Report of Subsurface Exploration Proposed Kenilworth ......2013/10/25 · Report of Subsurface...

Report of Subsurface ExplorationProposed Kenilworth – RomanyStorm Drainage Design Project

Charlotte, North CarolinaS&ME Project No. 1351-13-081

Prepared For:

Armstrong Glen, P.C.9731-L Southern Pine BoulevardCharlotte, North Carolina 28273

Prepared By:

S&ME, Inc.9751 Southern Pine Boulevard

Charlotte, North Carolina 28273

October 25, 2013

S&ME, INC. / 9751 Southern Pine Blvd / Charlotte, NC / p 704.523.4726 / f 704.525.3953 / www.smeinc.com

October 25, 2013

Armstrong Glen, P.C.

9731-L Southern Pine Boulevard

Charlotte, North Carolina 28273

Attention: Mr. Josh Letourneau, P.E.

Reference: Report of Subsurface Exploration

Proposed Kenilworth – Romany Storm Drainage Design Project

Charlotte, North Carolina

S&ME Project No. 1351-13-081

NC PE Firm License No. F-0176

Dear Mr. Letourneau:

S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) has completed the subsurface exploration for the proposed storm

drainage improvements in Charlotte, North Carolina. This exploration was performed in

general accordance with our proposal No. 1351-26213-13R dated April 5, 2013.

Authorization to proceed with this study was provided through execution of S&ME’s

Agreement for Services Form (AS-071) on May 23, 2013.

The purpose of the exploration was to determine the general subsurface conditions in

select areas along the proposed storm drainage improvements to the Kenilworth-Romany

drainage area and to evaluate those conditions with regard to the design and construction

of the proposed improvements. This report presents our findings together with our

conclusions and recommendations for design and construction considerations for the

proposed storm drainage improvements.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTIONS .................................................................................... 1

2. EXPLORATION PROCEDURES ............................................................................................ 2

2.1 FIELD TESTING ................................................................................................................. 2

2.1.1 Soil Test Borings at Kenilworth Location .................................................................... 2

2.1.2 Hand Auger Borings at Romany Location .................................................................. 2

2.1.3 Rod Sounding............................................................................................................. 3

2.2 LABORATORY.................................................................................................................... 3

3. AREA GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................................... 4

3.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND AREA GEOLOGY ................................................................................ 4

3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 6

3.2.1 Kenilworth Site............................................................................................................ 6

3.2.2 Romany Site ............................................................................................................... 7

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................... 7

4.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................................... 7

4.2 KENILWORTH LOCATION .................................................................................................... 7

4.2.1 Underpinning .............................................................................................................. 7

4.2.2 Shoring ....................................................................................................................... 8

4.2.3 Bedding Considerations ............................................................................................. 9

4.2.4 Retaining Wall/Headwall............................................................................................. 9

4.2.5 Pavements................................................................................................................ 11

4.3 ROMANY ROAD SITE ....................................................................................................... 11

4.3.1 Culvert/Headwall Foundations.................................................................................. 11

4.3.2 Headwall/Wingwall Lateral Earth Pressures............................................................. 12

4.3.3 Pavements................................................................................................................ 13

5. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................ 13

5.1 EXISTING UTILITIES ......................................................................................................... 13

5.2 SITE PREPARATION ......................................................................................................... 13

5.3 TEMPORARY DEWATERING .............................................................................................. 14

5.4 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION STABILITY ............................................................................... 14

5.5 EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................................... 14

5.6 FILL MATERIAL AND PLACEMENT...................................................................................... 15

6. LIMITATIONS OF REPORT ................................................................................................. 16

APPENDIX

Site Vicinity Map, Figure 1Boring Location Plan, Figure 2Hand Auger Boring Location Plan, Figure 3Legend to Soil Classification and SymbolsBoring Logs (B-1 through B-5)Hand Auger Boring and DCP Testing LogRod Sounding Log (RS-1)Laboratory Testing Results

Report of Subsurface Exploration S&ME Project No. 1351-13-081

Kenilworth – Romany Storm Drainage Design Project

Charlotte, North Carolina October 25, 2013

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project and Site Descriptions

Project information is based on telephone and e-mail correspondence between AndyLitten of Armstrong Glen and Duane Bents of S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) from February 7through February 13, 2013. It is also based on a site meeting between Mr. Litten and Mr.Bents on February 12, 2013. A Proposed Layout Plan dated December 7, 2012 andprepared by Armstrong Glen was provided to us in the e-mail correspondence. Additionalinformation was provided during a telephone conversation with Mr. Letourneau andBrian McKean of S&ME along with a subsequent e-mail on October 16, 2013. The e-mail included 60% design plans that indicated the approximate location and elevation ofthe new culverts and headwalls for the project.

We understand Armstrong Glen is in the design phase for the City of Charlotte’sKenilworth-Romany Storm Drainage Improvement Project. The project includesmodifications to the existing stormwater drainage system (storm sewer and open channel)extending from Euclid Avenue to Sugar Creek generally between East Boulevard andBerkeley Avenue. Two areas of the project requiring subsurface information werediscussed during the site meeting; the outfall area between Harding Place and SugarCreek and the Dilworth Road crossing. These approximate areas are shown on theattached Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1).

The existing outfall includes a large diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that extendsbeneath the three-story building located at 1416 E. Morehead Street. The outfall/discharge pipe area into Sugar Creek is exhibiting signs of erosion/distress and hasresulted in a portion of the existing parking lot being closed. We understand thestormwater system improvements in this area include abandonment of the existing RCPand replacement with a new 12’ x 6’ box culvert. Two alignments for the box culvertwere considered; one between 1416 E. Morehead and the single story building located at1400 E. Morehead (ALT-1), and the other between 1416 E. Morehead and a 3- to 4-storyportion of Carolina Medical Center’s (CMC) Main building (ALT-2). In an e-mail toDuane Bents on May 23, 2013, Mr. Letourneau indicated that the city had opted for ALT-1 and requested that S&ME eliminate some of the proposed borings from our scope ofservices. The eliminated borings are noted on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 2) at theend of this report. Open-trench construction will require the box culvert be installed inclose proximity to the existing buildings requiring temporary shoring and, potentially,underpinning of the existing buildings. We also understand the outlet structure will bereconfigured and a new retaining wall constructed in order to provide separation betweenthe building/parking lots and Sugar Creek.

At the Romany Road portion of the project, a new 4’ x 5’ box culvert will be constructedwhere the current 48” culvert exists. This new culvert will run below Romany Roadtoward the hospital and the Kenilworth portion of the project. Mr. Letourneau indicated




2

during the October 16 telephone conversation that a new retaining wall or headwall willbe constructed at the intersection of Dilworth Road and Romany Road to encompass boththe new culvert opening as well as the existing 48” culvert, as it will remain in use.

2. EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

2.1 Field Testing

Five soil test borings (B-1 through B-5), three hand auger borings (HA-1, HA-2 and HA-2A) and one rod sounding (RS-1) were performed at the approximate locations shown onthe attached Location Plans (Figures 2 and 3). The test locations were located in the fieldby an S&ME staff professional.

2.1.1 Soil Test Borings at Kenilworth Location

Five soil test borings (Borings B-1 through B-5) were drilled to depths of 11 to 24.4 feetbelow existing grades to evaluate the subsurface conditions along the ALT-1 alignment atthe Kenilworth location. Proposed Borings B-6 and B-8 were eliminated form our scopedue to the selection of alignment ALT-1. A CME 550 and CME-45B drill rig were usedto advance the borings using hollow-stem, continuous flight augers. Standard PenetrationTest (SPT) split spoon sampling was performed at designated intervals in the soil testborings in general accordance with ASTM D 1586 to provide an index for estimating soilstrength and relative density or consistency. The drill rigs used to perform the borings areequipped with a hydraulic automatic hammer for penetration testing. The N-valuesreported on the attached Boring Logs are the actual field-measured blow counts and arenot corrected for the hammer energy. In conjunction with the SPT testing, samples wereobtained for soil classification purposes. Representative portions of each soil samplewere placed in glass jars and taken to our laboratory. Additionally, undisturbed Shelbytube samples were also obtained in select borings for laboratory testing.

Slotted PVC standpipe was inserted in Boring B-4 to facilitate stabilized water levelmeasurements. Upon completion of water level measurements, the standpipe wasremoved and the boreholes were backfilled with soil cuttings and capped with asphaltpatch.

2.1.2 Hand Auger Borings at Romany Location

S&ME’s original scope included the drilling of soil test borings around the existingheadwall for the 48” culvert headwall. Due to the proximity of overhead power lines andunderground utilities, S&ME could not perform soil test borings close enough to therequested location. In e-mails to Mr. Letourneau on June 17, 18 and 20, 2013, LuisCampos of S&ME outlined the situation and recommended the use of hand auger boringsand rod soundings to obtain relevant subsurface information. Mr. Letourneau indicated bye-mail on June 18, 2013 that this substitution was acceptable.

Two hand auger borings (HA-1, HA-2) and one offset hand auger boring (HA-2A) wereperformed at the approximate locations indicated on Figure 3. The hand auger boringswere advanced to depths of 5.7 to 10 feet below the ground surface by manually twisting




3

a hand auger into the ground. The hand auger cuttings were visually observed and weremanually classified in general accordance with Unified Soil Classification System(USCS) procedures. A Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Test was performed in thehand auger borings at approximately 2 foot intervals.

The Dynamic Cone Penetrometer test procedure is as follows: The cone point of thepenetrometer is first seated two inches into the bearing materials to assure that the point iscompletely embedded. The cone point is driven 1-¾ inches using a 15-pound weightfalling 20 inches. The penetrometer reading is the number of blows required to drive thecone point 1-¾ inches. Typically, the cone point may be driven an additional second andthird increment of 1-¾ inches each and the penetrometer readings are recorded. Thepenetrometer reading is similar to the Standard Penetration Resistance (N-value), asdefined by ASTM D 1586. When properly evaluated, the penetrometer test resultsprovide an index for estimating soil strength and relative density. Water levels weremeasured at the termination of hand augering and the holes were backfilled prior toleaving the site.

2.1.3 Rod Sounding

S&ME personnel performed one rod sounding (designated RS-1) in the creek bed near theheadwall of the existing 48” culvert at the Romany Road site to supplement the hand augerborings. Rod soundings are commonly used for supplementing traditional borings at creekcrossings where access is limited or when hand auger boreholes cave in due to waterinflow. The rod sounding consists of manually driving a 0.5-inch diameter steel rod intothe ground with a standardized drop hammer while recording the number of blowsrequired to penetrate two 6-inch increments. The total number of blows over the 1-footpenetration interval is referred to as a “blow count” in this report and provides a generalindication of material consistency or relative density. The “blow count” is not the same asan SPT N-value, and samples are not recovered for classification; therefore, strata andmaterial types are inferred based on engineering judgment. The rod sounding wasadvanced to a depth of 12 feet below the existing ground surface.

2.2 Laboratory

Once the split-spoon samples were received in our laboratory, a geotechnical staffprofessional visually/manually examined each sample to estimate the distribution of grainsizes, plasticity, organic content, moisture condition, color, presence of lenses and seamsand apparent geological origin. The soils were classified in general accordance withUSCS procedures. The results of the classifications as well as the field test results arepresented on the individual Boring Logs. Similar soils were grouped into strata on thelogs. The strata contact lines represent approximate boundaries between the soil types;the actual transition between the soil types in the field may be gradual in both thehorizontal and vertical directions.




4

Laboratory testing was performed on the undisturbed Shelby tube samples obtained

during the exploration. The samples were subjected to the following laboratory testing:

• Natural Moisture Content• Atterberg Limits• Grain-Size Distribution• Consolidated Undrained (CU) Triaxial Shear Testing

The testing was performed in accordance with ASTM or other applicable testingstandards. The results are presented on data sheets in the Appendix.

3. AREA GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Physiography and Area Geology

The site is located within the Charlotte Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province ofNorth Carolina as shown in the following figure. The Piedmont Province generallyconsists of well-rounded hills and ridges, which are dissected by a well-developed systemof draws and streams. The Piedmont Province is predominantly underlain bymetamorphic rock (formed by heat, pressure and/or chemical action) and igneous rock(formed directly from molten material), which were initially formed during thePrecambrian and Paleozoic eras. The volcanic and sedimentary rocks deposited in thePiedmont Province during the Precambrian eras were the host for the metamorphism andwere changed to gneiss and schist. The more recent Paleozoic era had periods of igneousemplacement, with at least several episodes of regional metamorphism resulting in themajority of the rock types seen today.

Physiographic Provinces of North Carolina

The topography and relief of the Piedmont Province have developed from differentialweathering of the igneous and metamorphic rock. Because of the continued chemical andphysical weathering, the rocks in the Piedmont Province are now generally covered with amantle of soil that has weathered in place from the parent bedrock. These soils havevariable thicknesses and are referred to as residuum or residual soils. The residuum istypically finer grained and has higher clay content near the surface because of the

APPROXIMATESITE LOCATION




5

advanced weathering. Similarly, the soils typically become coarser grained withincreasing depth because of decreased weathering. As the degree of weatheringdecreases, the residual soils generally retain the overall appearance, texture, gradation andfoliations of the parent rock.

The boundary between soil and rock in the Piedmont is not sharply defined. Atransitional zone termed “Partially Weathered Rock” is normally found overlying theparent bedrock. Partially Weathered Rock (PWR) is defined for engineering purposes asresidual material with Standard Penetration Resistances (N-values) exceeding 100 blowsper foot. The transition between hard/dense residual soils and PWR occurs at irregulardepths due to variations in degree of weathering. A depiction of typical weatheringprofiles in the Piedmont Province is presented in the following figure.

Typical Piedmont Weathering Profiles (After Sowers/Richardson, 1983)

Water is typically present in the residual soils and within fractures in the PWR orunderlying bedrock in the Piedmont. On upland ridges in the Piedmont, water may ormay not be present in the residual soils above the PWR and bedrock. Alluvial soils,which have been transported and deposited by water, are typically found in floodplainsand are generally saturated to within a few feet of the ground surface. Fluctuations inwater levels are typical in residual soils and PWR in the Piedmont, depending onvariations in precipitation, evaporation and surface water runoff. Seasonal high waterlevels are expected to occur during or just after the typically wetter months of the year(November through April).




6

3.2 Subsurface Conditions

3.2.1 Kenilworth Site

Surface Materials: Asphalt and ABC stone were encountered at the ground surface ineach of the borings. Total thicknesses ranged from 5 to 12 inches.

Existing Fill: Existing fill soils were encountered below the surface materials in eachboring to depths ranging from approximately 5.5 to 17.5 feet below the ground surface.The existing fill soils consisted of soft to stiff sandy clay (CL), silty clay (CL, CH), clayeysilt (MH), sandy silt (ML), and loose to medium dense silty sand (SM). Additionally, theupper fill soils in Boring B-4 and B-5 contained asphalt pieces. The SPT N-values in theexisting fill soils ranged from 3 to 13 blows per foot (bpf).

Alluvial Soils: Alluvial soils were encountered in Borings B-1, B-2 and B-3 below thefill to depths ranging from 12.5 to 13.5 feet below the ground surface. The alluvial soilsconsist of soft to firm silty clay (CL, CH) and sandy clay (CL) materials. N-values in thealluvial soils ranged from 3 to 5 bpf. Boring B-1 was terminated in the alluvial materialsat a depth of 12.5 feet upon encountering auger refusal.

Residual Soils: Residual soils were encountered below the fill materials in Boring B-5 ata depth of 17.5 feet. The residuum generally consisted of very stiff sandy silt (ML). AnN-value of 20 bpf was observed in the residuum.

Partially Weathered Rock and Auger Refusal Material: Partially Weathered Rockwas encountered in Borings B-2, B-3 and B-5 at depths ranging from 12.5 to 22 feetbelow the ground surface. When sampled, the PWR broke down into silty sand andsandy silt. Boring B-5 was terminated in the PWR at a depth of 24.4 feet.

Borings B-1 through B-4 were terminated upon encountering auger refusal at depthsranging from 11 to 15 feet below the ground surface. Auger refusal is a relative termused to define material that could not be penetrated with the drilling equipment used onthe project. Refusal material may result due to the presence of boulders; rock ledges,lenses, or seams; or the top of parent bedrock. Coring of the refusal material was beyondthe scope of our services.

Water Level Measurements: Slotted PVC standpipe was inserted in Boring B-4 tofacilitate water level measurements. Additionally, Boring B-5 was left open for 3 dayswhich allowed for additional water level measurements. Water was observed in all of theborings at depths ranging from 11 to 14 feet below the ground surface.

Water levels tend to fluctuate with seasonal and climatic variations, as well as with sometypes of construction operations. Therefore, water may be encountered duringconstruction at depths not indicated during this study.




7

3.2.2 Romany Site

Surface Materials: A thin layer of grass and topsoil was encountered at the groundsurface of the hand auger borings.

Existing Fill: Existing fill soils were encountered in the hand auger borings to depths of7.5 to 8.5 feet below existing grades. The existing fill soils consist of silty clay (CH/CL)and clayey silt (MH). The DCP values in the existing fill soils ranged from 2 to 13 blowsper increment (bpi), but were typically less than 7 bpi. HA-2 was terminated in the fillsoils due to refusal at an approximate depth of 5.5 feet.

Alluvial Soils: Alluvial soils were encountered in Boring HA-1 at a depth of 7 feetbelow the ground surface. The alluvial soils consist of clayey sand (SC) materials. HA-1was terminated in the alluvial materials at a depth of 7.4 feet upon encountering handauger refusal.

Residual Soils: Residual soils were encountered below the fill soils in HA-2A at a depthof 8.5 feet to the termination depth. The residuum generally consisted of silty clay (CL)materials. The DCP values in the residual soils ranged from 9 to 10 bpi.

Rod Sounding: As previously discussed, a rod sounding (RS-1) was performed withinthe creek bed to evaluate soil conditions in this area. Blow counts generally indicative ofalluvial soils were encountered to a depth of approximately 3.5 feet. We anticipate thatresidual soils are present below a depth of 3.5 feet.

Water Level Measurements: Water was flowing in the creek when the rod soundingwas performed and water was observed at a depth of approximately 7.4 feet in HA-1.

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 General

Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the project information outlinedpreviously and on the data obtained from the field testing program. If the geometry orproposed culvert/pipe or headwall locations are changed or significantly differ from thoseoutlined, or if conditions are encountered during construction that differ from thoseencountered by the field exploration, S&ME requests the opportunity to review ourrecommendations based on the new information and make any necessary changes.

4.2 Kenilworth Location

4.2.1 Underpinning

Based on the plans provided, the replacement box culvert to be constructed between thebuildings addressed 1400 and 1416 E. Morehead Street will result in excavations that willextend to depths of 10 to 12 feet and within 5 or 6 feet of the existing buildingfoundations. In order to prevent settlement-related distress to the structures, we




8

recommend that the building foundations be protected from potential undermining and/orloss of lateral support. Protection (i.e., underpinning) should be installed along theaffected portions of the building foundations.

At the time of this report, the types of foundations supporting the existing buildings areunknown. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the building size, weanticipate the 3-story structure (1416 E. Morehead) may be supported on deepfoundations that bear below the planned excavation depths and therefor may not requireunderpinning. We recommend that the foundation systems for both structures bedetermined to assist with the design of any foundation underpinning. If either or bothbuildings are supported on a conventional shallow foundation system, we recommendthat underpinning be installed prior to excavation for construction of the box culvert.Once the foundation systems for the buildings have been identified, we recommend that astructural engineer further evaluate details for underpinning requirements.

Underpinning is accomplished by transferring the original foundation loads to a deeperbearing stratum, in this case below the planned excavation depth. The partially weatheredrock (PWR) and rock encountered in Borings B-1 through B-4 at depths of 11 to 15 feetcan be considered as a bearing stratum for underpinning. Underpinning elements mayconsist of helical piers or micropiles and are typically designed and installed bygeotechnical specialty contractors.

Helical piers consist of steel shaft with one or more helical flights at the end of the shaftand are installed by rotation into the soil until a suitable bearing layer is reach and adesignated torque/capacity is achieved. Micropiles consist of a 4- to 12-inch diameterdrilled and grouted pile reinforced with a single hollow or solid threaded bar. Typicalcapacities for helical piers and micropiles are on the order of 10 kips and 50+ kips,respectively. We recommend the underpinning design including installation locations,depths and design capacities be provided for review by the geotechnical and structuralengineer prior to construction.

4.2.2 Shoring

Temporary excavations to install the replacement box culvert between the buildings willrequire shoring as there does not appear to be sufficient space to allow for flattening. Theshoring and bracing should be performed to obtain a safe working environment andshould also consider adjacent structures that could contribute to the loading and/or beaffected by lateral displacement of a temporary excavation support system. As indicatedpreviously, underpinning of the existing buildings should be performed to reduce theassociated loading on the excavation support system. The design should comply withOSHA regulations.

Based on our experience, we anticipate sheet piling with tiebacks or internal bracingcould be considered for the excavation support system. The design should limitdeflections so as not to cause distress to the adjacent buildings, pavements, or other




9

structures. The design should also account for loading of these structures if not properlyunderpinned, loading from construction equipment/vehicle loads, and any hydrostaticpressures.

S&ME performed triaxial shear strength tests on two relatively undisturbed Shelby tubesandy/silty clay (CL) samples obtained from Borings B-1 and B-3. The results of the testsindicate an effective cohesion (c’) and friction angle (’) of 0 to 50 psf and 25 to 34degrees and a total cohesion (c) of 25 to 75 psf and friction angle () of 13 to 14 degrees,respectively. Results are included in the Appendix. We recommend design of theshoring system consider these strength parameters be used to estimate lateral earthpressures in conjunction with a unit weight of 120 pounds per cubic foot. Design of theshoring system should also be provided for review by the geotechnical engineer.

Detailed information on the foundation bearing level and foundation type should beprovided to the contractors to allow selection and design of an appropriate excavationsupport system. The excavation support system, if required, should be designed by anengineer experienced with similar types of systems and with the local soils. Prior toinstalling the system, a pre-construction survey of the adjacent buildings should also beperformed.

4.2.3 Bedding Considerations

The new box culvert bottom will bear approximately ten feet below current grades inmost areas and we understand plans are to install it via traditional cut and cover methods.

Once the proposed culvert foundation bearing elevation is reached, we recommend anyexisting alluvial or the fill soils at or below the proposed culvert bearing elevation beundercut to suitable residual soils, PWR, or rock. The concrete box culverts should beinstalled to bear on a minimum of 12 inches of foundation conditioning material(NCDOT 57 Stone). We recommend that the culvert subgrade soils be observed by astaff professional, or a senior soil technician under his/her direction, prior to foundationconditioning material placement. This is to assess their suitability for foundation supportand confirm their consistency with the conditions upon which our recommendations arebased.

In excavations where groundwater is encountered, we recommend that adequatetemporary dewatering measures be provided to help maintain stable subgrade conditions.It may be necessary, depending on the actual subsurface conditions encountered, that theexcavation bottoms and sides be lined with a needle punched non-woven filter fabric suchas Mirafi 140N or equivalent and the granular backfill wrapped/enveloped in the fabric toprevent the infiltration of soil fines into the granular material.

4.2.4 Retaining Wall/Headwall

As indicated, the existing retaining wall at the Kenilworth location has exhibited signs ofdistress that have required a portion of the parking lot to be closed. We understand thissection of the retaining wall will be reconstructed during installation of the culvert. We




10

also understand the new retaining wall/headwall may consist of either a cast-in-placeconcrete cantilever wall or a segmental block retaining wall system.

We recommend that the existing walls adjacent to the repair/reconstruction areas beevaluated so that the design and construction of the new walls can incorporate theexisting conditions. We recommend that the retaining wall/headwall be designed withregard to the lateral pressure exerted by the compacted backfill, surcharge loads, andhydrostatic pressures. In addition to internal and external stability, we recommend thatthe global stability of any retaining wall be analyzed.

If a concrete cantilever wall is used, NCDOT Select Backfill Class II consisting of siltysand (NCDOT A-2-4) or better material may be used as compacted backfill, howeversufficient drainage should be provide to allow dissipation of hydrostatic pressures and thewall should be designed to withstand hydrostatic pressures. If a segmental blockretaining wall is used, NCDOT Select Backfill Class VI material (i.e., No. 57 or 67Stone) should be used.

The "At rest" lateral earth pressure coefficient should be used if the walls are restrainedfrom rotation and the “active” lateral earth pressure coefficient can be used if rotation is notrestrained. For Class II materials, we recommend an "at rest" lateral earth pressurecoefficient Ko = 0.5, an “active” lateral earth pressure coefficient, Ka = 0.33, and a “passive”lateral earth pressure coefficient, Kp= 3.0 be used in conjunction with a soil (backfill) unitweight of 120 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for a horizontal backfill surface. For Class VImaterials, Ko = 0.33, Ka = 0.2, and Kp= 5.0 can be used in conjunction with a unit weight of120 pcf.

Based on the plans provided, the bottom of the retaining wall will bear at an elevation ofabout 613 feet. Very stiff residual soils were encountered at this elevation in Boring B-5performed near the retaining wall area. These soils are generally considered acceptablefor support of a retaining wall of this magnitude (i.e., 15-20 feet in height), howeversufficient scour protection will be required and may drive bearing level for the walldeeper. Once additional details on the proposed retaining wall are available, additionalrecommendations for the retaining wall can be provided (e.g., preliminary bearingpressure, friction coefficient, etc.). It should be noted that global stability of the wall maydictate some components of the wall. Global stability analysis of the wall was beyondour scope of services.

Foundation drains or weep holes should be installed behind the walls in accordance withNCDOT standards for removing water. Foundation drain pipes should be installed andpositive drainage should be provided at all times, or the drain should daylight to providepositive drainage. In backfilling against the walls, care should be taken to prevent thebackfill from being over-compacted, as this could result in excessive lateral stressesagainst the walls. In the same regard, heavy equipment should not be used for thecompaction of the fill immediately adjacent to the walls.




11

4.2.5 Pavements

We anticipate that construction will result in the demolition of some pavement areas. Werecommend that areas that will require new pavements be properly backfilled andcompacted to allow for proper support new pavements. All new pavement sections andconstruction for the new pavements should meet the standards set forth by NCDOT orCDOT.

Pavement performance is very dependent on subgrade condition. Drainage will have amajor impact on subgrade condition. Drainage should be designed to result in subsurfacewater levels being at least 2 feet below the top of the pavement subgrade. Design shouldnot result in water standing on the pavement surface or behind curbing. Design shouldresult in positive drainage being available from the stone base material.

The performance of the pavement will be influenced by a number of factors including theactual condition of subgrade soils at the time of pavement installation, installedthicknesses, compaction, and drainage. The subgrade soils should be re-evaluated byproofrolling immediately prior to placement of base course stone and any unstable areasrepaired. This recommendation is very important to the long-term performance of thepavements and slabs. Areas adjacent to pavements (embankments, landscaped island,ditching, etc.) which can drain water (rainwater or sprinklers) should be designed so thatwater does not seep below the pavements. Sufficient tests and inspections should beperformed during pavement installation to confirm that the required thickness, density,and quality requirements of the specifications are followed.

4.3 Romany Road Site

Although final design plans have not been provided to us, we anticipate that a newconcrete headwall will be constructed to encompass both the existing 48” RCP pipeentrance as well as the entrance to the new 4’ x 5’ box culvert that will run down RomanyRoad.

4.3.1 Culvert/Headwall Foundations

The rod sounding indicated that relatively softer soils were overlaying relatively densermaterials within the creek bed. These denser materials may be indicative of competentbearing material for headwalls/wingwalls. The competent bearing material inferred fromrod sounding location RS-1 appears to be near elevation 660 feet, but this will vary withinthe proposed construction area. The DCP testing in HA-1 also indicates that densermaterials may be encountered near that same elevation.

Based on the results of the hand auger borings and rod sounding, we anticipate that theproposed structures (i.e., culvert and headwalls) can be adequately supported on shallowfoundations bearing on residual soils or newly placed structural fill, provided theearthwork procedures outlined in this report are implemented. A net allowable bearingpressure of up to 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) can be used for design of the




12

foundations bearing on approved residual soils or newly placed compacted fill soils. Thebox culvert should be installed to bear on a minimum of 12 inches of foundationconditioning material (NCDOT 57 Stone). We recommend that foundations be protectedfrom potential scour. Scour analysis was beyond the scope of services for this project.

We recommend that the foundation subgrade be observed by a staff professional, or asenior soil technician under his/her direction, prior to foundation installation. This is toassess its suitability for foundation support and confirm their consistency with theconditions upon which our recommendations are based. Due to the type of constructionanticipated and given the proximity of possible water, some undercutting should beanticipated during construction of the new headwall/retaining wall and culvert in order toobtain a suitable bearing surface for the new culvert and headwall.

4.3.2 Headwall/Wingwall Lateral Earth Pressures

We recommend that the retaining walls and headwalls/wingwalls be designed with regardto the lateral pressure exerted by the compacted backfill and/or water. We recommendthat NCDOT Select Backfill Class II consisting of silty sand (NCDOT A-2-4) material beused as headwall compacted backfill.

We recommend the "At rest" lateral earth pressure coefficient be used if the walls arerestrained from rotation and that the “active” lateral earth pressure coefficient be used ifrotation is not restrained. The lateral earth pressure coefficients are based on our experienceof similar projects and engineering judgment for compacted backfill of soils meetingNCDOT Select Backfill Class II materials. We recommend an "at rest" lateral earthpressure coefficient Ko = 0.5, an “active” lateral earth pressure coefficient, Ka = 0.33, and a“passive” lateral earth pressure coefficient, Kp= 3.0 be used in conjunction with a soil(backfill) unit weight of 120 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for a horizontal backfill surface.For concrete wingwalls or any other cantilever structure exposed to a sloping backfillcondition of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter, we recommend an “active” lateral earthpressure coefficient, Ka = 0.48 be used. A coefficient of friction between concrete and soilof 0.40 can be utilized for the design of the endwall foundations bearing on the residualsoils or on lean concrete bearing on residual soils.

In addition to the lateral loads exerted by the soil against the walls, allowance should beincluded for lateral stresses, imposed hydrostatic forces, and by any temporary or long-term surcharge loads. Foundation drains or weep holes should be installed behind thewalls in accordance with NCDOT standards for removing water to provide drainage andreduce build-up of hydrostatic forces. Foundation drain pipes should be installed andpositive drainage should be provided at all times, or the drain should daylight to providepositive drainage. In backfilling against the walls, care should be taken to prevent thebackfill from being over-compacted, as this could result in excessive lateral stressesagainst the walls. In the same regard, heavy equipment should not be used for thecompaction of the fill immediately adjacent to the walls.




13

4.3.3 Pavements

We anticipate that construction will result in the demolition of some pavement areas. Weanticipate that construction will result in the demolition of some pavement areas. Werecommend that areas that will require new pavements be properly backfilled andcompacted to allow for proper support new pavements. All new pavement sections andconstruction for the new pavements should meet the standards set forth by NCDOT orCDOT.

Pavement performance is very dependent on subgrade condition. Drainage will have amajor impact on subgrade condition. Drainage should be designed to result in subsurfacewater levels being at least 2 feet below the top of the pavement subgrade. Design shouldnot result in water standing on the pavement surface or behind curbing. Design shouldresult in positive drainage being available from the stone base material.

The performance of the pavement will be influenced by a number of factors including theactual condition of subgrade soils at the time of pavement installation, installedthicknesses, compaction, and drainage. The subgrade soils should be re-evaluated byproofrolling immediately prior to placement of base course stone and any unstable areasrepaired. This recommendation is very important to the long-term performance of thepavements and slabs. Areas adjacent to pavements (embankments, landscaped island,ditching, etc.) which can drain water (rainwater or sprinklers) should be designed so thatwater does not seep below the pavements. Sufficient tests and inspections should beperformed during pavement installation to confirm that the required thickness, density,and quality requirements of the specifications are followed.

5. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Existing Utilities

Existing utility lines are currently located in the improvement areas. Since the projectconsists of removal and replacement of the existing storm lines, we assume the majorityof these existing utilities will be rerouted during construction or abandoned and replaced.Excavations resulting from removal of existing utility lines should be backfilled withproperly compacted structural fill as outlined in subsequent sections of this report.

For any utilities that are not removed, care should be taken to not damage the utility linesduring construction. As such, it may be prudent to have a detailed Subsurface UtilityEngineering (SUE) survey performed prior to final design and construction to measure thelocations and depths of existing utilities. If final designs and construction plans cannot beadjusted to avoid existing underground utilities, their removal/protection should be plannedaccordingly.

5.2 Site Preparation

Prior to proceeding with construction, the proposed construction area should be strippedof topsoil, organics, debris, existing pavements, etc. to allow for access to the subgradesoils and prevent mixing with the excavated soils. Proper separation should be provided.




14

After excavation of the site has been completed, areas to provide support for the pipes orfoundations for new culverts should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer'srepresentative to verify that suitable bearing material is present at and below the proposedbearing elevation. If evaluation via probing or hand auger borings with DCP testingindicate very soft to soft or other unsuitable materials in the improvement areas,additional undercutting may be required.

5.3 Temporary Dewatering

Based on observed water levels, the locations of the existing storm-water pipes andheadwalls, and anticipated foundation bearing elevations, temporary dewatering will berequired during construction. At the Romany site, the use of a coffer dam may berequired to temporarily dam the creek and allow water to be routed away from theconstruction area. All dewatering and construction activities within the creeks shouldcomply with NCDENR and DWQ requirements. Cased sumps with submersible pumpsmay be required within excavations.

As the excavation to adequate and level bearing materials for the foundation proceeds,pumping from the cased sumps should be maintained to dewater the excavation. Careshould be taken to keep sump locations from within the foundation footprint. Thecontractor should be prepared to implement additional temporary dewatering techniques,if required. Once more detailed site grading information is available, we would be glad toreview the plans and provide more detailed recommendations for a temporary dewateringsystem.

5.4 Temporary Excavation Stability

Depending on the depths of the excavations, shoring and bracing or flattening (layingback) of the slopes may be required to obtain a safe working environment. Excavationsshould be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state and federal regulations,including OSHA (29 CFR Part 1926) excavation trench safety standards. The contractoris solely responsible for site safety. This information is provided as a service and underno circumstances should we be assumed responsible for construction site safety.

5.5 Excavation Characteristics

Based on the results of the field exploration, it appears that the general excavation for thestorm line improvements will be in alluvial, existing fill and residual soils. PartiallyWeathered Rock, and possibly rock, may be encountered at the Kenilworth site. Based onthe information provided, we anticipate that excavations for the new box culvert will beno lower than elevation 620 feet. Refusal depths or PWR were typically encountered nohigher than an approximate elevation of 619 feet.

Rock in a weathered, boulder, and massive form varies erratically in depth and location inthe Piedmont Geologic Province. Therefore, there is always a potential that thesematerials could be encountered at shallower depths between the boring locations.




15

We anticipate that the fill, alluvial and residual soils can be excavated using backhoes andfront-end loaders. Some difficult excavation should be anticipated if PWR material isencountered. Excavation of PWR and rock is typically more difficult in confinedexcavations. Jackhammering may be required at or near where the borings encounteredrefusal. Blasting is not anticipated or recommended due to the proximity of the existingstructures.

5.6 Fill Material and Placement

Structural fill for headwall foundation subgrades should be limited to ABC stone or leanconcrete. Fill used for pipe bedding should be limited to NCDOT No. 57, No. 67 or ABCstone. Fill used for backfilling on the sides and above the pipes or behind new retainingwalls should consist of a clean (free of organics and debris), low plasticity soil (SM, SC,ML or CL with a Plasticity Index less than 25) unless otherwise specified by themanufacturer. he proposed fill should have a maximum dry density of at least 90 poundsper cubic foot as determined by a standard Proctor compaction test, ASTM D 698. Allfill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding eight inches in thickness and compactedto a minimum of 95 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density, with the final12 inches below roadway subgrade compacted to 100 percent. Backfill material in non-structural areas (i.e., placed 2 feet above the proposed culverts and higher, outside ofretaining wall backfill, and finished with landscaped areas) can be compacted to 92percent of its Standard Proctor maximum dry density unless specified otherwise by thepipe/culvert manufacturer. All fill should be placed at moisture contents within +/- 3percent of the material’s optimum moisture content.

We recommend that field density tests, including one-point Proctor verification tests, beperformed on the fill as it is being placed. We recommend that a minimum of one densitytest be performed on both sides of the pipes per lift during fill placement and that at leastone density test be performed per lift of fill placement above the crown of the pipes.

Additionally, as outlined in Section 4.4, materials meeting the requirements of NCDOTSelect Backfill Class II (NCDOT A-2-4) should be used for backfilling against newheadwalls/endwalls. These materials do not appear to be available on-site and will needto be obtained from an off-site source. Additionally, it may also be feasible to use ClassVI materials as well.

Backfilling around the pipe/culvert should be conducted in accordance with thepipe/culvert manufacturer’s recommendations. Typically, backfill on the sides of thepipe/culvert should be brought up simultaneously to prevent differential loading on thepipe/culvert. During backfilling, care should be taken to prevent over compaction of thebackfill, as this could result in increased lateral stresses against the pipe/culvert.

Due to the minimal amount of fill anticipated to be placed above the new box culvert atthe Kenilworth location, we do not recommend re-using the excavated materials. Thesematerials will be difficult to compact and using off-site, clean suitable fill will provideeasier compaction and stability for the new subgrade above the new box culvert. We




16

recommend that any materials to be used as fill be evaluated by a geotechnical engineeror his representative during construction to determine their suitability for use as structuralfill. Depending on the time of year construction proceeds, some moisture conditioning(“wetting” or “drying back”) of the soils may be required.

6. LIMITATIONS OF REPORT

The exploration locations given in this report should be considered accurate only to thedegree implied by the methods used to determine them.

The exploration logs represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based onthe field logs, and visual examinations of samples by a staff professional or technician, inaddition to tests of the field samples. The lines designating the interfaces betweenvarious strata may be gradual.

The generalized subsurface strata and profiles described in this report are intended toconvey trends in subsurface conditions. The boundaries between strata are approximateand idealized. They have been developed by interpretations of widely-spacedgeotechnical explorations. Therefore, actual subsurface conditions may vary from thosegiven between exploration locations.

Groundwater levels have been measured or inferred in the borings at the times and underthe conditions stated on the exploration logs in this report. Changes in the groundwaterconditions may occur due to variations in rainfall, evaporation, construction activity,surface water runoff, and other site specific factors. We emphasize that ground waterlevels are influenced by precipitation, long term climatic variations, and nearbyconstruction. Groundwater measurements made at different times than our explorationmay indicate groundwater levels substantially different than indicated in this report.

Recovered samples not suspected of contamination and not expended in laboratory testsare commonly retained in our laboratory for 90 days following completion of drilling.Samples are then disposed of at our convenience unless our client requests otherwise.

The assessment of site environmental conditions and the determination of contaminantsin the soil, rock, surface water or groundwater of the site were beyond the scope of thisgeotechnical study.

The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of theproject information given in this report and on our interpretation of the surface andsubsurface data collected. We have made our recommendations based on our experiencewith similar subsurface conditions and similar projects. The recommendations apply tothe specific project discussed in this report; therefore, any changes in the projectinformation should be provided to us so we may review our conclusions and




17

recommendations and make any appropriate modifications. In the event that any changesin the nature, design, location, or alignment of the project are planned, the conclusionsand recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless thechanges are reviewed and conclusions of the report modified or verified in writing by us.

S&ME should be retained for a general review of the design drawings and specificationsto verify that geotechnical recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented.

Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical study, there is always a possibility thatsubsurface conditions will be different from those at boring locations, that conditions willnot be as anticipated by the designers or contractors, or that the construction process willalter soil conditions. Therefore, qualified geotechnical personnel should observeconstruction to confirm that the conditions indicated by the geotechnical explorationsactually exist. We recommend the owner retain S&ME for this service since we arealready familiar with the project, the subsurface conditions at the site, and the intent ofthe recommendations and design.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of S&ME’s client for specificapplication to the subject project site described in this report. It has been prepared inaccordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice for specificapplication to this project. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this reportare based upon applicable standards of our practice in this geographic area at the time thisreport was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

SCALE:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

FIGURE NO.

1 PROJECT NO.: 1351-13-081

AS SHOWN

LAC

DDB

6/12/2013

SITE VICINITY MAP KENILWORTH-ROMANY CIP

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

SITE

Approximate Site

Location

Approximate Site Locations

SCALE:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: PROJECT NO.: 1351-13-081

NTS

DDB

LAC

2/15/2013

FIGURE NO.

2

BORING LOCATION PLAN KENILWORTH-ROMANY STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

1416 E. MOREHEAD STREET


LEGEND

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION

B-6

B-4 B-7

B-5

ELIMINATED BORINGS

B-3 B-1

B-2

B-8

SCALE:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: PROJECT NO.: 1351-13-081

NTS

BCM

LAC

10/15/2013

FIGURE NO.

3

HAND AUGER LOCATION PLAN KENILWORTH-ROMANY STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

DILWORTH ROAD WEST AND ROMANY ROAD


LEGEND

APPROXIMATE HAND AUGER LOCATION

HA-2 and HA-2A

HA-1 RS-1

3

2

2

2

2

3

3

1

1

5

4

5

SS-1

ST-1

SS-2

SS-3

Asphalt (2 inches) over ABC Stone (3 inches)

FILL: SANDY SILT (ML) - firm, red brown,trace mica

FILL: SILTY CLAY (CL) - gray, with fine tomedium sand

ALLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY (CL) - soft to firm,gray brown

Refusal at 12.5 feetBoring terminated at 12.5 feet

HC

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.

1.

2.

3.

4.

PROJECT:

B-1

EASTING:

SA

MP

LE N

O.

SP

T R

EC

. (in

.)S

AM

PLE

TY

PE

2nd

6in

/ REC

BORING DEPTH: 12.5 ft

LOGGED BY: L. Campos

3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

N V

ALU

E

DE

PT

H

(fee

t)

Page 1 of 1NOTES:

DATE DRILLED: 6/24/13

DRILL RIG: CME 550X

DRILLER: J. Little

HAMMER TYPE: Automatic

SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon

DRILLING METHOD: 3¼" H.S.A.

5

10

1st 6

in /

RU

N #

BLOW COUNT/ CORE DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BORING LOG

NOTES: Elevation shown is approximate andhas not been surveyed


Kenilworth Romany Stormwater ImprovementsCharlotte, North Carolina

NORTHING:

ELEVATION: 632.0 ft

WATER LEVEL: 11.6' ATD

627.0

622.0

ELE

VA

TIO

N

(fee

t-M

SL)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

REMARKS

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

13-

081

KE

NIL

WO

RT

H R

OM

AN

Y C

IP.G

PJ

S&

ME

.GD

T 1

0/25

/13

8060302010

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA(blows/ft)

5

4

5

3

1

2

2

3

2

3

3

3

3

1

2

50/.5

6

3

5

5

50/.5

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5


FILL: SANDY SILT (ML) - firm, tan brown

FILL: SILTY CLAY (CH) - soft, brown tan

ALLUVIUM: SILTY CLAY (CH) - firm, brown

ALLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY (CL) - firm, gray

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SILTYSAND - tan brown, fine to medium

Refusal at 14 feetBoring terminated at 14 feet





1.

2.

3.

4.

PROJECT:

B-2

EASTING:

SA

MP

LE N

O.

SP

T R

EC

. (in

.)S

AM

PLE

TY

PE

2nd

6in

/ REC



3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

N V

ALU

E

DE

PT

H

(fee

t)

Page 1 of 1NOTES:


DRILL RIG: CME 550X

DRILLER: J. Little




5

10

1st 6

in /

RU

N #



BORING LOG




NORTHING:

ELEVATION: 632.0 ft

WATER LEVEL: 13' ATD

627.0

622.0

ELE

VA

TIO

N

(fee

t-M

SL)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

REMARKS

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

13-

081

KE

NIL

WO

RT

H R

OM

AN

Y C

IP.G

PJ

S&

ME

.GD

T 1

0/25

/13

8060302010


6

3

5

5

100

2

2

2

50/.3

2

3

1

2

3

1

49

4

5

3

50/.3

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

ST-1

SS-4


FILL: CLAYEY SILT (MH) - soft to firm, redbrown

ALLUVIUM: SILTY CLAY (CH) - soft, gray

ALLUVIUM: SILTY CLAY (CL) - gray, with fineto medium sand

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SILTYSAND - tan brown, fine to coarse






1.

2.

3.

4.

PROJECT:

B-3

EASTING:

SA

MP

LE N

O.

SP

T R

EC

. (in

.)S

AM

PLE

TY

PE

2nd

6in

/ REC



3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

N V

ALU

E

DE

PT

H

(fee

t)

Page 1 of 1NOTES:


DRILL RIG: CME 550X

DRILLER: J. Little




5

10

15

1st 6

in /

RU

N #



BORING LOG




NORTHING:

ELEVATION: 632.0 ft

WATER LEVEL:

627.0

622.0

617.0

ELE

VA

TIO

N

(fee

t-M

SL)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

REMARKS

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

13-

081

KE

NIL

WO

RT

H R

OM

AN

Y C

IP.G

PJ

S&

ME

.GD

T 1

0/25

/13

8060302010


4

5

3

100

4

2

1

5

5

1

2

4

4

2

1

1

9

3

3

9

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4


FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - stiff, gray brown

FILL: SILTY CLAY (CH) - soft, brown, withasphalt pieces

FILL: CLAYEY SILT (MH) - soft, brown






1.

2.

3.

4.

PROJECT:

B-4

EASTING:

SA

MP

LE N

O.

SP

T R

EC

. (in

.)S

AM

PLE

TY

PE

2nd

6in

/ REC



3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

N V

ALU

E

DE

PT

H

(fee

t)

Page 1 of 1NOTES:


DRILL RIG: CME 550X

DRILLER: J. Little




5

10

1st 6

in /

RU

N #



BORING LOG




NORTHING:

ELEVATION: 630.0 ft

WATER LEVEL: 10.8 on 6/25/13

625.0

620.0

ELE

VA

TIO

N

(fee

t-M

SL)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

REMARKS

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

13-

081

KE

NIL

WO

RT

H R

OM

AN

Y C

IP.G

PJ

S&

ME

.GD

T 1

0/25

/13

8060302010


9

3

3

9

6

6

4

4

2

11

50/0.4

7

6

5

3

2

9

7

6

4

4

2

10

43

13

12

9

7

4

20

50/0.4

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

SS-7

ASPHALT - 4 Inches

AGGREGATE BASE COURSE - 8 Inches

FILL: SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense toloose, brown, fine to coarse, asphalt pieces at4.5 feet

FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - soft, brown red

RESIDUUM: SANDY SILT (ML) - very stiff,brown tan

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK - sampledas Brown Tan Sandy SILT

Boring terminated at 24.4 feet

HC





1.

2.

3.

4.

PROJECT:

B-5

EASTING:

SA

MP

LE N

O.

SP

T R

EC

. (in

.)S

AM

PLE

TY

PE

2nd

6in

/ REC



3rd

6in

/ RQ

D

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

N V

ALU

E

DE

PT

H

(fee

t)

Page 1 of 1NOTES:


DRILL RIG: CME 45B

DRILLER: C. Odom




5

10

15

20

1st 6

in /

RU

N #



BORING LOG




NORTHING:

ELEVATION: 630.0 ft

WATER LEVEL: 14' on 7/16/13

625.0

620.0

615.0

610.0

ELE

VA

TIO

N

(fee

t-M

SL)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

REMARKS

S&

ME

BO

RIN

G L

OG

13-

081

KE

NIL

WO

RT

H R

OM

AN

Y C

IP.G

PJ

S&

ME

.GD

T 1

0/25

/13

8060302010


13

12

9

7

4

20

100

SUMMARY OF HAND AUGER BORINGS AND DCP TESTING

KENILWORTH-ROMANY STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS


S&ME PROJECT NO. 1351-13-081

STRATIFICATION Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Resistance

Date Test

Location

Depth

(Feet) Soil Description

Depth

(Feet)

Hammer Blows

Increment

1st 2

nd 3

rd

6/20/13

HA-1

9’ off creek

Elev. 667

0 - 0.45

0.45 - 1.5

1.5 - 2.5

2.5 - 7.0

7.0 - 7.4

TOPSOIL

FILL: Brown Red Tan Clay (CL)

FILL: Brown Silty Clay (CH)

FILL: Brown Gray Clay (CL)

ALLUVIAL: Gray Clayey Fine to Coarse Sand (SC)

(wet, saturated)

Roots at 7 feet; Water at 6.8 feet

HA refusal at 7.4 feet

Ground

-2

-5

-6

-7.4

5

3

4

8

25+

5

2

2

9

5

4

3

13

HA-2

Elev. 675

0-0.1

0.1-5.5

TOPSOIL

FILL: Red Brown Clayey Silt (MH) w/ trace mica

HA refusal at 5.5 feet

No groundwater encountered

Ground

-2

-4

2

3

4

2

4

3

3

3

4

HA-2A

5’ Offset from

HA-2

0-.1

1 - 8.5

8.5-10

TOPSOIL

FILL: Brown Clayey SILT (MH)

RESIDUUM: Brown Tan Clay (CL)

HA terminated at 10’. No groundwater encountered

-6

-8

-10

6

8

9

5

6

10

6

6

9

Elevation shown is approximate

663.9 Feet

12 Feet

0.5 ft TOTAL

PROJECT Kenilworth-Romany Storm Drainage Improvement Project

Charlotte, North CarolinaS&ME Project No. 1351-13-081

TEST

NUMBER

(ft) 0.5 ft 0 25

DEPTH BLOWS PER FOOTBLOW COUNT

ROD SOUNDING LOG

0

0 0 0

0 2 2

52 2

4

0

11

7

8

5

25 4520

1013 23 36

15

RS-1

N/A N/AEASTELEVATION

DEPTH

NORTH

DRILL

METHODRod Sounding DRILLER

DATE

50 75 100

6/20/2013

J. Williamson

Terminated at 12 feet

(Elevation 651.9)

8 16

8

1 1

5 5

2 6

10 15

NOTES

15

18 29

4

Cobbles Fine Sand < 0.425 mm and > 0.075 mm (#200)

Gravel

31.5%

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

21

59.9%

18

Type:

Orange Brown Medium to Fine Sandy Silty Clay (CL)

Elevation:ST-1

#4

< 300 mm (12") and > 75 mm (3")

Quality Assurance

S&ME, Inc. ~ 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard~Charlotte, NC 28273

7/11-16/13Kenilworth Romany CIP

NA

Project Name:

Sample Date:

7/16/13

Boleholes 3.5-5.5'

Sample Description:

Sample:Location:

Project #:

Client Address:

Sample ID:

Armstrong Glen

UndisturbedB-1

Revision Date: 07/14/08

ASTM D 422

Report Date:1351-13-081 (01)

Coarse Sand

Clay < 0.005 mm

0.3%

Colloids < 0.001 mm

Coarse Sand < 4.75 mm and >2.00 mm (#10)

7.5%

This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.

Technician Name: Date:

Coarse Sand

Soft

o x

o

Medium Sand0.3%

Hard & Durable x

< 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm (#40)

Various

Fine Sand

Project Engineer

Angular

Medium Sand

0.8%

Specific Gravity ND

Maximum Particle Size

Gravel

Liquid Limit 39

Technical Responsibility Signature DatePosition

Luis Campos

Notes / Deviations / References:

Moisture Content

NA

Plastic Index

Sieve Analysis of Soils

Test Date(s):

Weathered & Friable

Description of Sand & Gravel Particles: Rounded

o

Fine Sand

Silt & Clay

7.5% 31.5%

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

tP

ass

ing

(%)

Millimeters

S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road

Raleigh, NC. 27616

1351-13-081 (01) B-1 ST-1 (3.5-5.5') Wash.xls

Page 1 of 1

Tested By: KMW Checked By: JSR

TRIAXIAL SHEAR TEST REPORT

S & ME, INC.Charlotte, North Carolina

Client: Armstrong Glen

Project: Kenilworth Romany CIP

Sample Number: B-1 ST-1 Depth: 3.5-5.5'

Proj. No.: 1351-13-081 (01) Date Sampled: NA

Type of Test: CU with Pore Pressures

Sample Type:

Description: Orange Brown Medium to Fine Sandy

Silty Clay (CL)

LL= 39 PI= 18PL= 21

Assumed Specific Gravity= 2.65

Remarks: Only 2 samples from undisturbed tube were

tested.

Figure B-1 ST-1

Sample No.

Water Content, %Dry Density, pcfSaturation, %Void RatioDiameter, in.Height, in.


Strain, %

Strain, %

Total Pore Pr., ksf

Total Pore Pr., ksf

Strain rate, in./min.

Eff. Cell Pressure, ksf

Fail. Stress, ksf

Ult. Stress, ksf

s1 Failure, ksf

s3 Failure, ksf

Initia

lA

t T

est

1

22.489.269.5

0.85372.8515.996

30.192.1

100.00.7966

2.8215.934

0.008

1.9

0.721.14

11.84

0.401.54

2

22.591.874.2

0.80272.8626.126

26.098.0

100.00.6887

2.8005.995

0.009

6.9

2.162.00

12.95

0.732.74

De

via

tor

Str

ess, ksf

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Axial Strain, %

0 5 10 15 20

1

2

Sh

ea

r S

tre

ss, ksf

0

0.7

1.4

2.1

Total Normal Stress, ksf

Effective Normal Stress, ksf

0 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.5 4.2

C, ksf

f, deg

Tan(f)

Total Effective

0.28

13.3

0.24

0.02

34.4

0.68




Depth: 3.5-5.5' Sample Number: B-1 ST-1

Project No.: 1351-13-081 (01) Figure B-1 ST-1 S & ME, INC.

q, ksf

0

0.6

1.2

1.8

p, ksf

Stress Paths: Total Effective

0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3 3.6

Peak Strength

Total Effective

a=

a=

tan a=

0.27 ksf

13.0 deg

0.23

0.02 ksf

29.5 deg

0.57

To

tal P

ore

Pre

ssu

re

De

via

tor

Str

ess

ksf

0

3

6

9

12

15

0% 8% 16%

1

To

tal P

ore

Pre

ssu

re

De

via

tor

Str

ess

ksf

0

3

6

9

12

15

0% 8% 16%

3

To

tal P

ore

Pre

ssu

re

De

via

tor

Str

ess

ksf

0

3

6

9

12

15

0% 8% 16%

2

To

tal P

ore

Pre

ssu

re

De

via

tor

Str

ess

ksf

0

3

6

9

12

15

0% 8% 16%

4

Weathered & Friable

Description of Sand & Gravel Particles: Rounded

o

Fine Sand

Silt & Clay

7.8% 27.5%

Plastic Limit

Moisture Content

NA

Plastic Index

Sieve Analysis of Soils

Test Date(s):

Position

Luis Campos

Notes / Deviations / References:

Technical Responsibility Signature Date

Medium Sand

0.3%

Specific Gravity ND

Maximum Particle Size

Gravel

Liquid Limit 32

< 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm (#40)

Various

Fine Sand

Project Engineer

Angular

Technician Name: Date:

Coarse Sand

Soft

o x

o

Medium Sand0.6%

Hard & Durable x

This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.

Coarse Sand

Clay < 0.005 mm

0.6%

Colloids < 0.001 mm

Coarse Sand < 4.75 mm and >2.00 mm (#10)

7.8%

Sample ID:

Armstrong Glen

UndisturbedB-3

Revision Date: 07/14/08

ASTM D 422

Report Date:1351-13-081 (01)

Sample Date:

7/16/13

Boleholes 8-10'

Sample Description:

Sample:Location:

Project #:

Client Address:

Quality Assurance

S&ME, Inc. ~ 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard~Charlotte, NC 28273

7/11-16/13Kenilworth Romany CIP

NA

Project Name:

Medium Sand

14

63.8%

18

Type:

Gray Medium to Fine Sandy Silty Clay (CL)

Elevation:ST-1

#4

< 300 mm (12") and > 75 mm (3")

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:

27.5%

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

tP

ass

ing

(%)

Millimeters

S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road

Raleigh, NC. 27616

1351-13-081 (01) B-3 ST-1 (8-10') Wash.xls

Page 1 of 1


TRIAXIAL SHEAR TEST REPORT

S & ME, INC.Charlotte, North Carolina



Sample Number: B-3 ST-1 Depth: 8-10'

Proj. No.: 1351-13-081 (01) Date Sampled: NA

Type of Test: CU with Pore Pressures

Sample Type: Undisturbed

Description: Gray Medium to Fine Sandy Silty Clay

(CL)

LL= 32 PI= 18PL= 14

Assumed Specific Gravity= 2.70

Remarks:

Figure B-3 ST-1

Sample No.



Strain, %

Strain, %

Total Pore Pr., ksf

Total Pore Pr., ksf

Strain rate, in./min.

Eff. Cell Pressure, ksf

Fail. Stress, ksf

Ult. Stress, ksf

s1 Failure, ksf

s3 Failure, ksf

Initia

lA

t T

est

1

18.4111.7

97.30.5097

2.8616.005

17.8113.9100.0

0.47962.8425.965

0.005

1.3

0.722.28

11.82

0.422.70

2

19.2109.7

96.70.5359

2.8656.061

19.3110.9100.0

0.52002.8556.040

0.005

2.3

1.442.73

12.25

0.713.44

3

25.2104.1106.5

0.64992.8556.442

21.1108.6100.0

0.58142.8156.352

0.005

4.5

2.883.63

13.08

1.324.95

De

via

tor

Str

ess, ksf

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Axial Strain, %

0 5 10 15 20

1

23

Sh

ea

r S

tre

ss, ksf

0

1.1

2.2

3.3

Total Normal Stress, ksf

Effective Normal Stress, ksf

0 1.1 2.2 3.3 4.4 5.5 6.6

C, ksf

f, deg

Tan(f)

Total Effective

0.72

13.7

0.24

0.53

25.1

0.47




Depth: 8-10' Sample Number: B-3 ST-1

Project No.: 1351-13-081 (01) Figure B-3 ST-1 S & ME, INC.

q, ksf

0

2

4

6

p, ksf

Stress Paths: Total Effective

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Peak Strength

Total Effective

a=

a=

tan a=

0.70 ksf

13.3 deg

0.24

0.48 ksf

23.0 deg

0.42

To

tal P

ore

Pre

ssu

re

De

via

tor

Str

ess

ksf

0

3

6

9

12

15

0% 8% 16%

1

To

tal P

ore

Pre

ssu

re

De

via

tor

Str

ess

ksf

0

3

6

9

12

15

0% 8% 16%

3

To

tal P

ore

Pre

ssu

re

De

via

tor

Str

ess

ksf

0

3

6

9

12

15

0% 8% 16%

2

To

tal P

ore

Pre

ssu

re

De

via

tor

Str

ess

ksf

0

3

6

9

12

15

0% 8% 16%

4

Date post:	04-Nov-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

Report of Subsurface Exploration Proposed Kenilworth ......2013/10/25 · Report of Subsurface...

Documents