitation/construction along Taxiway

“Lima”; and

• Approximately 1,500 linear feet of associated access driveways (which includes an approximately

1,100-ft long 2-lane divided entrance drive that will connect to Gateway Drive).

While detailed structural information was not provided to us at this time, we anticipate the warehouse/

distribution building will be a steel-framed structure with interior columns and perimeter masonry/precast

concrete walls. Column and wall loads will be supported by spread footings, with a concrete slab that will

match the elevation of the adjacent air-side concrete apron pavement. Based on our experience with

similar projects, we anticipate maximum column, wall, and slab loads will be on the order of 100 kips, 5

kips per linear foot (klf), and 250 pounds per square foot (psf), respectively. We are not aware of the

building settlement tolerances, or any settlement-sensitive sections of the building.

The land-side portion of the warehouse/distribution building will have loading dock retaining walls. As

shown on the provided site plan figure, a protective blast wall will be constructed near the northern





April 3, 2017 2

corner of the apron ramp to shield the existing FedEx facility from the jets of reversing planes. We

anticipate the blast wall could be designed as a retaining wall. At this time we are not aware of any other

site retaining walls.

The proposed construction area covers land both inside and outside the existing perimeter security fence.

Inside the fence, the ground surface is relatively level to gently sloping, and covered by maintained grass

and pavements of the taxiway and service road. A sideline drainage swale, approximately 5 feet deep, is

present between the taxiway and service road. Outside of the fence, most of the planned development

area is grassed and generally level (very slightly pitched), except for fill embankment slopes and perimeter

ditching along the southeast side of this previously graded pad. From review of aerial photographs, it

appears this 26-acre portion of the GSP Airport was graded following construction of the FedEx facility in

approximately 2001. Additional observations of the site surface features will be described in further detail

later in Section 3.0 Site Conditions.

We estimate the ground surface topography varies only approximately 5 feet in total relief across the

graded pad. Although a preliminary grading plan is not yet available, we assume estimated maximum

cuts and fills will generally be minor, limited to about 3 feet or less to balance pad grading. A Finished

Floor Elevation (FFE) for the building has not been determined, but we anticipate it will be within about 1

to 2 feet of the current pad grade. Installation of site utilities will require deeper excavations. Also, fill

placement on the order of about 2 to 8 feet will be required to raise grades in the areas of the perimeter

ditches/swales (notably along the northeast end of the proposed building, where the building footprint

extends beyond the crest of the fill embankment slope).

The only topographically different area is an approximately 350-foot wide wooded section located

northeast of the graded pad (between the pad and Gateway Drive). This wooded area is approximately 10

feet higher in elevation than the surrounding areas, and we anticipate site grading will require excavation

of at least 5 feet to enable grade transitions along the entrance driveway between the Cargo Ramp facility

and the tie-in with Gateway Drive. Although this area was previously a portion of an apparent old grassed

runway (and possibly a material laydown yard during construction of the FedEx facility), it appears to have

been planted with rows of pine trees in 2007.

2.0 Exploration and Testing

The field exploration included a site reconnaissance by the Geotechnical Engineer and the performance of

thirty-seven (37) soil test borings. The boring locations were established in the field by our personnel,

using a handheld GPS unit (input with boring coordinates obtained from a geo-referenced site plan) and

by estimating distances from existing site features. The borings were staked near requested locations

shown on the provided figure titled Preliminary Cargo Ramp Schematic - Boring/Coring Location Plan

(updated February 15, 2017). The general locations/areas of the borings are outlined below, and these

areas are referenced within the report. The boring locations are also illustrated on the Boring Location

Plans (Figures 1 through 7) in Appendix I:

♦ Six borings (labeled C-1 through C-6) were performed to explore conditions for the proposed air-

side ramp entrance. Borings C-1 through C-4 were located along the paved outer shoulder of

Taxiway Lima; Borings C-5 and C-6 were located on the service road that parallels the taxiway;

♦ Two borings (labeled C-7 and C-8) were performed along Gateway Drive near the proposed

entrance driveway intersection tie-in;





April 3, 2017 3

♦ Ten borings (labeled B-1 through B-10) were performed within the area of the air-side apron;

♦ Nine borings (labeled B-11 through B-19) were performed within/near the footprint area of the

proposed warehouse/distribution building; and

♦ Seven borings (labeled B-20 through B-26) were performed within the areas of the land-side

apron, parking and associated driveway pavements, located southeast of the building. Located

within the stand of pine trees, Boring B-26 was shifted slightly north of its planned location to

avoid cutting down any trees.

♦ We performed three additional borings (beyond the proposed scope) to further explore

conditions near three planned boring locations:

• Boring B-3A was performed roughly midway between B-3 and B-8 (near the south end of the

proposed blast wall) after we observed conditions at B-3 and B-8 were significantly different;

• Boring B-13A was performed near the crest of the fill embankment slope, as a companion to

B-13 (which was located in the bottom drainage swale at the toe of this slope), to help

characterize subsurface conditions in this area of the pad where the existing slope will likely

be extended to accommodate the building footprint; and

• Boring B-19A was performed in the bottom of the drainage swale near the inlet of the culvert

pipe (installed below the graded access path between the gravel service drive and the pad;

Boring B-19 was located in the backfill beside this pipe) to help evaluate the loose condition

of eroded sediments in the swale bottom.

As noted above, the graded pad is surrounded by perimeter swales to help drain surface water flow.

Several borings (B-3A, B-8, B-13, B-19A, and B-25) were located near the bottom of the deepest swale

along the eastern portion of the site; two borings (B-1 and B-2) were located near the bottom of the

shallow swale along the northwest side of the pad, and one boring (B-24) was located near the bottom of

the shallow swale along the southeast side of the pad.

S&ME completed the borings during the period of March 6 through 9, 2017. For pavement borings C-1

through C-8, we cored the pavement using a portable rotary coring machine with a 6-inch diameter

barrel. Each core penetrated the asphalt pavement and underlying stone base (if present), and we

measured the thickness of the pavement section layers. In most of the borings (all but C-7), we

performed Kessler Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing in general accordance with ASTM D 6951,

Standard Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications, to

depths of approximately 3 to 5 feet below the pavement surface. Kessler DCP testing was also performed

adjacent to most of the borings located in the graded pad area. As presented in the summary table in

Appendix II, the Kessler DCP values were used to help estimate in-situ CBR values and relative stiffness

(and ultimately correlated to a subgrade modulus, k, for pavement design).

Borings were then performed through the coreholes with a truck-mounted CME 55 drill rig, using hollow-

stem auger techniques to advance the holes to their planned termination depths of 11 feet below the

pavement surface. (Boring C-8 was terminated at 5 feet upon encountering auger refusal, apparently on

rock). Split-spoon samples and Standard Penetration Resistance (N) values were obtained at 2-foot

intervals in the borings. Upon completion of drilling and water level measurements at time of boring, the

boreholes were backfilled with soil cuttings (and a mechanical hole-plug) to the subgrade level. The

coreholes were then filled and patched with high-strength grout.





April 3, 2017 4

Borings B-1 through B-26 were performed with both the CME 55 drill rig and an ATV-mounted CME 750

drill rig, both using hollow-stem auger techniques to advance the holes. (The ATV-mounted rig was

mobilized to the site after we observed the ground surface in the lower areas of the pad were wet and

unstable following rainfall.) Split-spoon samples and Standard Penetration Resistance (N) values were

obtained with an automatic hammer at 2-foot (generally continuous) intervals in the upper 10 feet, and

then at 5-foot intervals thereafter. At twenty-one (21) locations, the borings encountered auger refusal

shallower than the planned depth (20 feet for building borings, and 10 feet for pavement borings). At

most of these shallow refusal locations, we offset approximately 10 feet laterally and performed an

additional offset auger boring to further evaluate the refusal conditions (which generally encountered

similar refusal).

In addition to the SPT sampling, we also collected bulk samples of the auger cuttings (from the upper 3 to

5 feet of soil) from many of the borings. As described later, we evaluated and combined these samples

into seven composite bulk samples, blended by similar soil types (i.e., predominantly sandy, clayey, or silty)

and grouped into general areas, to provide a range of subgrade modulus values for the representative soils

encountered across the site.

After completion of drilling, we measured the depth to subsurface water at the time of boring (TOB).

Although the borings in existing pavement areas (C-1 through C-8) were backfilled immediately, most of

the other boreholes in the pad area were allowed to remain open to measure subsurface water levels the

next day. Where present in the boring, the depth to water was measured and recorded. If water was not

present, the hole cave-in depth was measured and recorded. We then backfilled the boreholes with soil

cuttings, and installed a mechanical hole plug near the surface in each boring to help reduce borehole

settlement.

The split-spoon samples and bulk samples were transported to our laboratory, where the Geotechnical

Engineer visually and manually classified the soils in general accordance with the guidelines of the Unified

Soil Classification System (USCS). The results of the classifications and the field testing results are

presented on the individual Boring Logs in Appendix II. The composite bulk samples were subjected to

laboratory index testing (moisture content, Atterberg limits, and sieve analysis) to aid in the classification

and evaluation of the soil’s engineering properties. We also performed Modified Proctor compaction and

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing on the bulk samples to help evaluate the soil’s pavement support

characteristics and suitability for use as structural fill. Appendix III contains the individual laboratory test

reports and Summary of Laboratory Test Data table.

In addition to the Appendix items referenced above, Appendix I also contains six Generalized Subsurface

Profiles (Figures 8 through 13), Photographs of Field Conditions (3 pages) and Time-Elapsed Aerial

Photographs (from the Spartanburg County GIS website); and Appendix II contains a Legend to Soil

Classification and Symbols, the Kessler DCP Test Data Tables (4 pages), and the Field Testing Procedures.

Ground surface elevations shown on the Boring Logs and Generalized Subsurface Profiles were interpolated

from the topographic contour data available on the Spartanburg County GIS website. Based on the

methods used, the boring locations and elevations should be considered approximate.





April 3, 2017 5

3.0 Site Conditions

Surface Features

Some of the surface feature information was initially described above in Section 1.0 Project Information,

and is supplemented in this report section. From our review of historical aerial photographs from the

Google Earth and Spartanburg County websites, in addition to previous research of the GSP Airport

history, the following is an approximate timeline of previous development in the project site vicinity:

♦ Original airport construction was in 1962 (not visible on the 1958 USGS Map, Figure 7);

♦ The 1983 USGS Map (Figure 6) and 1994 aerial photograph (Figure 5) show the former grass

runway terminating near the northeast end of the runway/taxiway;

♦ By 1996, the runway and taxiway had been extended to the northeast, along with construction of

the parallel service road, an apron at the northeast end of the taxiway, and Gateway Drive (these

features were not visible on the 1994 aerial photograph, Figure 5);

♦ Construction of the adjacent FedEx Distribution facility was completed in 2001 (construction

materials testing was performed by S&ME);

♦ The 2004 aerial photograph indicates the grading of the 26-acre area behind (southwest of)

FedEx, herein referenced as the “graded pad”, and associated detention pond had been

completed. We are not aware of any construction records which document the site grading

(observations or density testing during fill placement and compaction);

♦ In 2013, it appears the portion of Gateway Drive from (and including the intersection near) FedEx

to S.C. Highway 101 was re-surfaced or rehabilitated; and

♦ In 2015, a gravel driveway was constructed between the FedEx truck apron and the toe/swale

along the northeastern side of the graded pad, extending from the southern corner of the FedEx

parking lot to the service road. Besides this (and the growth of pine trees in the remaining

portion of old grass runway southeast of FedEx), there did not appear to be any other significant

changes to the surface features of the graded pad or taxiway between 2004 and present day.

The 1994 aerial photograph (Figure 5) indicates possible exposed rock at the ground surface in the

southern portion of the site, as an isolated area not covered by trees. Although not included in the time-

lapsed photographs in the Appendix, review of historic aerial photographs in Google Earth indicate the

wooded area south and east of the detention pond was clear-cut in approximately 2009. This clearing

revealed several areas of exposed rock at the ground surface, in close proximity to the graded pad (similar

to the 1994 observation within the pad), suggesting shallow rock is prevalent across this vicinity.

Topographic contour data available from the historic USGS Maps and Spartanburg County GIS website

should typically be considered approximate, although review of the data indicates significant grading has

occurred within the project construction area during multiple periods (described above). Currently, the

ground surface elevation of the graded pad varies from approximately 955 feet to 960 feet (pitched gently

from the pad’s central ridge toward perimeter drainage swales). The USGS Maps indicate the original

ground surface elevations within the project area varied from approximately 984 feet to 950 feet,

generally sloping downward from north to south toward drainage features and a creek. Compared to

current grades, it appears the northern half of the pad was excavated (cut) down as much as 20+ feet, and

the southern half of the pad was filled at least 10 feet during previous site grading.





April 3, 2017 6

As shown in the photographs in Appendix I, the pavements of the taxiway shoulder and parallel service

road are in moderate condition, considering their age (at least 20 years). These pavements exhibited

longitudinal cracking (along joints between adjacent “pulls”/”lanes”) and transverse cracks, which had

been sealed. We observed localized greater fatigue cracking on the service road near Boring C-6, which

also had been sealed. The recently resurfaced pavements of Gateway Drive appear in good condition;

however, the older pavement of Gateway Drive (the transition occurs approximately 150 feet southeast of

the intersection, roughly midway between borings C-7 and C-8) is in moderate condition. Review of

Google Earth aerial photographs indicates increased transverse cracking has occurred in the eastern leg of

Gateway Drive over the past 3 to 4 years.

As noted, our first day of field exploration was March 6, 2017. Rainfall occurred on the night before our

arrival. Although the ground surface initially appeared to be generally stable, the tires of the truck-

mounted rig deeply rutted the ground surface as it approached boring B-17 near the middle of the

graded pad (see photograph). We then observed standing water in several areas in the southern half of

the pad (in the area south of the general delineation of borings B-11/B-14/B-17/B-22). Although most of

the graded pad is covered with grass, we observed other different types of grass vegetation growing in

the southern wetter areas. Refer to the 2005 aerial photograph (Figure 4) in Appendix I which depicts a

difference in ground color, similar to observations during our reconnaissance. These conditions, in

conjunction with very slight pitch of the ground surface, suggest insufficient drainage in this southern

area. Surface drainage for the southern half of the pad is directed south to shallow perimeter drainage

swales that direct flow to a drop inlet (that discharges to the nearby detention pond).

Surface drainage for the northern half of the graded pad is directed north to a shallow perimeter drainage

swale that directs flow to the larger swale along the northeast side of the pad. This primary swale parallels

the 2015 gravel driveway (roughly 2 feet lower than the driveway) and follows along the toe of the pad

embankment. Compared to the grade at the pad slope crest, the depth of the swale bottom increases from

northwest to southeast, from about 1 foot near the north corner of the pad (near boring B-3) to 10 feet

near the east corner (near Boring B-25). The associated slope face, from pad crest to swale toe, is inclined

gently to moderately downward at an inclination shallower than about 5H:1V (horizontal to vertical).

Because the field work occurred over several days during the week of March 6, we were able to observe

changes in subgrade conditions over time, and as affected by prevailing weather. Early in the week, the

weather was cool and rainy, and as noted above, the subgrade conditions were moist/wet and generally

unstable in the southern half of the pad. (Notably, the subgrade conditions in the northern half of the pad

were less affected by the rainy weather, and maintained some stability even following rainfall.) On

Wednesday and Thursday (March 8 and 9), however, the weather improved to warmer near 70 degrees,

with higher speed winds. These conditions promoted drying of the subgrade with improved stability, such

that by Wednesday afternoon, we could drive trucks across the southern half of the pad without rutting.

Also, on Thursday March 9, we observed soil cuttings brought to the ground surface by the drilling augers

dried very quickly when subjected to the warm temperature and high winds.

Area Geology

The project site is in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of South Carolina. The Piedmont

Physiographic Province is a relatively broad strip extending from central Alabama across Georgia and the

Carolinas into Virginia. Rocks of the Piedmont occur in belts that are some of the oldest formations in the

United States. The rock types are primarily metamorphic gneiss and schist with some granite intrusions.





April 3, 2017 7

The major portion of the bedrock in the Piedmont is covered with a varying thickness of residual soil

which has been derived by chemical decomposition and physical weathering of the underlying rock.

Residual soils developed during the weathering of this bedrock consist predominately of micaceous sandy

silts and silty sands which grade to clayey silts and silty clays with nearness to the ground surface. The

thickness of the residual soils can vary from only a few feet to in excess of 100 feet.

The boundary between the residual soil and the underlying bedrock is not sharply defined. Generally, a

transition zone consisting of very hard soil to soft rock, appropriately classified as “partially weathered

rock,” (PWR) is found. Within the transition zone, large boulders or lenses of relatively “fresh” rock which

are generally much harder than the surrounding material often exist. The irregular bedrock surface is

basically a consequence of differential weathering of the various minerals and joint patterns of the rock

mass. It is also common for boulders rock pinnacles to be encountered within the PWR zone.

Portions of the natural geological profile of the site have been modified by past grading activities that

have resulted in the placement of fill and/or disturbance of the upper natural soil. From review of historic

aerial photographs and USGS Maps, it appears the site has been graded at multiple times in the past.

Please keep in mind that existing fill can vary in composition and consistency, and the engineering

characteristics of existing fill can be difficult to predict. Although there is no specific correlation between

the degree of compaction of existing fill and the results of penetration testing, a qualitative assessment of

existing fill can often be made based on visual observation of the fill materials sampled in the borings and

the general magnitude of the penetration test values.

The typical Piedmont soil profile can also be altered through activities such as agricultural farming and

cultivation, which create a disturbed soil layer. These “cultivated” or “disturbed” soils often exist in a loose

or soft condition and are highly sensitive to moisture content changes. Previously cultivated soils may also

contain a higher concentration of roots and organic material. The presence of cultivated soil suggests that

portions of the site were likely used for agricultural farmland prior to its current development.

Subsurface Conditions

The following description of subsurface conditions is relatively brief and general. For more detailed

information, the individual Borings Logs contained in the Appendix should be consulted. Similar soils

were grouped into strata on the logs. The strata contact lines represent approximate boundaries between

soil types; the actual transition between soil types in the field could be gradual in both the horizontal and

vertical directions.

Surface Material

Borings B-1 through B-26 initially penetrated a layer of organic topsoil at the ground surface. Across the

graded pad, the topsoil thickness generally varied from 2 inches to 5 inches. In the perimeter drainage

swales, the topsoil thickness varied from 3 inches to 8 inches (and was generally thicker in the southern

half of the site). The pavement cores at the following eight boring locations encountered asphalt

pavement of variable thickness and underlying material, as tabulated below.





April 3, 2017 8

Table 3-1: Cored Pavement Section Thicknesses

Pavement

Core #

Asphalt

Thickness

Underlying

Material

Total

Section

Thickness

Location Notes

C-1 2-3/4” 10" stone base 12-3/4” Taxiway shoulder, middle “pull/lane”

C-2 2-5/8” 10-3/8" stone base 13” Taxiway shoulder, outer “pull/lane”

C-3 2-1/2” 8-1/2" stone base 11” Taxiway shoulder, outer “pull/lane”

C-4 2-3/4” 9-1/4" stone base 12” Taxiway shoulder, middle “pull/lane”

C-5 3-1/8”

(2 layers)8" stone base 11-1/8” Service Road, south/west-bound lane

C-6 3-1/4”

(2 layers)7-3/4" stone base 11” Service Road, north/east-bound lane

C-7 6” 8” cement-treated

base course 14” Gateway Drive, 2014 resurfaced portion

C-8 3” 9" stone base 12” Gateway Drive, non-resurfaced portion

The topsoil and pavement section thicknesses will vary beyond the boring locations, in unexplored areas

of the site.

Existing Fill

Existing fill soils were encountered beneath the surficial materials in most of the borings (30 of the 37

total borings), generally extending to depths of about 1 to 9 feet below the existing ground surface. The

sampled fill varied widely in composition, consisting mostly of sandy clay (USCS symbol CL), silty sand

(SM), clayey sand (SC), and sandy silt (ML). Trace (less than 5%) organic roots, gravel, and/or rock

fragments were noted in portions of the fill sampled. Most of the N-values recorded in the fill ranged

from 8 to 38 blows per foot (bpf), suggesting a variable (low to moderately high) degree of compaction

was applied. However, some of these N-values were likely amplified by gravel and rock fragments within

the fill. Boring B-4 encountered a layer of apparent rock cobbles near the bottom of the fill zone between

2 and 3 feet. The lower N-values were also measured near the ground surface, where the near-surface fills

have likely been softened by exposure to standing water (and freeze/thaw cycles) over the past 15 years.

One very low N-value of 3 bpf was measured in the fill in boring B-26; although this condition is likely

indicative of this area being previously used for a material lay-down yard.

Below the taxiway shoulder pavement section, the existing sandy clay fill in borings C-1 through C-4 was

approximately 6 to 12 inches thick and appeared to have been placed as a sub-base course. Although

most of this portion of the taxiway had been apparently “cut” to current grade, it is common for a layer of

compacted select fill to be placed as a sub-base course for pavements. Similarly, although much of the

northern half of the graded pad was apparently in an area of shallow to deep cut (comparing current

grades to historic/original grades), we observed many of the borings in the northern “cut” portion still

encountered a thin (1- to 2-foot thick) layer of fill near the ground surface.

Within pavement borings C-1 through C-8, a total of six Kessler DCP index values were measured within

the sandy clay (CL) fill layer below the existing pavement section. CBR values correlated from DCP index

values were widely scattered, ranging from 4.6 percent (in stiff CL at boring C-8) to 17.9 percent (in stiff CL





April 3, 2017 9

at boring C-1). These low and high CBR values correlate to Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) values of

approximately 95 pci and 270 pci, respectively. At borings performed in the graded pad area, a total of

forty-two Kessler DCP index values were measured within the fill layer, and the DCP testing was

performed within a variety of soil types (CL, SM, SC, and ML). CBR values correlated from DCP index

values were widely scattered, ranging from 0.9 percent (in soft, very moist CL at boring B-17 – where

subgrade rutting occurred) to 33.6 percent (in medium dense SM at boring B-7). These low and high CBR

values correlate to Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) values of approximately 30 pci and 440 pci,

respectively.

Fill soils tend to become wet due to rainwater runoff infiltrating these type soils and becoming trapped or

“perched” above layers of more consistent residual soils (or shallow partially weathered rock). Additional

fill will likely be present in unexplored areas of the site, such as in deeper sections of the graded pad. The

depth and composition of fill in unexplored areas will vary and could be deeper, erratically compacted,

and/or contain excessive organic matter.

Cultivated Soils

Below the fill at depths varying from approximately 2½ to 9 feet, five borings (B-16, B-18, B-21, B-23, and

B-24) in the southern portion of the site, encountered a ½- to 1-foot thick layer of material resembling

previously cultivated soils. Notably, this material was encountered below the fill, and just above the

partially weathered rock or refusal level in these borings (described below). The sampled cultivated soil

typically consisted of sandy clay (CL) and clayey sand (SC). The cultivated soil contained trace to some

organic roots and gravel, and we observed it was moist to very moist. The N-values recorded in the

cultivated soil ranged from 5 to 18 bpf, although the higher N-values were likely amplified by gravel.

Review of the 1958 USGS Map indicates the southern half of the site could have been used for farming in

the past, as much of the rural land use in this area was previously agrarian.

Residual Soils

Residual soils (residuum) of the type common to the Greer area were encountered beneath the surface

materials or fill in most of the borings (exceptions to this condition were the several borings where

weathered rock was encountered immediately below the fill or cultivated soil). The residuum primarily

consisted of sandy clay (CL), clayey sand (SC), and silty sand (SM); with a lesser proportion consisting of

silty clay (CL), sandy silt (ML), sand with silt (SP-SM), and sand (SP). Some of the residual soil samples

contained rock fragments and variable amounts of mica. The N-values recorded in the residual soils

ranged from 4 to 77 bpf, indicating a soft to very hard consistency for the clays/silts, and a loose to very

dense relative density for the sands. The lower N-values were generally measured in residual soils near

the subsurface water level. Due to widespread shallow weathered rock/refusal conditions (described

below), only ten borings were terminated in residuum at their planned depths of 10 to 20 feet below the

existing ground/pavement surface. These borings (C-1, C-2, C-4 through C-7; and B-1, B-6, B-8, and B-11)

were generally located in the northern and western portions of the site.

Within pavement borings C-1 through C-8, a total of eleven Kessler DCP index values were measured

within the residuum below the fill or existing pavement section, and the DCP testing was performed

predominantly in sandy clay CL (and some SM). CBR values correlated from DCP index values were widely

scattered, with most ranging from 8.7 percent (in stiff CL at boring C-2) to 29.3 percent (in hard CL at

boring C-5). These low and high CBR values correlate to Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) values of

approximately 155 pci and 400 pci, respectively. At borings performed in the graded pad area, a total of





April 3, 2017 10

twenty-one Kessler DCP index values were measured within the residuum, and the DCP testing was

performed within a variety of soil types (CL, SM, SP-SM, and ML). CBR values correlated from DCP index

values were widely scattered, ranging from 5.7 percent (in stiff CL at boring B-3) to 81.8 percent (in very

dense SM at boring B-5). These low and high CBR values correlate to Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k)

values of approximately 110 pci and 890 pci, respectively (although the higher values were likely amplified

by partially weathered rock, and not necessarily representative of the soil consistency).

Partially Weathered Rock / Auger Refusal

Most of the borings (28 of the 37 total borings) encountered partially weathered rock (PWR) and/or auger

refusal at depths shallower than their planned termination depths. Borings B-1, B-5 and C-1 encountered

PWR lenses in the residual soil zone at depths ranging from 2½ to 6 below the ground surface. Borings

B-2 through B-6, and C-3, encountered continuous PWR at depths of 4½ to 9 feet, and penetrated PWR

to their planned termination depths of 10 and 11 feet. Borings B-7, B-9 through B-26, and C-8,

encountered PWR at depths of 1 to 8½ feet, penetrated a relatively thin layer of PWR (ranging in

thickness from a few inches to about 2½ feet) and then encountered auger refusal at depths ranging from

1.2 to 10 feet. At most of these shallow refusal locations, we offset approximately 10 feet laterally and

performed an additional offset auger boring to further evaluate the refusal conditions (which generally

encountered similar refusal). As illustrated on the Generalized Subsurface Profiles (Figures 8 through 13) in

Appendix I, correlating these depths with site elevations indicates PWR as shallow as approximate El. 958

feet, and refusal as shallow as approximate El. 957 feet. For the southern entrance driveway, boring B-26

(located in the currently wooded area) encountered shallow refusal at a depth of approximately 4.5 feet,

near El. 963 feet.

The PWR was generally classified as very dense silty sand (SM), sand (SP), and sand with silt (SP-SM) with

rock fragments. N-values of greater than 50 blows per 6 inches were measured in the PWR zone. Based

on our observation of the drill rig operation at the refusal levels, auger refusal in the borings is apparently

indicative of mass rock.

Subsurface Water

Subsurface water was encountered in five borings (B-1, B-3, B-3A, B-6, and B-8), either at termination of

boring (TOB) or after a period of 24 hours, at depths ranging from 4.6 to 8.0 feet below the ground

surface. As illustrated on the Generalized Subsurface Profiles (Figures 8 through 13) in Appendix I, these

depths correspond with site elevations ranging from approximately El. 950 feet to El. 947 feet. Several

borings indicated hole cave-in depths within this elevation range (in conjunction with observed very moist

soil samples), suggesting that subsurface water could be slightly below the cave-in depth. The presence

of shallow PWR and refusal/rock conditions likely affects the subsurface water level at this site (as

subsurface water can perch above these materials). It should also be noted that subsurface water levels

will fluctuate during the year, due to such things as seasonal variations, precipitation, and construction

activity in the area.

Laboratory Testing

As previously discussed in Section 2.0 Exploration and Testing, we collected bulk samples of the auger

cuttings (from the upper 3 to 5 feet of soil) from many of the borings. We evaluated and combined these

samples into seven composite bulk samples, blended by similar soil types (i.e., predominantly sandy, clayey,

or silty) and grouped into general areas, to provide a range of subgrade modulus values for the





April 3, 2017 11

representative fill and residual soils encountered across the site. In addition to laboratory index testing

(moisture content, Atterberg limits, and sieve analysis) we performed Modified Proctor compaction and

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing on the composite bulk samples to help evaluate the soil’s pavement

support characteristics and suitability for use as structural fill. The CBR specimens were remolded to 95

percent of the soil’s maximum dry density, based on the Modified Proctor (ASTM D 1557), in accordance

with the referenced FAA Advisory Circulars. This degree of compaction is not necessarily representative of

the existing/in situ condition; however, we will recommend that that subgrade soils be compacted to at

least this minimum compaction threshold during site preparation and fill placement.

Appendix III contains the individual laboratory test reports and Summary of Laboratory Test Data table,

and the results are summarized below:

♦ The composite samples varied in soil classification from sandy clay (CL), sandy clay (CL) with mica,

clayey sand (SC), and silty-clayey sand (SC-SM). These soil classifications generally represented

the majority of the site soils sampled in the upper 3 to 5 feet;

♦ Percent fines for the CL soils ranged from 60 to 64 percent, and the percent fines for the SC and

SC-SM soils ranged from 40 to 47 percent;

♦ Plasticity Index for the CL soils ranged from 9 to 19 percent, and the Plasticity Index for the SC

and SC-SM soils ranged from 4 to 10 percent;

♦ Modified Proctor Maximum Dry Density (MDD) for the CL soils ranged from 109.1 to 123.1 pcf,

and the MDD for the SC and SC-SM soils ranged from 122.3 to 129.0 pcf;

♦ Modified Proctor Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) for the CL soils ranged from 12.5 to 18.0

percent, and the OMC for the SC and SC-SM soils ranged from 8.0 to 12.4 percent;

♦ In situ Moisture Content for the CL soils ranged from 14.6 to 30.1 percent (roughly 2 to 12

percent over OMC), and the in situ Moisture Content for the SC and SC-SM soils ranged from 13.9

to 16.3 percent (roughly 1 to 6 percent over OMC);

♦ CBR values for the CL soils ranged from approximately 10 to 19 percent, and the CBR values for

the SC and SC-SM soils ranged from approximately 12 to 36 percent;

♦ The percent swell of the CBR specimens (after soaking for 96 hours) ranged from 0.2 percent to

1.2 percent, and averaged 0.8 percent for the six CBR specimens tested.

4.0 Site Grading Recommendations

The boring data indicates most of the site is underlain by some existing fill soils associated with previous

grading of the pad approximately 15 years ago. Primary geotechnical considerations for this project

include:

♦ Installation of a functioning drainage system to help mitigate the destabilizing effects of perched

water (trapped in the relatively thin layer of soil above shallow, very dense PWR/rock);

♦ Thorough evaluation of existing fill soils and stability of exposed silty/clayey soils in both

excavation and fill placement areas;

♦ The potential for difficult excavation conditions due to very shallow partially weathered rock

(PWR) and mass rock, particularly for deep utility trench excavations and grading for the entrance

driveway from Gateway Drive; and

♦ Selection of an appropriate CBR value for design of the site pavements, based on highly variable

field and laboratory CBR test results.





April 3, 2017 12

Our experience indicates silty/clayey soils can become soft and unstable, especially after heavy rainfall and

rubber-tired traffic, requiring some undercutting and/or stabilization with crushed stone. The sampled fill

and residual soils generally appear suitable to be left in place for building and pavement support;

however, the stability of these soils varies greatly with prevailing weather conditions (precipitation and

temperature) at time of grading. With any previously disturbed site, some undercutting of existing fill

should be expected.

Although a final grading plan has not yet been developed, we understand proposed grades will likely be

very close to the current topography of the graded pad. The borings indicated partially weathered rock

(PWR) and mass rock are very shallow in several areas of the site, and difficult excavation conditions could

be encountered (depending on selected final grades).

The following presents our geotechnical recommendations regarding grading for the proposed Cargo

Ramp apron, warehouse/distribution building, and associated pavements. When reviewing this

information, please remember portions of the site have been previously disturbed, developed, and/or

graded. Our experience with sites such as this indicates unexpected conditions, such as deposits of

unsuitable existing fill or low consistency natural soils, could exist between the boring locations and

unexplored areas of the site. Accordingly, field engineering evaluations during construction will be very

important and modifications to our recommendations could be required.

The design and construction team should understand our recommendations are based on the premise

that an S&ME representative will be on-site to observe and document site work, including site

preparation, proofrolling, undercutting, excavation, fill placement, and to perform density testing of fills.

Proper site preparation and maintenance is critical to providing time- and cost-efficient construction. Our

observations and tests can be a vital component in improving the performance and efficiency of the site

work.

Pavements, base course materials, and sub-base materials should be designed and constructed in

accordance with the referenced FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10G, “Standards for Specifying

Construction of Airports” (dated July 21, 2014), or otherwise updated.

Site Preparation

Stripping

Site preparation should begin with the removal of all unsuitable surface materials. Stripping should

extend at least 5 to 10 feet outside the proposed construction limits, where practical. This would include

the removal of surface vegetation, organic laden topsoil, and any unstable near-surface soils. Across the

graded pad area, the topsoil thickness generally varied from about 2 to 4 inches; however, in the

perimeter drainage swales, the topsoil thickness was thicker (on the order of 5 to 8 inches) and will require

additional mucking prior to fill placement. In the wooded area (around boring B-26), we anticipate

stripping depths will be greater to remove tree root systems.

Drainage

At the time of the exploration, we observed the upper surficial soils were notably moist from recent

rainfall. We anticipate this condition is indicative of currently poor drainage, caused by a relatively flat





April 3, 2017 13

ground surface, along surface water becoming perched in the fill above the shallow, very dense PWR. As

observed by the subgrade rutting near boring B-17 (where only 2 feet of soil is present above PWR), this

unfavorable condition will likely adversely affect the subgrade and pavement performance. We

recommend that final grades be designed to promote positive drainage of surface water.

Although most of the site will be covered with building and pavements (thus reducing surface infiltration

of water), it is important to incorporate adequate subsurface drainage, in the event water seeps into the

subgrade. This can be accomplished through installation of sub-pavement drainage pipes (within and/or

below the stone base layer), or shallow French drains near low points in the pavement that drain toward

catch basins. Installation of French drains should also extend into areas of shallow PWR/rock, as shown

on the Generalized Subsurface Profiles in Appendix I. These drains, in conjunction with installation of

typical sideline/perimeter underdrains, will help prevent infiltrating water from becoming

perched/trapped in the subgrade above the PWR. Adequate subsurface drainage will be critical for long-

term pavement performance. We recommend the French drains be installed as early as practical following

stripping, to promote drying of the subgrade prior to mass grading.

Mass grading activities typically result in areas of soil subgrade being exposed for extended periods. It is

critical the grading contractor protect the exposed soils from becoming soaked during inclement weather.

Positive site drainage must be maintained during all operations, including the initial stripping of the site.

Failure to provide positive site drainage could result in extensive and costly repairs to the exposed

subgrades, as well as construction delays.

Please keep in mind the exposed subgrade soil of both cut and fill areas can deteriorate when exposed to

construction activity and environmental changes such as freezing, erosion, softening from ponded

rainwater, and rutting from construction traffic. We recommend the exposed subgrade surfaces that have

deteriorated be properly repaired by scarifying and recompacting immediately prior to construction. If

this has to be performed during wet weather conditions, it would be worthwhile to consider undercutting

the deteriorated soil and replacing it with crushed stone.

Existing Fill

As previously discussed, existing fill soils were encountered in most of the borings to depths ranging from

about 1 to 9 feet below the existing ground surface. Although we are not aware of any construction

records that document the placement and compaction of the fill at the time of grading, based on the SPT

N-values it appears that the fill was generally placed in a controlled manner with the intent of structural

support. Based on the boring data, the fill soils can likely be left in place below building and pavement

areas, provided they are assessed to be adequately stable by the proofrolling methods discussed in

Section 4.1.5. However, we expect some of these soils will require undercutting, even if grading is

performed in favorable weather. During drier parts of the year, these soils can sometimes be scarified and

densified in-place, while they need to be undercut/replaced during other times. This is typically dictated

by season of the year and weather conditions. Evaluation and undercutting should be closely observed by

an S&ME Geotechnical Engineer or Site Technician.

Silty/Clayey Soils

A consideration with the soils at this site is that the majority of the near-surface soils have a high fines (silt

and clay) content, and do not comply with the material requirements for P-154 Sub-base Course. That is,

the higher fines content of the CL (and some SM/SC) soils in place alter the drainage, stabilization, and





April 3, 2017 14

support characteristics desired for sub-base materials. These soils can generally provide suitable

structural support, but they are sensitive to moisture during grading. This could require close moisture

control, and compaction using both sheepsfoot and pneumatic tire roller type compactors. This can be a

significant consideration if grading is performed during unfavorable weather. Also, these types of soil

tend to degrade quickly, especially when heavy equipment operates on the exposed subgrade during wet

weather conditions. Depending on prevailing weather, drying/scarifying these soils with disc harrows or

mixing crushed stone with them could be needed.

Proofrolling and Subgrade Evaluation

After stripping and removing any near-surface unstable soils (and prior to planned fill placement), the

exposed subgrade should be evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer to help assess that unsuitable

materials have been removed. Although the split-spoon samples and SPT data suggest the existing fill

appears generally suitable for building and pavement support, our experience indicates the

consistency/quality of fill is inherently variable, and some areas might not be suitable for structural

support. This variability warrants thorough evaluation of the site subgrade prior to fill placement and

building/pavement construction.

To aid the Engineer during the evaluation, the exposed subgrade should be proofrolled with a heavily

loaded tandem-axle dump truck or similar rubber-tired equipment. Proofrolling helps reveal the presence

of disturbed, unstable or otherwise unsuitable surface materials. Areas that are judged to contain

unsuitable soils or that visually yield or “pump”, indicating softer unstable zones, should be undercut or

stabilized in-place as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. Depending on the results of the

proofrolling, some shallow test pits and/or hand auger borings with DCP testing could be needed to help

further evaluate the suitability of the subsurface soils.

Proofrolling should only be performed during favorable weather so that otherwise suitable subgrade soils

are not disturbed. The borings indicated the surficial soils were moist, so the upper soils should be

allowed to dry (or be scarified and recompacted) prior to proofrolling and evaluation. After topsoil

stripping, we anticipate the subgrade soils will begin to dry and stabilize if exposed to warm dry weather

(and then protected from seeping/standing water following rain, as recommended).

Where undercutting is recommended (if required, based on observations during proofrolling), it should

extend laterally beyond the building limits to a distance of 5 feet or the undercut depth, whichever is

greater. Undercutting should extend vertically down to stable residual soil or partially weathered rock and

backfilled to plan subgrade elevation with well-compacted structural fill. We recommend having a

sufficient budget contingency to account for repair or improvement of these subgrades by undercutting

or other stabilization measures.

As noted above, any low-lying areas beyond the graded pad (including the perimeter swales, and the

drainage swale between Taxiway Lima and the service driveway) should be cleaned of any loose sediment

deposits, and then compacted/densified to create a stable subgrade. Thorough subgrade preparation

and evaluation (by proofrolling and other means) of these sideline soil areas, and subsequent filling with

compacted structural fill, will be very important to create a uniform pavement subgrade and help avoid

developing a possible differential settlement condition.





April 3, 2017 15

Excavation

The boring data indicates excavation will primarily extend through low to high consistency fill, residual

soils, PWR, and possibly mass rock (depending on selected final grades for utilities and the entrance

driveway). As previously discussed, the borings encountered PWR and rock at depths as shallow as 1 to 2

feet below the surface (near Elevations 957 and 958 feet within the graded pad), although the PWR/rock

depths were variable across the site. For the southern entrance driveway, boring B-26 (located in the

currently wooded area) encountered shallow refusal at a depth of approximately 4.5 feet, near El. 963 feet.

Therefore, difficult excavation conditions should be anticipated and budged accordingly.

Please keep in mind rock in a weathered, boulder, and massive form varies very erratically in depth and

location in the Piedmont Geologic Province. Also, rock lenses and boulders could be encountered within

the PWR zone. Accordingly, there is always a potential that refusal materials could be encountered at

shallower depths in unexplored areas of the site. Prior to construction, we recommend performing several

test pits in the planned excavation areas near the boring locations that encountered PWR and refusal to

help evaluate the anticipated excavation difficulty. If these test pits are performed in the building area,

they should be backfilled with compacted crushed stone.

The following presents our comments regarding excavation of these various materials based on our

experience.

Low To High Consistency Residual Soils

These materials can be excavated by routine earthmoving equipment. That is, mass excavation can be

accomplished by a bulldozer, moderately heavy front end loader, or bulldozer pushed scrapper. Local

excavation for shallow utility trenches can be accomplished by a heavy backhoe or tracked excavator.

Partially Weathered Rock

This material can normally be excavated by very hard ripping or diligently using a heavy front-end loader.

The PWR will cause difficulty to a conventional backhoe requiring the use of a heavy tracked excavator

operating with difficulty, with the possibility of some blasting or hand excavation using pneumatic tools

where boulders or rock lenses are present.

Massive Rock

Refusal to auger advancement was encountered by many of the borings and should be expected

throughout the site, depending on selected final grades. Excavation below the auger refusal level in the

borings should be expected to require the use of rock excavation measures, including pneumatic tools,

hoe ram attachments, and/or blasting. Because of the high potential for encountering massive rock

during local/trench excavation (and possibly mass grading for the entrance driveway), we suggest

the following clauses for rock definition be considered for use in preparing project specifications:

Rock Excavation - Any material that cannot be excavated with a single tooth ripper drawn by a

crawler tractor having a minimum flywheel power rated at not less than 305 horsepower

(Caterpillar D-8N or equivalent), occupying an original volume of at least one cubic yard or more,

and requires blasting or use of pneumatic hammers.

Trench Excavation - Any material which cannot be excavated with a Caterpillar 345 or equivalent,

occupying an original volume of at least ½ cubic yard or more, and which requires blasting or

other rock excavation methods.





April 3, 2017 16

Because rock excavation is a high potential for this site, an important part of the grading contract

negotiations is the method used to measure the volume of any rock excavated. Our experience has found

that excavation of PWR and rock is dependent upon the equipment and methods used by the contractor

and the diligence used for excavation of this material. These items should be agreed upon and

understood by all parties prior to grading.

All excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations,

including OSHA (29 CFR Part 1926) excavation trench safety standards. The contractor is solely

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

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

Fill Placement and Compaction

After excavation and subgrade preparation activities are complete (and any necessary undercutting), at-

grade areas and areas requiring fill placement should be moisture-conditioned and densified/compacted

in-place to at least 95 percent of the soil’s maximum dry density, as determined by a laboratory Modified

Proctor compaction test (ASTM D-1557). Then, areas requiring fill placement should be raised to their

design subgrade elevation with soil free of deleterious materials. Any PWR/rock fragments within the new

fill should have a maximum particle size less than 4 inches in diameter. The fill should be uniformly

spread in 6- to 8-inch thick loose lifts and be compacted to at least 95 percent of the soil’s maximum dry

density, as determined by a laboratory Modified Proctor compaction test (ASTM D-1557). The moisture

content should be controlled at plus to minus 3 percent of optimum. Stricter moisture control could be

required to achieve satisfactory compaction of the silty/clayey soils at this site.

Fill placement should be observed by a qualified Materials Technician working under the general direction

of the Geotechnical Engineer. In addition to this visual evaluation, the Technician should perform a

sufficient number of in-place field density tests to confirm the required degree of compaction is attained.

Periodic field “check plugs” should be performed to help determine the correct Proctor data to use.

Use of Excavated Soils as Fill

We expect the existing fill and residual soils should be adaptable for use as structural fill for building and

pavement areas. Based on our observation of the split-spoon samples from the borings, we anticipate

much of the existing fill (minus any debris or deleterious material) will likely be suitable for re-use as

structural fill, although some moisture adjustment could be required to achieve the recommended degree

of compaction. From the laboratory testing, we anticipate some drying of the upper soils will be needed,

as the in-situ moisture content of each of the seven bulk samples was higher than the Optimum Moisture

Content (OMC) determined by its Modified Proctor test. For four of the seven samples, the in-situ

moisture content was 6 to 12 percent higher than the OMC, indicating significant drying effort could be

required. Existing fill materials should be evaluated by our technician during excavation to assess whether

they are suitable for possible re-use. Soils not suitable for use as structural fill can likely be used as fill for

landscaped or other “green” areas.

Most of the PWR will also be suitable for use as structural fill, provided it can be broken down to the

recommended maximum particle size. This material is typically excavated in the form of blocks. Normally,

heavy sheepsfoot type compaction equipment can suitably pulverize these blocks into soil sized to 4-inch

diameter particles.





April 3, 2017 17

The moisture content of the on-site soil, especially those near the surface, will fluctuate with weather

conditions. Depending upon the time grading begins, some drying or wetting could be required to

achieve the required degree of compaction.

Use of Off-Site Borrow Materials as Fill

Imported fill used for site grading should consist of a clean (free of organics and debris), low plasticity soil

(Liquid Limit less than 50, Plasticity Index less than 25), and be evaluated by a Geotechnical Engineer prior

to use. However, to truly gain the benefits of using “select” fill material for improved pavement subgrade

support, we recommend refining the following physical characteristic requirements:

♦ Liquid Limit less than 40, Plasticity Index less than 10;

♦ Percent fines less than 40 percent;

♦ Mica content less than 0.5 percent by weight; and

♦ Modified Proctor maximum dry density greater than 120 pounds per cubic foot.

Note the gradation and plasticity requirements for Sub-Base material, per FAA Section P-154 of the

referenced Advisory Circulars, are more stringent than these values.

Fill Slopes

Although we anticipate only minor new fill across most of the graded pad, significant fill thickness (on the

order of 8 to 9 feet) will likely be required to extend the northeastern side of the pad to accommodate the

length of the proposed building. This will entail extending the crest of the existing slope to the northeast,

and filling the existing drainage swale. Prior to grading the slope, the existing slope face should be

stripped of topsoil, and the bottom of the swale mucked of loose sediment/topsoil and evaluated for

stability. As the new fill slope is graded, the existing slope face should be “benched” in a stepped

configuration to promote a positive bond between the existing slope material and new fill (placed and

compacted in horizontal lifts as “structural fill”). The resulting slope face should be inclined no steeper

than 2H:1V (horizontal to vertical), and preferably flatter.

A similar condition is expected for the filling of the same deep swale near the entrance driveway (near

boring B-25), and filling of the sideline drainage swale along Taxiway Lima (for grading of the air-side

entrance to the cargo ramp area). Therefore, the recommendations for swale subgrade preparation,

benching, and fill placement apply for these slope/embankment areas as well.

Wet Weather Grading

During wet weather, special measures will be necessary for this site. These will include the following:

♦ Excavated ditches to help reduce rainwater runoff from flowing on to the construction area.

♦ The ground surface should be pitched to promote rainwater run-off and help prevent ponding of

surface water.

♦ The exposed ground surface should be sealed at the end of each work day (if inclement weather

is expected) to help reduce rainwater seepage into the soil.

♦ The Contractor should have equipment, such as disk harrows, to help scarify and dry the wet soil.

Some spreading of the soil and aerating could be needed.

♦ Additional undercutting of unstable soil will be needed during wet weather.





April 3, 2017 18

5.0 Structure Recommendations

Spread Foundations

The following footing design recommendations are based on the assumption that our Geotechnical

Engineer (or the Engineer’s representative Field Technician) will be on-site during grading and

construction activities to observe footing excavations and to assess that appropriate bearing soils are

present, as well as to evaluate foundation bearing surfaces are properly prepared prior to footing

construction.

Provided the previous recommendations (regarding site preparation, proofrolling, subgrade evaluation

and preparation, and new fill placement) are followed, shallow foundations consisting of conventional

spread footings may be used to support the planned single-story building. The foundations can be

designed and sized using a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000 psf, for foundations

bearing in approved residual soil or well-compacted fill. Although a higher bearing pressure is available

for foundations bearing in PWR (typically 4000+ psf), portions of the building will be supported by 10+

feet of fill/residual soil, so the lower value is recommended to help avoid a potential differential

settlement condition.

The building foundations will span between areas of fill, residual soils, and PWR (and possibly refusal

material, massive rock). To help prevent/reduce potential differential settlements, we recommend

foundations not bear directly on massive rock. If encountered within the foundation excavation,

massive rock should be over-excavated at least one foot below the design bearing level, and a one-

foot thick layer of well-compacted fill should be placed over the rock.

The foundations should bear at least 18 inches below grade so they will not be adversely affected by frost

penetration and to develop the design bearing pressure. Continuous strip footings should not be less

than 24 inches wide and isolated column/pedestal footings should not be less than 36 inches wide. This

recommendation is made to help prevent a “localized” or “punching” shear failure condition which could

exist with very narrow footings. Also, the building foundations should be setback at least 10 feet from the

crest of any slope.

Foundation Construction Recommendations

Proper foundation construction procedures can enhance long-term foundation performance. We

recommend the following procedures for use during construction:

♦ All bearing surfaces should be cleaned of wet, loose or soft soils prior to the placement of

concrete or rebar;

♦ The foundation bearing surfaces must be observed and evaluated by our Geotechnical Engineer

or representative prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. Often, excavation results in

disturbance to the bearing soils. Also, unsuitable soil not detected by the proofrolling evaluation

(such as cultivated soil below a relatively thin layer of fill, such as at borings B-16 and B-18) could

underlie some excavation areas. Some localized undercutting or stabilization of low consistency

soil with crushed stone could be necessary in some areas. The Engineer should identify such

areas and can make recommendations for the appropriate repair and/or stabilization;





April 3, 2017 19

♦ Foundation concrete should be placed in the excavation the same day the foundations are

excavated. If an excavation is to remain open overnight, and there is a chance of rain, a 2- to 3-

inch thick mud mat of lean (2,000 psi) concrete can be placed in the bottom of the excavation to

protect the bearing soils. This will help limit the potential for additional excavation of wet,

softened soils which often results when excavations are exposed to inclement weather;

♦ Undercut excavations should be backfilled with ASTM No. 57 crushed stone under the

observation of the Geotechnical Engineer. It should be placed in maximum 1-foot thick lifts and

tamped thoroughly using a “Wacker Packer” or vibrating sled style compactor; and

♦ Foundation excavations should be “clean cut” and concrete should be placed “neat”, without the

use of forms, where possible.

Settlement

Based on the anticipated structural loads and our experience with similar subsurface conditions, and

sizing the foundations based on the recommended bearing pressure, we estimate maximum column

settlement (due to the weight and live loads from the structure) to be less than 1 inch, with differential

settlement to be on the order of ½ inch.

Floor Slab

The building’s floor slab may be soil supported, provided the recommendations discussed in the sections

entitled 4.1 Site Preparation and 4.3 Fill Placement and Compaction are followed. Based on the boring

results and our experience, a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 130 pci (based on the 30-inch diameter

plate method) may be used for floor slab design, provided that a recommended 6-inch thick layer of

crushed stone is installed to separate the floor slab from the compacted subgrade soils. The crushed

stone should consist of Macadam Base Course compacted to at least 100 percent of the material’s

standard Proctor maximum dry density. This layer will help reduce construction downtime during wet

weather conditions and will provide a good leveling course. Also, it will be very important to provide

proper compaction of the subgrade soils and proper drainage around the floor slab to help reduce the

migration of rainwater runoff below the floor slab.

It is our opinion, based on the anticipated floor elevation (and assumed installation of a subgrade

drainage system), a plastic vapor retarder is not required beneath the floor slab for geotechnical

considerations. However, based on our observation of the moist subgrade conditions and potential for

water to become perched/trapped in the soil zone above the dense PWR layer, installation of a vapor

retarder could help prevent moisture transmission through the slab. However, the need for a vapor

retarder will depend on the floor covering design, and the local building code for the type of structure.

Seismic Conditions

Using the general procedure of the International Building Code (IBC), 2015 Edition, Section 1613.3 (which

references Chapter 20 of ASCE 7), the boring data and our experience, it is our interpretation this site has

a seismic Site Class of C. There are no active earthquake fault zones within close proximity to the general

area and thus the site vicinity is not known to be subject to concerns of any major geologic hazards such

as significant ground shaking, liquefaction, seismically induced slope failures, etc.





April 3, 2017 20

Retaining Walls

As previously discussed, retaining walls will be needed for the building’s loading dock walls, and also

possibly for the “blast wall” in the northern corner of the pad. We assume these walls will be constructed

as cast-in-place (CIP) concrete retaining walls. CIP concrete retaining walls must be capable of resisting

lateral earth pressures that will be imposed on them. Lateral earth pressures to be resisted by the walls

will be partially dependent upon the method of construction. Assuming the walls are relatively rigid and

structurally braced against rotation, they should be designed for a condition approaching the "at-rest"

lateral pressure. However, in the event the walls are free to deflect (about ½ to 1 inch for a 10-foot high

wall) during backfilling, as for any exterior walls that are not restrained or rigidly braced, the "active"

pressure conditions will be applicable for design. The following lateral earth pressure parameters are

recommended for design, based on our experience, and assuming a level backfill and a frictionless wall.

Table 5-1: Lateral Earth Pressure Parameters

Lateral Earth Pressure Parameter Value

At-Rest Coefficient (Ko) 0.53

Active Coefficient (KA) 0.36

Passive Coefficient (KP) 2.8

Unit Weight Of Soil (Moist) 115 pcf

Friction Factor For Foundations and Bearing Soils 0.35

The recommended lateral earth pressure coefficients/parameters do not consider the development of

hydrostatic pressure from such things as rainwater runoff or leaking utilities behind the earth retaining

wall structures. As such, positive wall drainage must be provided for all earth retaining structures. These

drainage systems can be constructed of open-graded washed stone isolated from the soil backfill with a

geosynthetic filter fabric and drained by perforated pipe or weepholes. As an alternative, several wall

drainage products are produced specifically for this application. Lateral earth pressures arising from

surcharge loading or slopes above the wall should be added to the above earth pressures to determine

the total lateral pressure.

The soil backfill placed behind retaining walls and for fill placed in the passive zone should be placed and

compacted in accordance with Section 4.3. We caution that operating compaction equipment directly

behind the retaining structures can create lateral earth pressures far in excess of those recommended for

design. Therefore, bracing of the walls will be needed during backfilling operations.

6.0 Pavement Subgrade Recommendations

Pavement thickness design is primarily based on the supporting subgrade soils, drainage characteristics,

and traffic loading and frequencies of vehicles/aircraft. We understand the proposed pavement section

thicknesses for the ramp apron and driveway will be designed by others. As such, we are not aware of the

anticipated vehicle loading and frequency information, and other input parameters (desired lifetime,

terminal serviceability rating, statistical controls, etc.). We are providing recommendations for pavement

subgrade support value(s) in the section below.





April 3, 2017 21

Subgrade Modulus Values

As previously discussed, the exposed soil at final subgrade elevation should be compacted to densify the

subgrade surface (both prior to, and during, fill placement operations). Per FAA Section P-152 for

Excavation/Subgrade, the Modified Proctor (per ASTM D1557) should be used for comparison, based on

the aircraft weights exceeding 60,000 pounds. We recommend the subgrade soil (and structural fill) be

compacted to at least 95 percent of its Modified Proctor Maximum Density. This densification will help

increase the available subgrade modulus k values of the exposed subgrade soil. It should be noted that

the laboratory CBR testing we performed on bulk samples of the site soils consisted of Modified Proctor

compaction testing (ATM D1557) to comply with the intent of FAA Section P-152. Because our

recommendations are based on the results of the laboratory Modified Proctor/CBR tests, it is critical for

the subgrade and fill placed during grading be compacted to at least this same compactive effort (and

preferably higher).

As indicated by the laboratory CBR test results and field Kessler DCP test results, the soil subgrade

modulus (k) values vary widely for the different soil types at the anticipated subgrade elevation. Because

there appears to be a general demarcation in the soil conditions northwest of the proposed building (for

the air-side ramp apron and taxiway entrance) versus the soil conditions southeast of the building (for the

land-side apron, parking, and driveway pavements), we will address the two areas separately.

For the northwestern air-side apron and taxiway entrance, refer to the Kessler DCP values obtained near

borings C-1 through C-6, and borings B-1 through B-15 (in Appendix II). A very conservative approach

would be to use the lowest measured value (k of 73 pci, correlated from a CBR of 3.3 percent at boring B-

6); however, this approach might not be deemed economical. Alternatively for a slightly less conservative

approach, the subgrade modulus used for design could be selected to represent the majority of soils

at/below final subgrade elevation. Thus, it is our opinion to use a slightly higher value, such as a

subgrade modulus k of 170 pci (correlated from a CBR of 10.0 percent). Of the fifty-four Kessler

subgrade modulus values measured in the northwestern air-side apron area, forty-seven (87 percent)

were greater than or equal to this value. This value accounts for the less favorable subgrade support

characteristics provided by clayey/silty (CL) soils present near final design subgrade elevation across much

of the site. The six laboratory CBR values had a lower-bound threshold of 10.0 percent, indicating the site

soils can exhibit the suggested subgrade modulus if properly compacted.

For the southeastern land-side pavements, refer to the Kessler DCP values obtained near borings C-8 and

B-16 through B-26 (in Appendix II). In general, the Kessler values for this area were notably lower on

average, as compared to the air-side apron area described above. Even selecting a conservatively modest

subgrade modulus k value of 100 pci (correlated from a CBR of 5.0 percent) accounts for only

seventeen of the twenty-six values (65 percent). However, we conclude that many of the lower values

were likely due to the high moisture content and instability of the wet surficial soils at the time of the

investigation (such as near boring B-17, and other areas with standing water, for example). With proper

drying and compaction, and the resulting stabilization, we expect a larger proportion of the soils for the

southeastern land-side pavements would exhibit a minimum k value of 100 pci (CBR of 5.0 percent).

The conservative recommendation in the paragraph above applies for existing fill soils on the graded pad

that will be exposed near final subgrade elevation. For areas that will receive at least 3 feet of new

compacted fill, or areas (such as the high wooded area near boring B-26) that will be excavated down to

stable residual soil, the higher subgrade modulus k of 170 pci (CBR of 10.0 percent) would apply.





April 3, 2017 22

By selecting a subgrade modulus k value that is greater than the observed low-point threshold, it is

important to recognize the risk (although manageable) associated with this design methodology. Some

areas of pavement subgrade, including areas not explored by the widely spaced borings of this

investigation, could exhibit pavement support characteristics below the k value used in design. To help

mitigate the risk of compromised pavement performance in these statistically lower-bound cases, it is

important that the site preparation and grading recommendations be followed, and the grading and

pavements be constructed in strict accordance with the project specifications (and referenced FAA

Advisory Circulars). As a component of the construction-phase quality control program, we recommend

performing numerous Kessler DCP tests near final subgrade elevation, to check that the minimum design

values for subgrade modulus have been achieved.

General Guidelines

The long-term performance of rigid and flexible pavements will be influenced by a number of factors

including the condition of the subgrade soils at the time of pavement installation, installed thicknesses

and compaction, and properly functioning drainage. Areas adjacent to pavements (embankments,

ditching, etc.) which can drain water should be designed to help reduce water seepage below the

pavements. This may require the use of French drains and underdrains, as previously discussed.

Sufficient testing and monitoring should be performed during pavement installation to confirm that the

required thickness, density, and quality requirements of the specifications are followed. Typically, low

safety factors are used for pavement design. Therefore, it is important that all components of design are

properly installed and that the expected traffic is not exceeded. We recommend against installing

pavements during wet weather, as it will significantly reduce their performance.

7.0 Limitations of Report

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

for specific application to this project. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are 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 analyses 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 become evident

until construction. If variations appear evident, then we will re-evaluate the recommendations of this

report. In the event that any changes in the nature or design of the proposed Cargo Ramp building and

pavements 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.

We recommend that S&ME be provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and

specifications in order that earthwork recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented.

Modifications to our recommendations could be required, depending on selected final grades.

Because of the variable nature of the subsurface conditions and the potential for difficult excavation, we

recommend conducting a pre-construction meeting with W.K. Dickson, GSP, the Contractor, and a

representative of our firm. During this meeting, the recommendations in this report should be discussed

with respect to constructability and how prevailing weather conditions will significantly affect the site soils.

APPENDIX

Appendix I - Figures




Appendix II – Field Data





Appendix III – Laboratory Testing



APPENDIX I

FIGURES




SCALE:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: PROJECT NO.: 1426-17-019

FIGURE NO.BORING LOCATION PLANW.K. Dickson Schematic Plan

GSP Airport – New Cargo RampGreer, Spartanburg County, South Carolina

As Shown

GMT

March 2017

1LTF

Reference: “Preliminary Cargo Ramp Schematic” Plan, provided by W.K. Dickson (dated 2/15/2017)

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS

: Pavement Area (with Coring)

: Pavement Area

: Building Area

SCALE:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:


FIGURE NO.BORING LOCATION PLANW.K. Dickson Schematic Plan with 2013 Spartanburg County GIS Overlay


As Shown

GMT

March 2017

2LTF

Reference: “Preliminary Cargo Ramp Schematic” Plan, provided by W.K. Dickson (dated 2/15/2017); and Spartanburg County GIS Website



: Pavement Area

: Building Area

Drainage Swale

Drainage Swale

Drainage SwalesDrainage Swale

Service Road

Taxiway “Lima”

Shoulder

Existing FedEx Facility

Drainage Swale

SCALE:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:


FIGURE NO.BORING LOCATION PLAN2016 Google Earth Aerial Photograph


See Fig. 2

GMT

March 2017

3LTF



: Pavement Area

: Building Area

Reference: Google Earth Website

Drainage Swale

Drainage Swale

Drainage SwalesDrainage Swale

Service Road

Taxiway “Lima”

Shoulder

Existing FedEx Facility

Drainage Swale

SCALE:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:




See Fig. 2

GMT

March 2017

4LTF



: Pavement Area

: Building Area


Observed Wet Area After Rainfall

(note difference in ground color)

(water in detention pond, following rain)

SCALE:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:




See Fig. 2

GMT

March 2017

5LTF



: Pavement Area

: Building Area


Possible Exposed Rock at Ground Surface

SCALE:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:


FIGURE NO.BORING LOCATION PLAN1983 USGS Topographic Map


See Fig. 2

GMT

March 2017

6LTF



: Pavement Area

: Building Area

Reference: Google Earth Website, with Earth-Point Overlay

Drainage FeatureCreek

El. 285 m(935 ft)

Drainage Feature

El. 291 m(955 ft)

SCALE:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:


FIGURE NO.BORING LOCATION PLAN1958 USGS Topographic Map


See Fig. 2

GMT

March 2017

7LTF



: Pavement Area

: Building Area

Reference: Google Earth Website, with Earth-Point Overlay

Creek

El. 920 ft

El. 940 ft

Approx. Average Current Ground Surface (El. 959 ft)

Drainage Feature

938

940

942

944

946

948

950

952

954

956

958

960

962

JOB NO:

DATE:

N = Standard Penetration Test resistance value (blows per foot). The depicted stratigraphy is shown for illustrative purposes only. The actual subsurface conditions will vary between boring locations.

1426-17-019

3/29/17

EL

EV

AT

ION

(f

ee

t-M

SL

)

41

20

7

50/2"

14

BT @ 10'

N

HC

11

25

50/1"

67

50/3"

BT @ 10'

N

20

59

77

50/1"

50/1"

BT @ 10'

N

22

72

50/2"

50/2"

77

C-1

BT @ 11'

N

14

20

20

10

22

C-2

BT @ 11'

N

19

26

42

64

50/3"

C-3

BT @ 11'

N

9

9

6

8

12

C-4

BT @ 11'

N

29

40

53

27

72

C-5

BT @ 11'

N

28

45

44

70

44

C-6

BT @ 11'

N

Figure

X

Diagram: Generalized Subsurface Profile

Area: Taxiway Shoulder and Ramp Entrance

Project: GSP Airport - New Cargo Ramp

Location: Greer; Spartanburg County, South Carolina

938

940

942

944

946

948

950

952

954

956

958

960

962

SP/SM, Poorly-graded Sand with Silt

Aggregate Base CoursePartially Weathered Rock

Asphalt

Topsoil

Clayey Sand

Silty Sand

Sand

Sandy Clay

Sandy Silt

B-1 B-2

B-3

gtaylor

Text Box

8

gtaylor

Text Box

Borings at Taxiway Shoulder & Ramp Entrance

gtaylor

Callout

Hatching Denotes Existing Fill

938

940

942

944

946

948

950

952

954

956

958

960

962

Sandy Silt

JOB NO:

DATE:


1426-17-019

3/30/17

EL

EV

AT

ION

(f

ee

t-M

SL

)


Area: North Half of Ramp Apron



Figure

X

Clayey Sand Sandy Clay

Silty Sand

Partially Weathered Rock Topsoil

940

938

942

944

946

948

950

952

954

956

958

960

962

41

20

7

50/2"

14

BT @ 10'

N

B-1

HC

11

25

50/1"

67

50/3"

BT @ 10'

N

B-2

20

59

77

50/1"

50/1"

BT @ 10'

N B-3A

11

25

18

35

50/3"

BT @ 10'

N

B-4

HC

18

50/2"

29

17

50/2"

BT @ 10'

N

B-5

HC

25

50/1"

37

86

50/2"

BT @ 10'

N

B-6

HC

18

18

26

22

22

BT @ 10'

N

B-7

HC

14

20

14

50/1"

AR @ 6.5'BT @ 6.5'

N

B-8

8

10

6

7

10

BT @ 10'

N

B-3

gtaylor

Text Box

9

gtaylor

Text Box

Borings at North Half of Ramp Apron

gtaylor

Callout


938

940

942

944

946

948

950

952

954

956

958

960

962

JOB NO:

DATE:


1426-17-019

3/29/17


Area: South Half of Ramp Apron



EL

EV

AT

ION

(f

ee

t-M

SL

)

Figure

X

940

942

938

944

946

948

950

952

954

956

958

960

962

HC

18

18

26

22

22

BT @ 10'

N

B-6

HC

14

20

14

50/1"

AR @ 6.5'BT @ 6.5'

N

B-7

8

10

6

7

10

BT @ 10'

N

B-8

17

51

50/4"

AR @ 5'BT @ 5'

N

B-9

HC 14

50/1"

AR @ 3'BT @ 3'

N

B-10

N

HC

16

22

18

14

4

12

6

BT @ 20'

B-11

HC 16

50/1"

B-12

AR @ 3'BT @ 3'

N

50/1"

B-13

AR @ 1.2'BT @ 1.2'

N

HC

30

23

19

10

50/1"

B-13A

AR @ 9.3'BT @ 9.3'

N

HC

23

50/5"

50/3"

B-14

AR @ 5'BT @ 5'

N

Sandy ClayClayey Sand

Silty Sand Silty Clay Partially Weathered Rock

TopsoilSandy Silt

gtaylor

Text Box

10

gtaylor

Callout


gtaylor

Text Box

Borings at South Half of Ramp Apron

938

940

942

944

946

948

950

952

954

956

958

960

962

Sandy Clay

Sand

JOB NO:

DATE:


1426-17-019

3/29/17


Area: Building Footprint



938

940

Clayey Sand

Silty Sand Silty Clay

EL

EV

AT

ION

(f

ee

t-M

SL

)

Figure

X

942

944

946

948

950

952

954

956

958

960

962

Sandy Silt

Topsoil


SP/SM, Poorly-graded Sand with Silt

HC

16

22

18

14

4

12

6

BT @ 20'

N

B-11

HC 16

50/1"

B-12

AR @ 3'BT @ 3'

N

50/1"

B-13

AR @ 1.2'BT @ 1.2'

N

HC

30

23

19

10

50/1"

B-13A

AR @ 9.3'BT @ 9.3'

N

HC

23

50/5"

50/3"

B-14

AR @ 5'BT @ 5'

N

HC

21

29

19

50/1"

B-15

AR @ 6.6'BT @ 6.6'

N

21

15

14

AR @ 6'BT @ 6'

N

B-16

9

50/2"

B-17

AR @ 3'BT @ 3'

N

11

18

50/0"

AR @ 5'BT @ 5'

N

B-18

HC

17

67

75

B-19

AR @ 6'BT @ 6'

N

29

50/2"

B-19A

AR @ 2.6'BT @ 2.6'

N

gtaylor

Text Box

11

gtaylor

Text Box

Borings at Proposed Building Footprint

gtaylor

Callout


946

948

950

952

954

956

958

960

962

964

966

968

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300

Clayey Sand

Sandy Silt

JOB NO:

DATE:


APPROXIMATE DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (feet)


Area: Southern Loading Dock/Parking and Entrance Drive



Asphalt Pavement

Aggregate Base Course

Cement Treated Base CourseSand

Silty Sand

1426-17-019

3/29/17

EL

EV

AT

ION

(f

ee

t-M

SL

)

Sandy Clay Topsoil


Figure

X

946

948

950

952

954

956

958

960

962

964

966

968

11

18

50/0"

AR @ 5'BT @ 5'

N

HC

17

67

B-19

N

AR @ 6'BT @ 6'

75

25

30

20

B-20

AR @ 6'BT @ 6'

N

21

50/5"

B-21

AR @ 3.5'BT @ 3.5'

N 12

50/2"

N

AR @ 3'BT @ 3'

HC

12

32

38

15

5

B-23

AR @ 10'BT @ 10'

N

11

N

50/5"

AR @ 3.6'BT @ 3.6'

B-24

27

72

B-25

N

AR @ 4'BT @ 4'

3

32

50/1"

B-26

AR @ 4.5'BT @ 4.5'

N

46

20

64

69

60

BT @ 11.2'

C-7

N 11

50/1"

AR @ 5'BT @ 5'

C-8

N

B-22B-18

gtaylor

Text Box

12

gtaylor

Text Box

Borings at Southern Loading Dock & Entrance Drive

gtaylor

Callout


938

940

942

944

946

948

950

952

954

956

958

960

962

JOB NO:

DATE:


1426-17-019

3/30/17

EL

EV

AT

ION

(f

ee

t-M

SL

)

HC

11

25

50/1"

67

50/3"

BT @ 10'

N

20

59

77

50/1"

50/1"

BT @ 10'

N

11

25

18

35

50/3"

BT @ 10'

N

HC

18

50/2"

29

17

50/2"

BT @ 10'

N

HC

25

50/1"

37

86

50/2"

BT @ 10'

N

HC

14

20

14

50/1"

AR @ 6.5'BT @ 6.5'

N

8

10

6

7

10

BT @ 10'

N

17

51

50/4"

AR @ 5'BT @ 5'

N

HC 14

50/1"

AR @ 3'BT @ 3'

N

HC 16

50/1"

B-12

AR @ 3'BT @ 3'

N

HC

23

50/5"

50/3"

B-14

AR @ 5'BT @ 5'

N

21

15

14

AR @ 6'BT @ 6'

N 9

50/2"

B-17

AR @ 3'BT @ 3'

N

11

18

50/0"

AR @ 5'BT @ 5'

N

25

30

20

B-20

AR @ 6'BT @ 6'

N

HC

12

32

38

15

5

B-23

AR @ 10'BT @ 10'

N


Area: North-South Axis/Diagonal



Figure

X

940

938

942

944

946

948

950

952

954

956

958

960

962

B-10B-16B-18

Clayey Sand

Silty Sand

Sandy Clay TopsoilSandy Silt

Silty Clay Partially Weathered Rock

B-9

B-7

B-8

B-4 B-5

B-3A

B-2

B-3

gtaylor

Text Box

13

gtaylor

Text Box

Borings Along North-South Axis Diagonal

gtaylor

Callout


GSP Airport - New Cargo Ramp: Photographs from Field Exploration (March 6-9, 2017), Pg. 1 of 3


Building Pad Area; Drill Rig at B-12 (facing north)

Kessler DCP Testing at B-21 (facing southwest)

Rutting of wet subgrade following rainfall, near B-17 (facing northeast)

B-17 flag

Standing water following rainfall, near B-24 (facing east)

B-24 flag



Catch basin (drains toadjacent Detention Pond)

Drainage swales along south end of site (facing northeast)

Drainage Swale

Drainage swale at slope toe along east end of site (facing northwest)

Drainage Swale

Drainage Swale

B-19A flag;Ground Surf. Elev.

at swale bottomnear 951 ft

Ground Surf. Elev.at pad slope crest

near 959 ft

Pavement coring &Kessler DCP at C-6,

on Service Road

Taxiway Lima Shoulder; Drill Rig at C-3 (facing southwest)

Drainage Swalebtw. Service Road

and Taxiway

Taxiway Lima Shoulder; near C-3 (facing northeast)



Service Road; near C-6 (facing northeast), withlongitudinal and transverse cracks in pavement

Gateway Drive embankment; Drill Rig at C-8 (facing west)

Gateway Drive embankment; near C-8 (facing northwest)

Transition inPavement Surface

C-8

C-7

Composite bulk samples in laboratory (Bulk #s indicated)

#1

#4

#5

#7

#2

#3#6

gtaylor

Callout

Exposed Rock Outcrop

GSP Airport - New Cargo Ramp: Spartanburg County GIS Time-Elapsed Photographs

1996

2013

2006

2004


APPENDIX II

FIELD DATA





RQD

Asphalt

Concrete

Topsoil

Shelby Tube

Split Spoon

Rock Core

No Recovery

HC

LEGEND TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS

Partially WeatheredRock

Cored Rock

(Shown in Water Level Column)

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

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

0 to 45 to 1011 to 3031 to 50Over 50

Silt (ML)

Clay (CL, CH)

Sandy Silt (ML)

Clayey Sand (SC)

Clayey Silt (MH)

Organic (OL, OH)

RELATIVE DENSITY

Very LooseLoose

Medium DenseDense

Very Dense

SAMPLER TYPES(Shown in Samples Column)

TERMS

StandardPenetrationResistance

(Shown in Graphic Log)

WATER LEVELS

CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS

CONSISTENCY

STD. PENETRATIONRESISTANCEBLOWS/FOOT

Very SoftSoftFirmStiff

Very StiffHard

Very Hard

REC

STD. PENETRATIONRESISTANCEBLOWS/FOOT

RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS

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

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

0 to 23 to 45 to 8

9 to 1516 to 3031 to 50Over 50

Fill

Sand (SW, SP)

Silty Sand (SM)

Sandy Clay (CL, CH)

Silty Clay (CL, CH)

Gravel (GW, GM, GP)

SOIL TYPES (USCS CLASSIFICATION)

41

20

7

50/2"

14

TOPSOIL - 3 inches

RESIDUUM: SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC) -dense, brown gray red, fine, micaceous

SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense to loose,brown yellow white, fine to coarse, moist to verymoist, slightly micaceous

PWR LENS: SILTY SAND (SM) - very dense,brown yellow, fine to coarse, with rockfragments

SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense, brownyellow gray, fine to coarse, wet, with rockfragments

Boring terminated at 10 feet

13

11

4

5

5

18

2

50/2"

19

28

9

3

9

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)

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

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

STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.

WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.

NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

951.0

946.0

5

10

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #

BLOW COUNT/ CORE DATA

EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BORING LOG B-1

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/30

/17

PROJECT: GSP Airport - New Cargo RampGreer; Spartanburg County, South Carolina


CLIENT: WK Dickson & Co., Inc.

DATE DRILLED: 3/7/17 - 3/7/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55

DRILLER: Miller / Plattenburg

HAMMER TYPE: Automatic

SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon

DRILLING METHOD: 2¼" H.S.A.

ELEVATION: 956.0 ft

BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft

WATER LEVEL: 6.5 ft at TOB

LOGGED BY: G. Taylor

NOTES: Obtained a bulk sample of auger

cuttings from 0-5 ft (part of composite sample

labeled "Bulk #5").

Boring was located in the low point of drainage

ditch.CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

>>

11

25

50/1"

67

50/3"

TOPSOIL - 3 inches

FILL: SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense,brown, fine to medium, moist

RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - mediumdense, brown yellow white, fine to coarse, verymoist

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SANDWITH SILT (SP-SM) - very dense, brownyellow gray, fine to coarse, slightly moist, withrock fragments


7

16

50/1"

39

42

5

12

10

42

28

4

9

28

50/3"

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

HC

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

951.0

946.0

5

10

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-2

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/30

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/6/17 - 3/6/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 956.0 ft


WATER LEVEL: Not Encountered at TOB


NOTES: Boring was located in the low point of

drainage ditch.

Groundwater is possibly near depth of 5 ft, based

on very moist sample SS-3 (and shallow cave-in

depth).CAVE-IN DEPTH: 5'

>>

>>

20

59

77

50/1"

50/1"

TOPSOIL - 2 inches

RESIDUUM: SANDY CLAY (CL) - very stiff tovery hard, yellowish brown gray red, fine,micaceous, with silt, with trace coarse sandlayers below 5 feet

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SANDYSILT (ML) - very hard, yellowish brown grayred, fine, micaceous, with trace coarse sand


7

27

30

24

50/1"

4

14

7

16

20

13

32

47

50/1"

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

949.0

944.0

5

10

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-3

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/30

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/7/17 - 3/7/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 954.0 ft


WATER LEVEL: 6.2 ft after 24 hours




labeled "Bulk #4").

Groundwater is possibly perched on top of the

very dense PWR layer.CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

>>

>>

11

25

18

35

50/3"

TOPSOIL - 4 inches

FILL: SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense,brown, fine to coarse, moist, trace gravel

RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - mediumdense, brown gray yellow, fine to coarse,micaceous, trace rock fragments, moist at 5 feet

SANDY SILT (ML) - hard, yellowish browngray red, fine to medium, very moist, micaceous

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SILTYSAND (SM) - very dense, yellowish browngray red, fine to medium, micaceous


6

8

8

18

50/3"

3

16

9

10

17

5

17

10

17

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

948.0

943.0

5

10

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-3A

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/30

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/7/17 - 3/7/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 953.0 ft


WATER LEVEL: 7.4 ft (TOB); 4.6 ft (24 hrs)


NOTES: This offset boring was added to help

evaluate the variable subsurface conditions

between adjacent borings B-3 and B-8.

Boring was drilled in the low point of drainage

ditch.CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

>>

18

50/2"

29

17

50/2"

TOPSOIL - 2 inches

FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - red brown, fine tomedium, trace gravel, with apparent rockfragments/cobbles below 2 feet (*amplified Nvalues)

RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - mediumdense, brown yellow dark gray, fine to coarse,slightly moist to moist, with PWR/rockfragments and clay

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SILTYSAND (SM) - very dense, dark brown yellow,fine to coarse, with rock fragments


3

19

7

23

4

50/2"

36

4

4

15

10

10

50/2"

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

HC

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

952.0

947.0

5

10

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-4

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/30

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/7/17 - 3/7/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 957.0 ft




NOTES:

CAVE-IN DEPTH: 7.7'

>>

>>

25

50/1"

37

86

50/2"

TOPSOIL - 3 inches

FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - brown red, fine tomedium, trace gravel

RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - mediumdense, brown, fine to medium, slightlymicaceous

PWR LENS: SILTY SAND (SM) - very dense,brown yellow, fine to coarse

SILTY SAND (SM) - dense to very dense,brown dark brown yellow, fine to coarse, slightlymicaceous

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SANDWITH SILT (SP-SM) - very dense, brownyellow, fine to coarse, with rock fragments


5

50/1"

14

38

3

21

19

17

50/2"

20

23

48

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

HC

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

952.0

947.0

5

10

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-5

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/30

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/6/17 - 3/6/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 957.0 ft






labeled "Bulk #6").

CAVE-IN DEPTH: 5.2'

>>

>>

18

18

26

22

22

TOPSOIL - 3 inches

FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - very stiff, red, fineto medium

FILL: SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense,reddish brown gray yellow, fine to coarse,slightly moist, with clay and gravel

RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - mediumdense, brown dark gray yellow, fine to coarse,slightly moist to very moist, with rock fragments


8

10

16

10

11

3

5

21

8

6

10

8

10

12

11

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

HC

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

953.0

948.0

5

10

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-6

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/30

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/7/17 - 3/7/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 958.0 ft


WATER LEVEL: 8 ft at TOB




labeled "Bulk #6").

Observed apparent boulder (or small rock

outcrop?) approx. 15 ft west of boring.CAVE-IN DEPTH: 5.3'

14

20

14

50/1"

TOPSOIL - 4 inches

FILL: SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense,brown gray red, fine to medium, moist, with clay

POSSIBLE FILL: SILTY SAND (SM) - mediumdense, yellowish brown gray, fine to medium,moist to very moist, slightly micaceous, tracegravel

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SILTYSAND (SM) - very dense, dark brown gray,fine to coarse, with rock fragments

Refusal at 6.5 feetBoring terminated at 6.5 feet(Offset 10 ft east, augered down, andencountered similar refusal conditions at depthof -6 ft.)

5

11

7

4

9

7

50/1"

9

9

7

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

HC

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

953.05

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-7

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/30

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/6/17 - 3/6/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 958.0 ft






labeled "Bulk #6").

CAVE-IN DEPTH: 3.9'

>>

8

10

6

7

10

TOPSOIL - 5 inches

FILL: SILTY SAND (SM) - loose, brown gray,fine, slightly micaceous, trace coarse sand andgravel

RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - loose, graybrown yellow, fine to medium, slightly moist,micaceous, trace clay

SILTY SAND (SM) - loose, grayish brownreddish yellow white, fine to medium, verymoist, micaceous


3

4

3

3

6

2

3

3

5

4

5

6

3

4

4

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

947.0

942.0

5

10

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-8

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/30

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/7/17 - 3/7/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 952.0 ft


WATER LEVEL: 6.8 ft (TOB); 5.6 ft (24 hrs)



drainage ditch.

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

17

51

50/4"

TOPSOIL - 3 inches

FILL: SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense,grayish brown white, fine to medium, slightlymoist, with clay

RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - mediumdense, yellowish brown gray white, fine tomedium, slightly moist

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SAND(SP) - very dense, gray white, fine to coarse,with rock fragments in thin horizontal layers

Refusal at 5 feetBoring terminated at 5 feet(Offset 10 ft west, augered down, andencountered similar refusal conditions at depthof -3 ft.)

8

18

50/4"

4

7

8

9

33

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

954.05

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-9

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/30

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/8/17 - 3/8/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 959.0 ft






labeled "Bulk #7").

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

>>

14

50/1"

TOPSOIL - 4 inches

FILL: SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense,brown red, fine to medium, slightly moist, tracegravel

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SAND(SP) - very dense, gray, fine to coarse, rockfragments

Refusal at 3 feetBoring terminated at 3 feet(Offset 10 ft east, augered down, andencountered similar refusal conditions at depthof -3 ft.)

66

50/1"

8SS-1

SS-2

HC

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-10

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/6/17 - 3/6/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 959.0 ft






labeled "Bulk #7").

CAVE-IN DEPTH: 2'

>>

16

22

18

14

4

12

6

TOPSOIL - 3 inches

RESIDUUM: SANDY CLAY (CL) - very stiff,brownish red, moist, with small roots

SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense, reddishbrown yellow gray, fine to coarse, slightly moist,slightly micaceous, trace clay

SANDY SILT (ML) - stiff to soft, mottled graybrownish red, fine to medium, moist to verymoist

SILTY SAND (SM) - loose to medium dense,gray brown white, fine to medium

SILTY SAND (SM) - loose, gray, fine tomedium, slightly moist


8

8

10

6

2

4

3

6

7

5

4

3

3

2

8

14

8

8

2

8

3

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

SS-7

HC

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

954.0

949.0

944.0

939.0

5

10

15

20

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-11

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/9/17 - 3/9/17

DRILL RIG: CME 750 (ATV)

DRILLER: Gowan / Gowan




ELEVATION: 959.0 ft






labeled "Bulk #1").

CAVE-IN DEPTH: 12'

16

50/1"

TOPSOIL - 3 inches

FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC) - light brown, fineto medium, moist

RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - mediumdense, light gray light brown, fine to coarse,moist, with rock fragments

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK - verydense, gray brown, rock fragments

Refusal at 3 feetBoring terminated at 3 feet(Offset 10 ft north, augered down, andencountered similar refusal conditions at depthof -2.6 ft.)

6

50/1"

4

17

10SS-1

SS-2

HC

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-12

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/6/17 - 3/6/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 960.0 ft






labeled "Bulk #7").

CAVE-IN DEPTH: 2'

>>

50/1"

TOPSOIL - 5 inches

FILL: SILTY SAND (SM) - brown, moist

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK - verydense, gray, rock fragments

Refusal at 1.2 feetBoring terminated at 1.2 feet(Offset 150 ft WNW (along ditch bottom), andencountered similar refusal conditions at -1.1ft.)

50/1"2SS-1

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-13

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/7/17 - 3/7/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 952.0 ft




NOTES: Boring was located in low point of

drainage ditch. Observed apparent rock outcrops

approx. 45 ft WNW of boring (along ditch bottom)

and 60 ft NW (in gravel driveway).

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

>>

30

23

19

10

50/1"

TOPSOIL - 2 inches

FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC) - medium dense,brown red, fine to medium, trace gravel

RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - mediumdense, brown yellow gray, fine to medium,slightly moist to moist, micaceous, trace coarsesand

SILTY SAND (SM) - loose, light yellow graybrown, fine to coarse, very moist, with rockfragments

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SAND(SP) - very dense, light yellow, fine to coarse,with rock fragments

Refusal at 9.3 feetBoring terminated at 9.3 feet

6

12

11

4

50/1"

3

14

11

7

14

24

11

8

6

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

HC

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

953.05

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-13A

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/6/17 - 3/6/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 958.0 ft




NOTES: This added boring was located near the

slope crest (to explore the apron subgrade soils).

Obtained a bulk sample of auger cuttings from 0-5

ft (part of composite sample labeled "Bulk #7").

CAVE-IN DEPTH: 6.8'

>>

23

50/5"

50/3"

TOPSOIL - 3 inches

FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - stiff, brown red,fine to medium, with charred wood piece

RESIDUUM: SILTY CLAY (CL) - very stiff,dark red brownish yellow, with sand

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SILTYSAND (SM) - very dense, light gray yellow,fine to coarse, with rock fragments

Refusal at 5 feetBoring terminated at 5 feet(Offset 10 ft north, augered down, andencountered similar refusal conditions at depthof -4 ft.)

7

50/5"

4

23

50/3"

16SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

HC

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

955.05

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-14

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/9/17 - 3/9/17






ELEVATION: 960.0 ft





cuttings from 0-3 ft.

CAVE-IN DEPTH: 4'

>>

>>

21

29

19

50/1"

TOPSOIL - 3 inches

FILL: SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense,brown gray yellow, fine to coarse

RESIDUUM: SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) -medium dense, light brownish gray white, fine tocoarse, with PWR/rock fragments

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK - verydense, light brownish yellow, fine to coarse,sand with rock fragments

Refusal at 6.6 feetBoring terminated at 6.6 feet(Offset 10 ft west, augered down, andencountered similar refusal conditions at depthof -6.5 ft.)

13

13

11

50/1"

5

14

7

26

8

16

8

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

HC

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

955.05

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-15

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/6/17 - 3/6/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 960.0 ft






CAVE-IN DEPTH: 4.4'

>>

21

15

14

TOPSOIL - 4 inches

FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - very stiff, brownred, fine to medium, trace gravel

FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC) - medium dense,dark brown red yellow, fine to medium, slightlymoist

CULTIVATED SOIL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - stiff,dark grayish brown, fine to medium, moist, withroots

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK - verydense, gray, sand and rock fragments

Refusal at 6 feetBoring terminated at 6 feet(Offset 10 ft southeast, augered down, andencountered similar refusal conditions at depthof -4.5 ft.)

7

7

7

2

5

5

14

8

7

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

954.05

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-16

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/9/17 - 3/9/17






ELEVATION: 959.0 ft






CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

9

50/2"

TOPSOIL - 4 inches

FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - stiff, brown red,fine to medium, very moist

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK - verydense, gray, sand and rock fragments

Refusal at 3 feetBoring terminated at 3 feet(Offset 10 ft east, augered down, andencountered similar refusal conditions at depthof -3 ft.)

43

50/2"

5SS-1

SS-2

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-17

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/6/17 - 3/6/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 960.0 ft






"Bulk #1"). Drill rig tires rutted approx. 1 ft into wet

subgrade (following heavy rain the previous day).

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

>>

11

18

50/0"

TOPSOIL - 5 inches

FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC) - medium dense,red brown gray, fine to medium, slightly moist,trace gravel

CULTIVATED SOIL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - stiff,dark gray, moist, with trace roots

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK - verydense, based on observed rate of difficultdrilling (no recovery)

Refusal at 5 feetBoring terminated at 5 feet(Offset 10 ft south, augered down, andencountered similar refusal conditions at depthof -4 ft.)

5

9

3

4

50/0"

6

9

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

954.05

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-18

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/9/17 - 3/9/17






ELEVATION: 959.0 ft






labeled "Bulk #2").

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

>>

17

67

75

TOPSOIL - 3 inches

FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - very stiff, red, fine,trace gravel

RESIDUUM: SAND (SP) - very dense, lightgray brown white, fine to coarse, with PWR/rockfragments

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK - verydense, gray white, sand and rock fragments

Refusal at 6 feetBoring terminated at 6 feet

8

18

27

4

8

27

9

49

48

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

HC

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

950.05

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-19

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/7/17 - 3/7/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 955.0 ft




NOTES: Boring was located in apparent backfill

of culvert pipe (installed below access path from

gravel driveway into graded pad).

CAVE-IN DEPTH: 3.7'

29

50/2"

TOPSOIL - 4 inches

FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - red, fine

RESIDUUM: SAND (SP) - medium dense,light gray brown white, fine to coarse, withPWR/rock fragments

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK - verydense, gray white, sand and rock fragments

Refusal at 2.6 feetBoring terminated at 2.6 feet

72

50/2"

22SS-1

SS-2

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-19A

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/7/17 - 3/7/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 951.0 ft




NOTES: This added boring was located in the

bottom of drainage ditch, near inlet end of culvert

pipe.

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

>>

25

30

20

TOPSOIL - 5 inches

FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC) - medium dense,reddish brown gray yellow, fine to coarse,slightly moist, some gravel (*possibly amplifiedN-values)

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK - verydense, based on observed rate of difficultdrilling (no recovery)

Refusal at 6 feetBoring terminated at 6 feet(Offset 10 ft north, augered down, andencountered similar refusal conditions at depthof -6 ft.)

10

15

10

7

5

9

15

15

10

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

953.05

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-20

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/9/17 - 3/9/17






ELEVATION: 958.0 ft






labeled "Bulk #2").

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

21

50/5"

TOPSOIL - 3 inches

FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - very stiff, brownishred, fine

FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC) - medium dense,brown gray yellow, fine to coarse, moist

CULTIVATED SOIL: SANDY CLAY (CL) -dark brown, very moist, with roots

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SAND(SP) - very dense, gray, fine to coarse, withrock fragments

Refusal at 3.5 feetBoring terminated at 3.5 feet(Offset 10 ft south, augered down, andencountered similar refusal conditions at depthof -3 ft.)

10

5

7

7

11

50/5"

SS-1

SS-2

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-21

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/9/17 - 3/9/17






ELEVATION: 958.0 ft




NOTES:

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

>>

12

50/2"

TOPSOIL - 5 inches

FILL: SANDY SILT (ML) - stiff, reddish browngrayish brown, fine to coarse, with clay

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SAND(SP) - gray, fine to coarse, with rock fragments

Refusal at 3 feetBoring terminated at 3 feet(Offset 10 ft north, augered down, andencountered similar refusal conditions at depthof -2.2 ft.)

34

50/2"

9SS-1

SS-2

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-22

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/9/17 - 3/9/17






ELEVATION: 959.0 ft




NOTES:

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

>>

12

32

38

15

5

TOPSOIL - 5 inches

FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - stiff to hard,reddish brown gray yellow, fine to medium,slightly moist, trace gravel

FILL: SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC) - dense,reddish brown gray yellow, fine to coarse,slightly moist, trace gravel (*likely amplified Nvalues)

FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - stiff, brown grayred, fine to coarse, moist, with gravel

CULTIVATED SOIL: SANDY CLAY (CL) -firm, dark brown, fine to coarse, very moist, withroots


6

17

9

8

2

5

4

5

6

3

6

15

29

7

3

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

HC

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

952.0

947.0

5

10

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-23

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/9/17 - 3/9/17






ELEVATION: 957.0 ft






labeled "Bulk #2").

CAVE-IN DEPTH: 5'

11

50/5"

TOPSOIL - 8 inches

FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - stiff, brownish red,fine

CULTIVATED SOIL: CLAYEY SAND (SC) -brownish gray, fine to coarse, moist

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SAND(SP) - very dense, gray, fine to coarse, withrock fragments

Refusal at 3.6 feetBoring terminated at 3.6 feet(Offset 10 ft west, augered down, andencountered similar refusal conditions at depthof -3.5 ft.)

5

5

4

6

6

50/5"

SS-1

SS-2

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-24

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/9/17 - 3/9/17






ELEVATION: 955.0 ft





drainage ditch.

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

>>

27

72

TOPSOIL - 5 inches

RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - mediumdense to very dense, brown gray yellow, fine tocoarse, with rock fragments

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK - verydense, gray white, sand with rock fragments

Refusal at 4 feetBoring terminated at 4 feet(Offset 10 ft northwest, augered down, andencountered similar refusal conditions at depthof -2.6 ft.)

6

32

1

6

21

40

SS-1

SS-2

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-25

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/9/17 - 3/9/17






ELEVATION: 950.0 ft





drainage ditch.

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

3

32

50/1"

TOPSOIL - 2 inches

FILL: SILTY SAND (SM) - very loose, brownred, fine to coarse, slightly moist

RESIDUUM: SANDY CLAY (CL) - hard,yellowish brown red gray, fine to medium

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SAND(SP) - very dense, brown white gray, fine tocoarse, with rock fragments

Refusal at 4.5 feetBoring terminated at 4.5 feet(Offset 40 ft SSW (slightly lower in elevation),augered down, and encountered similar refusalconditions at depth of -3.3 ft.)

1

12

2

6

50/1"

2

20

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG B-26

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/9/17 - 3/9/17






ELEVATION: 967.0 ft




NOTES: Boring was located in a wooded area,

previously the site of a former grassed runway

(and possibly the laydown area for the previous

FedEx construction site).

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

>>

22

72

50/2"

50/2"

77

ASPHALT - 2-3/4 inches

STONE BASE - 10 inches

FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - stiff, brown, fine tomedium

RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - mediumdense, yellowish brown red gray, fine to coarse,moist, slightly micaceous

SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) - very dense,brown gray yellow, fine to medium

PWR LENS: SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) -very dense, gray dark brown white, fine tocoarse, trace rock fragments

SILTY SAND (SM) - very dense, grayishbrown red yellow, fine to medium


8

26

50/2"

49

6

20

50/2"

42

48

14

46

28

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

955.0

950.0

5

10

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG C-1

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/8/17 - 3/8/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 960.0 ft




NOTES: Taxiway shoulder pavement was cored

prior to Kessler DCP and SPT sampling/testing.



CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

>>

>>

14

20

20

10

22


STONE BASE - 10-3/8 inches

FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - firm, brown, fine tomedium

RESIDUUM: SANDY CLAY (CL) - stiff to verystiff, yellowish brown gray red, fine to medium,slightly moist, slightly micaceous, with silt layers

SANDY SILT (ML) - stiff to very stiff, yellowishbrown gray red, fine, slightly moist, slightlymicaceous


6

10

10

4

11

4

9

11

4

11

8

10

10

6

11

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

955.0

950.0

5

10

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG C-2

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/8/17 - 3/8/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 960.0 ft







ft.

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

19

26

42

64

50/3"



FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - stiff, brown gray,fine to coarse

RESIDUUM: SANDY CLAY (CL) - very stiff tovery hard, brown yellow, fine to medium, slightlymoist, slightly micaceous to micaceous, with silt

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SILTYSAND (SM) - very dense, brown yellow white,fine to medium, micaceous


9

13

10

33

9

15

5

18

50/3"

10

13

32

31

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

955.0

950.0

5

10

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG C-3

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/28

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/8/17 - 3/8/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 960.0 ft








CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

>>

9

9

6

8

12



FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - stiff, brown, fine tomedium

RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - loose, lightred gray brown yellow, fine to coarse, slightlymoist below 7 feet, micaceous, with thin layersof white silt

SANDY SILT (ML) - stiff, grayish brown, fine,moist, very micaceous


4

5

3

3

6

5

5

3

3

7

5

4

3

5

6

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

955.0

950.0

5

10

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG C-4

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/28

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/8/17 - 3/8/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 960.0 ft







ft. Groundwater likely near depth of 10 ft, based

on moist sample SS-5.CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

29

40

53

27

72

ASPHALT - 3-1/8" (2 layers: 1-1/2" & 1-5/8")


RESIDUUM: SANDY CLAY (CL) - very stiff tohard, yellowish brown red gray, fine to medium,slightly micaceous, with silt

SANDY CLAY (CL) - very hard to very stiff,yellowish brown gray red, fine, slightly moist,micaceous, trace silt, with sand seam at 8 to 8.5feet

SANDY SILT (ML) - very hard, yellowishbrown gray, fine, slightly moist, slightlymicaceous


9

18

17

13

35

4

15

14

22

28

20

22

36

14

37

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

955.0

950.0

5

10

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG C-5

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/8/17 - 3/8/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 960.0 ft




NOTES: Roadway pavement was cored prior to

Kessler DCP and SPT sampling/testing.



CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

28

45

44

70

44

ASPHALT - 3-1/4" (2 layers: 1-1/2" & 1-3/4")


RESIDUUM: SANDY CLAY (CL) - very stiff tohard, brown yellow gray, fine to medium, slightlymicaceous to micaceous, with trace seams ofcoarse sand and silt

SILTY SAND (SM) - very dense, brown grayyellow, fine to medium, very micaceous

SAND (SP) - dense, brownish yellow whitegray, fine to coarse, very moist


11

32

27

40

24

7

22

14

12

26

17

13

17

30

20

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

955.0

950.0

5

10

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG C-6

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/8/17 - 3/8/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 960.0 ft




NOTES: Roadway pavement was cored prior to

Kessler DCP and SPT sampling/testing. Obtained

a bulk sample of auger cuttings from 1-5 ft (part of

composite sample "Bulk #4"). Groundwater likely

near 10 ft, based on very moist sample SS-5.CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

46

20

64

69

60

ASPHALT - 6 inches

CEMENT TREATED BASE - 8 inches

RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - dense tomedium dense, brown gray white, fine to coarse

SILTY SAND (SM) - very dense, brown graylight yellow, fine to coarse

Boring terminated at 11.2 feet

16

11

30

37

24

12

10

25

27

18

30

9

34

32

36

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

957.0

952.0

5

10

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG C-7

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/6/17 - 3/6/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 962.0 ft




NOTES: Boring was located in an apparently

newer roadway pavement section of Gateway

Drive.

CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

11

50/1"

ASPHALT - 3 inches


FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - stiff, brown redgray, fine to medium, slightly moist to moist,trace gravel

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK - verydense, gray, rock fragments


5

9

7

5

6

50/1"

SS-1

SS-2

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

N V

AL

UE

DE

PT

H

(fe

et)





NOTES:

FINES %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLNM

SPT N-Value (bpf)

960.05

2nd

6in

/ RE

C

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

1st 6

in /

RU

N #


EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL


BORING LOG C-8

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 1 of 1

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

- V

OG

TL

E

14

26

-17

-01

9_

GS

P C

AR

GO

RA

MP

.GP

J S

&M

E 2

00

9_

09

_2

4.G

DT

3

/27

/17




DATE DRILLED: 3/6/17 - 3/6/17

DRILL RIG: CME 55





ELEVATION: 965.0 ft




NOTES: Boring was located in an apparently

older roadway pavement section of Gateway

Drive. Observed apparent large rock outcrop

approx. 30 ft NE of boring, near toe of roadway

embankment slope.CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A

>>

Test

Location(1) Test Interval #

Layer Depth

below Top of

Pavement(2)

(feet)

Average

DCP Index

(mm/blow)

USCS

Classification

Estimated

CBR(3)

(%)

Modulus of

Subgrade

Reaction, k(4)

(pci)

Subgrade Elastic

Modulus, E SG(5)

(psi)

1 1 - 2 8.0 CL 17.9 271 26,818

2 2 - 3 7.2 SM 20.1 297 30,099

1 1 - 2 14.8 CL 9.1 160 13,676

2 2 - 3 12.6 CL 10.9 184 16,309

3 3 - 4 15.4 CL 8.7 155 13,094

4 4 - 5 10.4 CL 13.4 217 20,121

1 1 - 2 8.2 CL 17.4 265 26,102

2 2 - 3 8.3 CL 17.2 263 25,758

3 3 - 4 10.2 CL 13.7 220 20,553

1 1 - 2 16.2 CL 8.3 149 12,388

2 2 - 3 19.8 SM 10.3 177 15,458

1 1 - 2 10.2 CL 13.7 220 20,553

2 2 - 3 5.1 CL 29.3 398 43,923

1 1 - 2 5.2 CL 28.7 392 42,998

2 2 - 3 2.8 CL 56.5 665 84,800

1 1 - 2 27.5 CL 4.6 95 6,947

2 2 - 3 25.4 CL 5.1 101 7,577

NOTES

1. Kessler DCP testing was performed on soil subgrade, following auger penetration of pavement during boring on March 6-8, 2017.

2. Subgrade is soil surface below aggregate base course, typically 1 foot below top-of-pavement elevation.

3. DCP-to-CBR correlations from Section 5-A and Table 1 of Kessler DCP User's Manual (dated Aug. 2014); function of DCP index and soil classification.

C-2

Page 1 of 4

4. CBR-to-Subgrade Modulus correlation based on Section 3.14.4.1 of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5320-6F (11/10/16): k = 28.6926 x CBR0.7788

5. Subgrade Modulus-to-Elastic Modulus correlation based on Section 3.14.4.1 of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5320-6F (11/10/16): E SG = 20.15 x k 1.284

C-3

C-4

C-5

C-6

C-8

Kessler Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Results

GSP Airport - New Cargo Ramp



C-1

Test

LocationTest Interval #

Layer Depth

below Ground

Surface(1)

(feet)

Average

DCP Index

(mm/blow)

USCS

Classification

Estimated

CBR(2)

(%)

Modulus of

Subgrade

Reaction, k(3)

(pci)

Subgrade Elastic

Modulus, E SG(4)

(psi)

1 0 - 1 7.5 SC 19.2 286 28,782

2 1 - 2 7.4 SC 19.5 290 29,209

3 2 - 3 11.0 SC 12.6 207 18,922

1 0 - 1 12.0 SM 11.5 192 17,203

2 1 - 2 6.4 SM 22.8 328 34,245

3 2 - 3 11.9 SM 11.6 193 17,362

1 0 - 1 10.2 CL 5.7 112 8,614

2 1 - 2 4.1 CL 14.3 228 21,429

3 2 - 3 3.9 CL 15.0 237 22,528

1 0 - 1 6.9 CL 8.5 152 12,733

2 1 - 2 2.9

3 2 - 3 1.7

1 0 - 1 9.3 CL 6.3 120 9,447

2 1 - 2 2.5 SM 64.0 732 96,036

3 2 - 2.5 2.0 SM 81.8 886 122,706

1 0 - 1 17.6 CL 3.3 73 4,992

2 1 - 2 4.7 SM 32.0 427 48,039

3 2 - 3 5.6 SM 26.4 368 39,643

1 0 - 1 11.9 SM 11.6 193 17,362

2 1 - 2 4.5 SM 33.6 443 50,385

3 2 - 3 5.5 SM 27.0 373 40,434

NOTES

1. Kessler DCP testing was performed on soil subgrade (below topsoil, near ground surface), during the period of March 7-9, 2017.







B-1

B-2

Page 2 of 4

DCP Values amplified by cobbles (not representative of soil consistency)

DCP Values amplified by cobbles (not representative of soil consistency)

B-6

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-7


Test


Layer Depth

below Ground

Surface(1)

(feet)

Average

DCP Index

(mm/blow)

USCS

Classification

Estimated

CBR(2)

(%)

Modulus of

Subgrade

Reaction, k(3)

(pci)

Subgrade Elastic

Modulus, E SG(4)

(psi)

1 0 - 1 10.4 SM 13.4 217 20,121

2 1 - 2 9.1 SM 15.5 243 23,288

3 2 - 3 8.5 SM 16.7 257 25,095

1 0 - 1 19.6 SM 10.4 178 15,635

2 1 - 2 6.2 SM 23.6 337 35,458

3 2 - 2.5 4.8 SM (PWR) 31.3 419 46,942

1 0 - 1 12.6 CL 10.9 184 16,309

2 1 - 2 12.6 CL 10.9 184 16,309

3 2 - 3 6.7 CL 21.7 315 32,569

1 0 - 1 13.9 SC 9.8 169 14,647

2 1 - 2 9.8 SM 14.3 228 21,473

3 2 - 2.5 13.8 SM 9.8 170 14,764

1 0 - 1 12.3 CL 11.2 188 16,745

2 1 - 2 7.7 CL 18.6 280 27,964

3 2 - 2.5 5.7 CL 25.9 362 38,881

1 0 - 1 10.3 SM 13.6 219 20,335

2 1 - 2 10.7 SM 13.0 212 19,504

3 2 - 3 5.4 SP-SM 27.5 379 41,255

1 0 - 1 23.3 CL 2.5 59 3,771

2 1 - 2 5.9 CL 9.9 171 14,892

3 2 - 3 10.2 SC 13.7 220 20,553

NOTES



B-9





Page 3 of 4

B-15

B-16



B-10

B-11

B-12

B-14

Test


Layer Depth

below Ground

Surface(1)

(feet)

Average

DCP Index

(mm/blow)

USCS

Classification

Estimated

CBR(2)

(%)

Modulus of

Subgrade

Reaction, k(3)

(pci)

Subgrade Elastic

Modulus, E SG(4)

(psi)

1 0 - 1 29.6 CL 2.0 49 2,968

2 1 - 2 63.5 CL 0.9 27 1,384

1 0 - 1 25.1 SC 5.1 102 7,676

2 1 - 2 14.8 SC 9.1 160 13,676

3 2 - 3 21.2 SC 6.2 118 9,232

1 0 - 1 28.8 SC 4.4 91 6,605

2 1 - 2 9.3 SC 15.2 238 22,740

3 2 - 3 7.1 SC 20.4 300 30,564

4 3 - 4 11.7 SC 11.8 196 17,687

5 4 - 5 6.0 SC 24.5 347 36,755

1 0 - 1 40.2 CL 3.1 69 4,590

2 1 - 2 6.5 SC 22.4 324 33,668

3 2 - 3 8.4 CL 17.0 260 25,422

1 0 - 1 17.4 ML 3.4 74 5,050

2 1 - 2 14.3 ML 9.5 165 14,200

3 2 - 2.5 17.4 ML / PWR 7.6 140 11,457

1 0 - 1 44.5 CL 1.3 36 1,974

2 1 - 2 14.0 CL 9.7 168 14,533

3 2 - 3 16.2 CL 8.3 149 12,388

1 0 - 1 32.2 CL 1.8 46 2,729

2 1 - 2 23.7 CL 2.5 58 3,707

NOTES



B-17





Page 4 of 4



B-18

B-20

B-21

B-22

B-23

B-24

Field Testing Procedures

Soil Test Borings

All borings and sampling were conducted in accordance with ASTM D-1586 test method. Initially, the

borings were advanced by either mechanically augering or wash boring through the overburden soils.

When necessary, a heavy drilling fluid is used below the water table to stabilize the sides and bottom of

the borehole. At regular intervals, soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4-inch I.D., 2-inch O.D.,

split-barrel or split-spoon sampler. The sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings

and then driven an additional foot with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of

hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final foot is designated as the "Standard Penetration

Resistance" or N-value. The penetration resistance, when properly evaluated, can be correlated to

consistency, relative density, strength and compressibility of the sampled soils.

Water Level Readings

Water level readings are normally taken in conjunction with borings and are recorded on the Boring Logs

following termination of drilling (designated by ) and at a period of 24 hours following termination of

drilling (designated by ). These readings indicate the approximate location of the hydrostatic water

table at the time of our field exploration. The groundwater table may be dependent upon the amount of

precipitation at the site during a particular period of time. Fluctuations in the water table should also be

expected with variations in surface run-off, evaporation, construction activity and other factors.

Occasionally the boreholes sides will cave, preventing the water level readings from being obtained or

trapping drilling water above the cave-in zone. In these instances, the hole cave-in depth (designated by

HC) is measured and recorded on the Boring Logs. Water level readings taken during the field operations

do not provide information on the long-term fluctuations of the water table. When this information is

required, piezometers are installed to prevent the boreholes from caving.

APPENDIX III

LABORATORY TESTING



48 Brookfield Oaks DriveGreenville, SC 29607

864.297.9944

LL PL PI MDD OMC

(%) (%) (%) (pcf) (%)

B-11 & B-17 Bulk #10 - 5

0 - 364 46 27 19 109.1 18.0 30.1 (12.1% > OMC) 14.4 CL

Sandy Lean CLAY[Residuum / Fill]

B-18/20/23 Bulk #20-4, 0-5

0-546 33 23 10 122.3 12.4 16.3 (3.9% > OMC) 12.3 SC

Clayey SAND[Fill]

C-3 & C-5 Bulk #31 - 5

1 - 562 31 21 10 122.8 12.5 18.1 (5.6% > OMC) 19.0 CL

Sandy Lean CLAY (micaceous) / [Residuum]

B-3 & C-6 Bulk #40 - 5

1 - 560 32 23 9 123.0 12.9 14.6 (1.7% > OMC) 10.0 CL

Sandy Lean CLAY (micaceous) / [Residuum]

B-1 & C-1 Bulk #50 - 5

1 - 540 22 18 4 128.6 9.6 10.7 (1.1% > OMC) -- SC-SM

Silty Clayey SAND[Residuum]

B-5/6/7 Bulk #60-5, 0-5

0-547 27 21 6 129.0 8.0 13.9 (5.9% > OMC) 36.0 SC-SM

Silty Clayey SAND[Fill / Residuum]

B-9/10/

12/13ABulk #7

0-3, 0-3,

0-3, 0-540 25 21 4 126.1 9.6 15.6 (6.0% > OMC) 16.0 SC-SM

Silty Clayey SAND[Fill / Residuum]

7 7 6

Notes:

LL = Liquid Limit MDD = Maximum Dry Density USCS = Unified Soil Classification System

PL = Plastic Limit OMC = Optimum Moisture Content CBR = California Bearing Ratio

PI = Plasticity Index pcf = pounds per cubic foot Note: CBR tests remolded to 95% of Modified Proctor maximum dry density,

at +2% above optimum moisture, and soaked for 96 hours prior to testing.

% Swell of the CBR specimens (after soaking) ranged from 0.2% (Bulk #1)

to 1.2% (Bulk #3), and averaged 0.8%.

CBR

(%)

Natural Moisture

(%)Soil Description

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATAGSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - NEW CARGO RAMP

GREER, SPARTANBURG COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

Modified ProctorUSCS

Symbol

Atterberg LimitsBoring

Nos.

Sample

No.

Sample

Depth

(ft)

Percent

Finer

#200 (%)

S&ME PROJECT NO. 1426-17-019

TOTAL QUANTITIES: 7 7

Cobbles Fine Sand < 0.425 mm and > 0.075 mm (#200)

Gravel

18.5%

Form No: TR-D422-WH-1Ga

Revision No. 0

< 75 mm and > 4.75 mm (#4) Silt < 0.075 and > 0.005 mm

Client Name:

Medium Sand

27

63.5%

19

Log #:

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) - red brown, medium to fine

Depth:Bulk

2.00 mm

< 300 mm (12") and > 75 mm (3")

Quality Assurance

S&ME, Inc. - Greenville 48 Brookfield Oaks Dr., Suite F Greenville, SC 29607

3/17 - 3/22/17GSP Airport - New Cargo Ramp

616 Colonnade Drive Charlotte, North Carolina 28205

Project Name:

Sample Date:

3/22/17

Bulk #1 0-5' & 0-3'

Sample Description:

Type:Location:

Project #:

Client Address:

Boring #:

W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc.

32gB-11 & B-17

Revision Date: 07/14/08

ASTM D 422

Report Date:1426-17-019

Coarse Sand

Clay < 0.005 mm

0.7%

Colloids < 0.001 mm

Coarse Sand < 4.75 mm and >2.00 mm (#10)

17.2%

This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.

Coarse Sand

Soft

o x

o

Medium Sand0.7%

Hard & Durable x

< 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm (#40)

30.1%

Fine Sand

Group Leader

Cc = ###### Cu = ######

Angular

Medium Sand

0.0%

Specific Gravity 2.650

Maximum Particle Size

Gravel

Liquid Limit 46

Technical Responsibility Signature DatePosition

3/22/17Brian Vaughan, P.E.

Notes / Deviations / References:

Moisture Content

3/06 - 3/09/17

Plastic Index

Sieve Analysis of Soils

Test Date(s):

Weathered & Friable

Description of Sand & Gravel Particles: Rounded

o

Fine Sand

Silt & Clay

17.2% 18.5%

Plastic Limit

3" 1.5" 1"3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.010.101.0010.00100.00

Per

cen

t P

ass

ing

(%

)

Millimeters

S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road

Raleigh, NC. 27616

Bulk #1 (Grain-size).xls

Page 1 of 1

- -

x o

x o o

o x o x

ASTM D1557

#200

Bulk Gravity

% Moisture

Sieve Size used to separate the Oversize Fraction:

Dry Preparation

Fine Fraction

Brian Vaughan, P.E. Group LeaderDate

3/22/17

ASTM D 1557: Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort

Mechanical Rammer Manual Rammer

Technical Responsibility Signature

Moist Preparation

References / Comments / Deviations:

Position

ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass

Corrected for Oversize Fraction (ASTM D 4718)

3/4 inch Sieve

Opt. MC

% Oversize

MDD

3/8 inch Sieve#4 Sieve

#100

100.0%

#60

#40

69.9%

3/4"

#4

82.0%

Soil Properties

Natural

Moisture

Content %30.1%

Liquid Limit

Specific

Gravity of

Soil (D 854)

Bulk

Optimum Moisture Content

Depth: 0-5' & 0-3'

Moisture-Density Curve Displayed:

46

Oversize Fraction

% Passing

100.0%

Method A

Project Name:

Client Name:

Client Address:

Sample Description:

3/14 - 3/16/17




109.1

Log #:

Type:

Maximum Dry Density


Boring #: B-11 & B-17

Location: Bulk #1

32g Sample Date:

Quality Assurance


75.5%

S&ME Project #:

99.3%

63.5%

100.0%

18.0% PCF.

Report Date: 3/22/171426-17-019

Test Date:

3/06 - 3/09/17


19

2.650

Plastic Index

Form No. TR-D698-2

Moisture - Density Report Revision No. : 0

Plastic Limit

3/8"

#10

27


100% Saturation Curve

94.0

99.0

104.0

109.0

114.0

8.0 13.0 18.0 23.0 28.0

Dry

Den

sity

(P

CF

)

Moisture Content (%)

Moisture-Density Relations of Soil and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures

S&ME,Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road

Raleigh, NC. 27616

Bulk #1 (Proctor).xls

Page 1 of 1

CBR Sample Preparation:

Compactive Effort (Blows per Layer)

Group Leader 3/22/17

104.6

20.0%

0.2%

Technical Responsibility Signature Position Date

S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg 301 Zima Park Drive Spartanburg, SC 29301

This report shall not be reproduced, except in full without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.

Moisture Content of the Compacted Specimen

Optimum Moisture Content: 18.0%

Uncorrected CBR Values

CBR at 0.2 in.

104.4

After Soaking

ASTM D 1883, Section 7.1.1

Before Soaking

The entire gradation was used and compacted in a 6" CBR mold in accordance with

Brian Vaughan, P.E.

10.0

Notes/Deviations/References: Liquid Limit: ASTM D 4318, Classification: ASTM D 2487

Apparent Relative Density

15.6CBR at 0.1 in.

ASTM D 1557 Method A Maximum Dry Density: 109.1

Compaction Test performed on grading complying with CBR spec.

PCF

13.1

Corrected CBR Values

14.4 CBR at 0.2 in.

0.0%

CBR at 0.1 in. 16.2

19

Surcharge Weight

46

% Retained on the 3/4" sieve:

3/22/17

3/06 - 3/09/17

Depth: 0-5' & 0-3'

Client Name:


Test Date(s):



3/17 - 3/21/17

Boring #: B-11 & B-17

Project Name: GSP Airport - New Cargo Ramp

Sample Description:

Sample Date:Log #:

Bulk #1 Type: Bulk

Plastic IndexLiquid Limit

Moisture Content (top 1" after soaking)

35 Final Dry Density (PCF)

Soak Time: 96 hrs.

2.650

Percent Compaction

Surcharge Wt. per sq. Ft.

95.9%

51.0

Percent Swell

20.9%

20.1%Initial Dry Density (PCF) Average Final Moisture Content

Form No. TR-D1883-T193-3

Revision No. 1 CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of Laboratory Compacted Soil Revision Date: 9/29/08

ASTM D 1883

Project #: Report Date:1426-17-019

Quality Assurance

Client Address:

32g

Location:

Corrected Value at .1"


0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

Str

ess

( P

SI

)

Strain ( inches )


Raleigh, NC. 27616

Bulk #1 (CBR).xlsx

Page 1 of 1


Gravel

26.6%


Revision No. 0


Client Name:

Medium Sand

23

46.4%

10

Log #:

CLAYEY SAND (SC) - brown, medium to fine

Depth:Bulk

4.75 mm

< 300 mm (12") and > 75 mm (3")

Quality Assurance




Project Name:

Sample Date:

3/22/17

Bulk #2 0-4', 0-5', & 0-5'

Sample Description:

Type:Location:

Project #:

Client Address:

Boring #:


32gB-18, B-20, & B-23


ASTM D 422


Coarse Sand

Clay < 0.005 mm

3.3%

Colloids < 0.001 mm


23.0%


Coarse Sand

Soft

o x

o

Medium Sand3.3%

Hard & Durable x

< 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm (#40)

16.3%

Fine Sand

Group Leader

Cc = ###### Cu = ######

Angular

Medium Sand

0.7%



Gravel

Liquid Limit 33




Moisture Content

3/06 - 3/09/17

Plastic Index


Test Date(s):

Weathered & Friable


o

Fine Sand

Silt & Clay

23.0% 26.6%

Plastic Limit

3" 1.5" 1"3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.010.101.0010.00100.00

Per

cen

t P

ass

ing

(%

)

Millimeters


Raleigh, NC. 27616


Page 1 of 1

- -

x o

x o o

o x o x

ASTM D1557

#200

Bulk Gravity

% Moisture


Dry Preparation

Fine Fraction


3/22/17




Moist Preparation


Position



3/4 inch Sieve

Opt. MC

% Oversize

MDD


#100

100.0%

#60

#40

56.9%

3/4"

#4

72.9%

Soil Properties

Natural

Moisture

Content %16.3%

Liquid Limit

Specific

Gravity of

Soil (D 854)

Bulk


Depth: 0-4', 0-5', & 0-5'


33

Oversize Fraction

% Passing

99.3%

Method A

Project Name:

Client Name:

Client Address:

Sample Description:

3/14 - 3/16/17




122.3

Log #:

Type:

Maximum Dry Density


Boring #: B-18, B-20, & B-23

Location: Bulk #2

32g Sample Date:

Quality Assurance


64.0%

S&ME Project #:

96.0%

46.4%

100.0%

12.4% PCF.

Report Date: 3/22/171426-17-019

Test Date:

3/06 - 3/09/17


10

2.700

Plastic Index

Form No. TR-D698-2


Plastic Limit

3/8"

#10

23


107.0

112.0

117.0

122.0

127.0

2.0 7.0 12.0 17.0 22.0

Dry

Den

sity

(P

CF

)




Raleigh, NC. 27616


Page 1 of 1




117.0

14.4%

0.6%







CBR at 0.2 in.

116.1

After Soaking


Before Soaking


Brian Vaughan, P.E.

10.0



12.8CBR at 0.1 in.



PCF

6.6


12.3 CBR at 0.2 in.

0.0%

CBR at 0.1 in. 17.2

10

Surcharge Weight

33


3/22/17

3/06 - 3/09/17

Depth: 0-4', 0-5', & 0-5'

Client Name:


Test Date(s):



3/17 - 3/21/17

Boring #: B-18, B-20, & B-23


Sample Description:

Sample Date:Log #:

Bulk #2 Type: Bulk




Soak Time: 96 hrs.

2.700

Percent Compaction


95.7%

50.9

Percent Swell

16.3%




ASTM D 1883


Quality Assurance

Client Address:

32g

Location:



0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

Str

ess

( P

SI

)

Strain ( inches )


Raleigh, NC. 27616

Bulk #2 (CBR).xlsx

Page 1 of 1

Weathered & Friable


o

Fine Sand

Silt & Clay

12.6% 22.2%

Plastic Limit

Moisture Content

3/06 - 3/09/17

Plastic Index


Test Date(s):

Position



Technical Responsibility Signature Date

Medium Sand

1.2%



Gravel

Liquid Limit 31

< 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm (#40)

18.1%

Fine Sand

Group Leader

Cc = ###### Cu = ######

Angular

Coarse Sand

Soft

o x

o

Medium Sand1.9%

Hard & Durable x


Coarse Sand

Clay < 0.005 mm

1.9%

Colloids < 0.001 mm


12.6%

Boring #:


32gC-3 & C-5


ASTM D 422


Sample Date:

3/22/17

Bulk #3 1 - 5'

Sample Description:

Type:Location:

Project #:

Client Address:

Quality Assurance




Project Name:

Medium Sand

21

62.0%

10

Log #:

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) - brown yellow, medium to fine, micaceous

Depth:Bulk

9.50 mm

< 300 mm (12") and > 75 mm (3")


Revision No. 0


Client Name:

22.2%

Fine Sand < 0.425 mm and > 0.075 mm (#200)

Gravel

Cobbles

3" 1.5" 1"3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.010.101.0010.00100.00

Per

cen

t P

ass

ing

(%

)

Millimeters


Raleigh, NC. 27616


Page 1 of 1

- -

x o

x o o

o x o x

ASTM D1557

#200

Bulk Gravity

% Moisture


Dry Preparation

Fine Fraction


3/22/17




Moist Preparation


Position



3/4 inch Sieve

Opt. MC

% Oversize

MDD


#100

100.0%

#60

#40

71.9%

3/4"

#4

84.2%

Soil Properties

Natural

Moisture

Content %18.1%

Liquid Limit

Specific

Gravity of

Soil (D 854)

Bulk


Depth: 1 - 5'


31

Oversize Fraction

% Passing

98.8%

Method A

Project Name:

Client Name:

Client Address:

Sample Description:

3/14 - 3/16/17




122.8

Log #:

Type:

Maximum Dry Density


Boring #: C-3 & C-5

Location: Bulk #3

32g Sample Date:

Quality Assurance


78.5%

S&ME Project #:

96.8%

62.0%

100.0%

12.5% PCF.

Report Date: 3/22/171426-17-019

Test Date:

3/06 - 3/09/17


10

2.700

Plastic Index

Form No. TR-D698-2


Plastic Limit

3/8"

#10

21


108.0

113.0

118.0

123.0

128.0

3.0 8.0 13.0 18.0 23.0

Dry

Den

sity

(P

CF

)




Raleigh, NC. 27616


Page 1 of 1



ASTM D 1883


Quality Assurance

Client Address:

32g

Location:




Soak Time: 96 hrs.

2.700

Percent Compaction


96.0%

51.0

Percent Swell

18.3%



3/22/17

3/06 - 3/09/17

Depth: 1 - 5'

Client Name:


Test Date(s):



3/17 - 3/21/17

Boring #: C-3 & C-5


Sample Description:

Sample Date:Log #:

Bulk #3 Type: Bulk

Brian Vaughan, P.E.

10.0



20.8CBR at 0.1 in.



PCF

15.4


19.0 CBR at 0.2 in.

0.0%

CBR at 0.1 in. 22.5

10

Surcharge Weight

31


CBR at 0.2 in.

115.7

After Soaking


Before Soaking










117.8

14.5%

1.2%



0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

Str

ess

( P

SI

)

Strain ( inches )


Raleigh, NC. 27616

Bulk #3 (CBR).xlsx

Page 1 of 1


Gravel

26.6%


Revision No. 0


Client Name:

Medium Sand

23

59.9%

9

Log #:

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) - tan brown, medium to fine, micaceous

Depth:Bulk

4.75 mm

< 300 mm (12") and > 75 mm (3")

Quality Assurance




Project Name:

Sample Date:

3/22/17

Bulk #4 0-5' & 1-5'

Sample Description:

Type:Location:

Project #:

Client Address:

Boring #:


32gB-3 & C-6


ASTM D 422


Coarse Sand

Clay < 0.005 mm

1.6%

Colloids < 0.001 mm


12.0%


Coarse Sand

Soft

o x

o

Medium Sand1.6%

Hard & Durable x

< 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm (#40)

14.6%

Fine Sand

Group Leader

Cc = ###### Cu = ######

Angular

Medium Sand

0.0%



Gravel

Liquid Limit 32




Moisture Content

3/06 - 3/09/17

Plastic Index


Test Date(s):

Weathered & Friable


o

Fine Sand

Silt & Clay

12.0% 26.6%

Plastic Limit

3" 1.5" 1"3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.010.101.0010.00100.00

Per

cen

t P

ass

ing

(%

)

Millimeters


Raleigh, NC. 27616


Page 1 of 1

- -

x o

x o o

o x o x

ASTM D1557

#200

Bulk Gravity

% Moisture


Dry Preparation

Fine Fraction


3/22/17




Moist Preparation


Position



3/4 inch Sieve

Opt. MC

% Oversize

MDD


#100

100.0%

#60

#40

72.6%

3/4"

#4

86.5%

Soil Properties

Natural

Moisture

Content %14.6%

Liquid Limit

Specific

Gravity of

Soil (D 854)

Bulk


Depth: 0-5' & 1-5'


32

Oversize Fraction

% Passing

100.0%

Method A

Project Name:

Client Name:

Client Address:

Sample Description:

3/14 - 3/16/17




123.0

Log #:

Type:

Maximum Dry Density


Boring #: B-3 & C-6

Location: Bulk #4

32g Sample Date:

Quality Assurance


79.7%

S&ME Project #:

98.4%

59.9%

100.0%

12.9% PCF.

Report Date: 3/22/171426-17-019

Test Date:

3/06 - 3/09/17


9

2.700

Plastic Index

Form No. TR-D698-2


Plastic Limit

3/8"

#10

23


108.0

113.0

118.0

123.0

128.0

3.0 8.0 13.0 18.0 23.0

Dry

Den

sity

(P

CF

)




Raleigh, NC. 27616


Page 1 of 1

3/06 - 3/09/17

Depth: 0-5' & 1-5'

Initial Dry Density (PCF) Average Final Moisture Content




CBR at 0.2 in.

Before Soaking


CBR at 0.1 in.

ASTM D1557 Method A Maximum Dry Density: 123.0



ASTM D 1883


Log #:

Bulk #4 Type: Bulk

32g

Quality Assurance

3/22/17




7.4


10.0

PCF

0.0%

CBR at 0.1 in. 13.311.4

1426-17-019

Sample Description:

Sample Date:

Client Address:

Client Name:


Test Date(s)


Project #: Report Date:


3/17 - 3/21/17

Boring #: B-3 & C-6





116.9


14.9%

Location:

CBR at 0.2 in.

Apparent Relative Density9

Surcharge Weight

Percent Compaction


95.0%



Soak Time: 96 hrs.

Brian Vaughan, P.E.

10.0


1.1%

32 2.700

50.9

Percent Swell

115.1

After Soaking

ASTM D1883, Section 6.1.1

18.5%Moisture Content (top 1" after soaking)

15.4%



0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

Str

ess

( P

SI

)

Strain ( inches )


Raleigh, NC. 27616

Bulk #4 (CBR).xlsx

Page 1 of 1

Weathered & Friable


o

Fine Sand

Silt & Clay

21.5% 32.4%

Plastic Limit

Moisture Content

3/06 - 3/09/17

Plastic Index


Test Date(s):

Position




Medium Sand

2.6%



Gravel

Liquid Limit 22

< 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm (#40)

10.7%

Fine Sand

Group Leader

Cc = ###### Cu = ######

Angular

Coarse Sand

Soft

o x

o

Medium Sand3.7%

Hard & Durable x


Coarse Sand

Clay < 0.005 mm

3.7%

Colloids < 0.001 mm


21.5%

Boring #:


32gB-1 & C-1


ASTM D 422


Sample Date:

3/22/17

Bulk #5 0-5' & 1-5'

Sample Description:

Type:Location:

Project #:

Client Address:

Quality Assurance




Project Name:

Medium Sand

18

39.9%

4

Log #:

SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM) - tan brown, medium to fine

Depth:Bulk

9.50 mm

< 300 mm (12") and > 75 mm (3")


Revision No. 0


Client Name:

32.4%


Gravel

Cobbles

3" 1.5" 1"3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.010.101.0010.00100.00

Per

cen

t P

ass

ing

(%

)

Millimeters


Raleigh, NC. 27616


Page 1 of 1

- -

x o

x o o

o x o x

ASTM D1557

#200

Bulk Gravity

% Moisture


Dry Preparation

Fine Fraction


3/22/17




Moist Preparation


Position



3/4 inch Sieve

Opt. MC

% Oversize

MDD


#100

100.0%

#60

#40

52.1%

3/4"

#4

72.2%

Soil Properties

Natural

Moisture

Content %10.7%

Liquid Limit

Specific

Gravity of

Soil (D 854)

Bulk


Depth: 0-5' & 1-5'


22

Oversize Fraction

% Passing

97.4%

Method A

Project Name:

Client Name:

Client Address:

Sample Description:

3/14 - 3/16/17




128.6

Log #:

Type:

Maximum Dry Density


Boring #: B-1 & C-1

Location: Bulk #5

32g Sample Date:

Quality Assurance


62.3%

S&ME Project #:

93.7%

39.9%

99.7%

9.6% PCF.

Report Date: 3/22/171426-17-019

Test Date:

3/06 - 3/09/17


4

2.650

Plastic Index

Form No. TR-D698-2


Plastic Limit

3/8"

#10

18


114.0

119.0

124.0

129.0

134.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Dry

Den

sity

(P

CF

)




Raleigh, NC. 27616


Page 1 of 1

Weathered & Friable


o

Fine Sand

Silt & Clay

17.5% 30.2%

Plastic Limit

Moisture Content

3/06 - 3/09/17

Plastic Index


Test Date(s):

Position




Medium Sand

1.8%



Gravel

Liquid Limit 27

< 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm (#40)

13.9%

Fine Sand

Group Leader

Cc = ###### Cu = ######

Angular

Coarse Sand

Soft

o x

o

Medium Sand3.7%

Hard & Durable x


Coarse Sand

Clay < 0.005 mm

3.7%

Colloids < 0.001 mm


17.5%

Boring #:


32gB-5, B-6, & B-7


ASTM D 422


Sample Date:

3/22/17

Bulk #6 0 - 5'

Sample Description:

Type:Location:

Project #:

Client Address:

Quality Assurance




Project Name:

Medium Sand

21

46.9%

6

Log #:


Depth:Bulk

9.50 mm

< 300 mm (12") and > 75 mm (3")


Revision No. 0


Client Name:

30.2%


Gravel

Cobbles

3" 1.5" 1"3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.010.101.0010.00100.00

Per

cen

t P

ass

ing

(%

)

Millimeters


Raleigh, NC. 27616


Page 1 of 1

- -

x o

x o o

o x o x

ASTM D1557

#200

Bulk Gravity

% Moisture


Dry Preparation

Fine Fraction


3/22/17




Moist Preparation


Position



3/4 inch Sieve

Opt. MC

% Oversize

MDD


#100

100.0%

#60

#40

59.5%

3/4"

#4

77.0%

Soil Properties

Natural

Moisture

Content %13.9%

Liquid Limit

Specific

Gravity of

Soil (D 854)

Bulk


Depth: 0 - 5'


27

Oversize Fraction

% Passing

98.2%

Method A

Project Name:

Client Name:

Client Address:

Sample Description:

3/14 - 3/16/17




129.0

Log #:

Type:

Maximum Dry Density


Boring #: B-5, B-6, & B-7

Location: Bulk #6

32g Sample Date:

Quality Assurance


67.8%

S&ME Project #:

94.5%

46.9%

99.7%

8.0% PCF.

Report Date: 3/22/171426-17-019

Test Date:

3/06 - 3/09/17


6

2.650

Plastic Index

Form No. TR-D698-2


Plastic Limit

3/8"

#10

21


114.0

119.0

124.0

129.0

134.0

0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0

Dry

Den

sity

(P

CF

)




Raleigh, NC. 27616


Page 1 of 1

3/06 - 3/09/17

Depth: 0 - 5'

Initial Dry Density (PCF) Average Final Moisture Content




CBR at 0.2 in.

Before Soaking


CBR at 0.1 in.

ASTM D1557 Method A Maximum Dry Density: 129.0



ASTM D 1883


Log #:

Bulk #6 Type: Bulk

93g

Quality Assurance

3/22/17




36.5


42.2

PCF

0.0%

CBR at 0.1 in. 36.034.6

1426-17-019

Sample Description:

Sample Date:

Client Address:

Client Name:


Test Date(s)




3/17 - 3/21/17

Boring #: B-5, B-6, & B-7





122.6


10.0%

Location:

CBR at 0.2 in.

Apparent Relative Density:6

Surcharge Weight

Percent Compaction


95.0%



Soak Time: 96 hrs.

Brian Vaughan, P.E.

10.0


1.1%

27 2.650

50.9

Percent Swell

118.1

After Soaking


16.8%Moisture Content (top 1" after soaking)

12.9%



0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

Str

ess

( P

SI

)

Strain ( inches )


Raleigh, NC. 27616

Bulk #6 (CBR).xlsx

Page 1 of 1

Weathered & Friable


o

Fine Sand

Silt & Clay

25.9% 30.3%

Plastic Limit

Moisture Content

3/06 - 3/09/17

Plastic Index


Test Date(s):

Position




Medium Sand

0.2%



Gravel

Liquid Limit 25

< 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm (#40)

15.2%

Fine Sand

Group Leader

Cc = ###### Cu = ######

Angular

Coarse Sand

Soft

o x

o

Medium Sand3.4%

Hard & Durable x


Coarse Sand

Clay < 0.005 mm

3.4%

Colloids < 0.001 mm


25.9%

Boring #:


32gB-9, B-10, B-12, & B-13A


ASTM D 422


Sample Date:

3/22/17

Bulk #7 0-3', 0-3', 0-3', & 0-5'

Sample Description:

Type:Location:

Project #:

Client Address:

Quality Assurance




Project Name:

Medium Sand

21

40.2%

4

Log #:


Depth:Bulk

4.75 mm

< 300 mm (12") and > 75 mm (3")


Revision No. 0


Client Name:

30.3%


Gravel

Cobbles

3" 1.5" 1"3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.010.101.0010.00100.00

Per

cen

t P

ass

ing

(%

)

Millimeters


Raleigh, NC. 27616


Page 1 of 1

- -

x o

x o o

o x o x

ASTM D1557

#200

Bulk Gravity

% Moisture


Dry Preparation

Fine Fraction


3/22/17




Moist Preparation


Position



3/4 inch Sieve

Opt. MC

% Oversize

MDD


#100

100.0%

#60

#40

51.7%

3/4"

#4

70.6%

Soil Properties

Natural

Moisture

Content %15.6%

Liquid Limit

Specific

Gravity of

Soil (D 854)

Bulk


Depth: 0-3', 0-3', 0-3', & 0-5'


25

Oversize Fraction

% Passing

99.8%

Method A

Project Name:

Client Name:

Client Address:

Sample Description:

3/14 - 3/16/17




126.1

Log #:

Type:

Maximum Dry Density


Boring #: B-9, B-10, B-12, & B-13A

Location: Bulk #7

32g Sample Date:

Quality Assurance


61.1%

S&ME Project #:

96.4%

40.2%

100.0%

9.6% PCF.

Report Date: 3/22/171426-17-019

Test Date:

3/06 - 3/09/17


4

2.650

Plastic Index

Form No. TR-D698-2


Plastic Limit

3/8"

#10

21


111.0

116.0

121.0

126.0

131.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Dry

Den

sity

(P

CF

)




Raleigh, NC. 27616


Page 1 of 1

13.6%

Apparent Relative Density:4

Surcharge Weight

Percent Compaction


95.0%


50.9

Percent Swell




118.2

CBR at 0.1 in. 21.213.4


119.8



After Soaking


PCF



3/17 - 3/21/17

Boring #: B-9, B-10, B-12, & B-13A


1426-17-019

Sample Description:

Sample Date:

Client Address:

Client Name:




11.6%

Test Date(s)


Location:




Brian Vaughan, P.E.


25 2.650

Before Soaking

Soak Time: 96 hrs. 10.0

0.8%

Method A Maximum Dry Density: 126.1



ASTM D 1883


Log #:

Bulk #7 Type: Bulk

32g


7.4


16.0



CBR at 0.2 in.CBR at 0.1 in.

ASTM D1557

Quality Assurance

3/22/17

3/06 - 3/09/17

Depth: 0-3, 0-3', 0-3', & 0-5'

CBR at 0.2 in.

0.0%



0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

Str

ess

( P

SI

)

Strain ( inches )


Raleigh, NC. 27616

Bulk #7 (CBR).xlsx

Page 1 of 1

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

Important Information About Your

Geotechnical Engineering Report

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

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

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

Date post:	11-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	tranduong
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

, Inc. | 48 Brookfield Oaks Drive, Suite F | Greenville, SC 29607 | p 864.297.9944 | f 864.297.0462...

Documents