January 21, 2020 Jill Lavine, RA, LEED AP BD+C Principal ......Fifteen Architecture and Design 28 N 3rd Street, 4R Philadelphia, PA19105 RE: Project No. 12214.GA Geotechnical Evaluation

Enhancing our community one project at a time.

Duffield Associates, Inc.

5400 Limestone Road

Wilmington, DE 19808

Phone: 302.239.6634

Fax: 302.239.8485

duffnet.com

January 21, 2020

Jill Lavine, RA, LEED AP BD+C

Principal

Fifteen Architecture and Design

28 N 3rd Street, 4R

Philadelphia, PA19105

RE: Project No. 12214.GA Geotechnical Evaluation Wilson Hall Dance Program Expansion Rowan University Glassboro, NJ 08028

Dear Ms. Lavine:

Duffield Associates, Inc. (Duffield) has completed our geotechnical evaluation for the proposed

Wilson Hall Dance Program Expansion located at Rowan University in Glassboro, New Jersey. The

evaluation is summarized in the appended report, which includes the data obtained in our field and

laboratory programs, a summary of the subsurface conditions encountered, and comments related to

the proposed building addition foundations and floor slab. These services were performed in general

accordance with our agreement, dated March 4, 2019.

We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you and will remain available to assist you and

your team as design progresses and into the construction phase of the building. Should you have any

questions concerning this evaluation, we encourage you to contact us.

Very truly yours,

DUFFIELD ASSOCIATES, INC.

Amy P. Cummings, P.E. Stacy B. Ziegler, P.E., LEED AP BD+C

Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer

APC/SBZ:cpt

12214GA.0120-WILSON HALL GEOTECH.RPT

Enclosure: Report

Geotechnical Evaluation

Wilson Hall Dance Program Expansion

Rowan University

Glassboro, New Jersey

Project No. 12214.GA

January 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

PROJECT SUMMARY 2

FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING 3

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4

DISCUSSION OF ANALYSIS 5

DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 6

CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 8

QUALIFICATIONS 11

ENCLOSURES 12

Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following report summarizes Duffield Associates, Inc.’s (Duffield’s) Geotechnical

Evaluation for the proposed Rowan University, Wilson Hall Dance Program Expansion, located

in Glassboro, New Jersey. This report includes information regarding the field and laboratory

testing programs, the subsurface conditions encountered, and discussion related to building

construction as they relate to the subsurface conditions at the site. These services were

performed in general accordance with our agreement with Fifteen Architecture and Design, dated

March 4, 2019.

At this time, we understand the project consists of constructing a one to two-story building

addition with a footprint of approximately 8,500 square feet. The building is proposed to be

constructed at grade (i.e. no basement) with a finished floor elevation of approximately 125.70

feet (NAVD 88). Fills on the order of one to six feet will be required to achieve finished grades.

On December 20, 2019, five (5) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings were performed in

general accordance with ASTM D 1586 in the vicinity of the proposed addition to depths ranging

between approximately 25 to 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Beneath a surficial layer

of topsoil, the subsurface conditions observed can generally be described as very loose to very

dense sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel to the extent of the test borings.

Based on the observed subsurface conditions and information provided by the project team,

Duffield provides the following comments and recommendations:

The proposed building addition could be supported on a conventional shallow foundation

system and slab-on-grade. Foundations could be designed for a maximum allowable bearing

pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Total foundation settlement is estimated to be

on the order of 1 inch or less, and a differential settlement on the order of a ½ inch or less

over a distance of 25 feet;

Groundwater was observed in the test borings performed at the site at depths ranging from

approximately 11.5 to 12.0 feet below the existing ground surface which corresponds to

elevations ranging from approximately 107.7 to 111.7 feet (NAVD 88). Based on the

groundwater depths observed during the field program, it is likely that groundwater will not

be encountered during foundation construction.

Page 2

PROJECT SUMMARY

PROPOSED SITE CONSTRUCTION

One to two-story building addition with a footprint of approximately 8,500 square feet.

The building is proposed to be constructed at grade (i.e. no basement) with a finished floor

elevation of approximately 125.70 feet (NAVD 88). Fills on the order of one to six feet will

be required to achieve finished grades.

The project structural Engineer, David Mason + Associates, provided the following

preliminary maximum foundation loads:

o Column Reaction = 40 kips; and

o Wall Reaction = 4 kips per linear foot.

REFERENCES UTILIZED

An undated drawing entitled “Rowan University, Wilson Hall Dance Program Expansion,

Floor Plan – Level 1,” prepared by Fifteen Architecture and Design;

A survey drawing entitled “Rowan University, Rowan and Wilson Halls,” prepared by CME

Associates, dated October 17, 2019;

A sketch entitled “GPRS Utility Findings Map,” prepared by Ground Penetrating Radar

Systems, dated October 24, 2019; and

As-built drawings entitled “Auditorium and Music Building, Glassboro State College,”

prepared by Merchant Seidel Voorhees & Rose, dated July 3, 1974, sheets 38-40 (showing

the as-built foundation plans, sections and details).

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS

The area of the proposed building addition is currently occupied by a grassy field. An

existing concrete walkway runs along the perimeter of the field and several trees are located

within the proposed building addition footprint.

The site generally slopes down from east to west, with elevations ranging from

approximately 125 to 119.5 feet (NAVD 88).

The referenced Utility Findings Map indicates there is an existing electrical and storm sewer

line located within the proposed building addition footprint.

Page 3

FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORINGS

On December 20, 2019, five (5) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings were performed in

general accordance with ASTM D 1586 in the vicinity of the proposed building addition, as

shown on the referenced boring location sketch. One of the SPT borings (TB-03) was

extended to a depth of approximately 50 feet below the existing grade and the remaining

borings (TB-01, TB-02. TB-04, and TB-05) were extended to a depth of approximately 25

feet below the existing grade.

The test borings were performed by CGC Geoservices, LLC, an affiliate company of

Duffield, utilizing a truck-mounted CME-55 drill rig with hollow-stem augers in areas

accessible to the drill rig and clear of utilities

Upon completion, test borings were backfilled with cuttings mixed with grout. Some

settlement of boreholes may occur over time.

LABORATORY TESTING

Following the test boring program, the samples were returned to Duffield’s office, and laboratory

testing was performed on the selected samples. The results of the laboratory testing are

summarized below. No environmental testing or characterization was performed.

LOCATION SAMPLE

NO.

DEPTH

(FEET)

MOISTURE

CONTENT (%)

(ASTM D2216)

PERCENT PASSING

NO. 200 SIEVE (%)

(ASTM D1140)

TB-01 S-2 2.0 – 4.0 11.2 30.9

TB-01 S-3 4.0 – 6.0 17.8 22.4

TB-02 S-3 4.0 – 6.0 15.5 27.7

TB-03 S-2 2.0 – 4.0 9.0 18.9

TB-03 S-3 4.0 – 6.0 11.9 9.1

TB-04 S-2 2.0 – 4.0 18.2 18.0

TB-05 S-2 2.0 – 4.0 9.4 15.0

TB-06 S-5 8.0 – 10.0 8.6 18.7

Page 4

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

GENERALIZED SITE GEOLOGY

Based on the Bedrock Geologic Map of New Jersey, the site is underlain by the Cohansey

Formation which is characterized by quartz sand, white to yellow, medium to coarse grained with

local beds of clay, gravel, and ironstone.

STRATIGRAPHIC CONDITIONS

Beneath a surficial layer of topsoil, the subsurface conditions observed can generally be described

as very loose to very dense sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel to the extent of the test

borings. The soils appeared natural and undisturbed in origin, and no evidence of previous

disturbance or fill placement was observed.

For discussion purposes, the subsurface conditions can be further described as follows:

SUBSURFACE

STRATUM

APPROXIMATE

THICKNESS (FEET) GENERALIZED DESCRIPTION[1]

A 0.7 – 1.2 Topsoil

B 4.9 – 10.8

Varicolored SAND, trace to some silt, no to little

gravel, medium dense to dense (Moist)

USCS: SM, SP

C 5.0 – 10.5 Gray, brown, tan SAND, some silt, very loose to

loose (moist to wet)

USCS: SM

D _ _ _ [2] Varicolored SAND, trace to some silt, no to little

gravel, medium dense to very dense (Moist)

USCS: SM

Notes: 1. The soil descriptions utilized herein and on the test boring logs are defined

in the attached General Notes.

2. Stratum D not fully penetrated in test borings.

GROUNDWATER

Groundwater was observed in the test borings performed at the site at depths ranging from

approximately 11.5 to 12.0 feet below the existing ground surface which corresponds to

elevations ranging from approximately 107.7 to 111.7 feet (NAVD 88).

Groundwater levels are likely to be affected by season and annual variations in precipitation.

It is estimated that variations in groundwater levels several feet higher or lower than those

observed in this elevation could be experienced during extreme variations in precipitation.

Page 5

DISCUSSION OF ANALYSIS

SITE PREPARATION

Prior to construction of the new building, site preparation is anticipated to include the stripping

of topsoil, trees, sidewalk, and another small structures within the vicinity of the proposed

building. It is recommended that the existing structures and pavement section be removed in

their entirety from within the building area.

In addition to the existing surface features, several utilities were delineated within the proposed

building area. The presence of utilities beneath a structure could result in crushing of pipes

and/or undermining of proposed structures. Any existing utilities should be removed and

relocated outside of the proposed building area. Alternatively, existing pipes could be

abandoned left in-place, and grouted “full” throughout its length. If the utilities cannot be

relocated outside of the proposed building areas, foundations should be designed to bear at or

below the invert elevations of the pipe. The resulting excavations made during removal of

existing structures and utilities should be backfilled with structural fill placed and compacted as

recommended herein.

SHALLOW FOUNDATION AND SLAB-ON-GRADE SYSTEM

It is Duffield’s opinion that the site soils consisting of medium dense to dense sand encountered in

the test borings, are generally suitable for supporting the proposed building on a shallow

foundation and slab-on-grade system. Structural fill, placed and compacted as recommended

herein is also considered suitable for support of proposed structures.

EFFECT ON ADJACENT STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES

The burial depth of the foundations for the proposed building addition should be selected such

that additional loads will not be imparted to any existing footings. Based on the referenced as-

built drawings, the existing structure is founded on a shallow foundation system with bottom of

footing elevations ranging from 119.0 to 123.6 feet (NAVD 88) in the area adjacent to the

proposed building addition. Any connections between the proposed structures and the existing

structure should be designed to tolerate up to 1 inch of total differential settlement.

Page 6

DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

1. ALLOWABLE FOUNDATION BEARING CAPACITY AND SETTLEMENT

It is Duffield’s opinion that the medium dense to dense sand soils encountered below

the surficial topsoil are generally considered suitable for supporting the proposed

building on shallow spread footing foundation and slab-on-grade systems following

subgrade preparation and review, as discussed further herein. Structural fill, placed,

compacted and reviewed, as recommended in this report, is also considered suitable for

supporting shallow foundations.

It is recommended that the proposed foundations for the building be designed for a

maximum net allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot.

Based on the results of the analysis performed as part of this evaluation, it is estimated

that maximum total foundation settlement for the proposed structure should be on the

order of 1 inch or less, with a post-construction differential settlement on the order of ½

inch over a distance of 25 feet. Due to the primarily granular stratigraphy, most of the

estimated settlement should occur relatively quickly following the application of loads.

2. FOUNDATION BURIAL DEPTH AND SIZE

Foundations in areas exposed to frost should be placed at least 36 inches below final

exterior grade;

Interior foundations in insulated areas should be placed at least 18 inches below the

proposed finished floor elevation;

All continuous wall footings should be at least 2-feet wide, and all isolated column

footings should be at least 3-feet wide, regardless of bearing pressure;

If a winter construction schedule is proposed for the foundations, provisions for the

protection of shallow foundations from frost heave during construction should be

included in the contract specifications; and

Foundation burial depth for foundation adjacent to the existing structure should be

selected so that no additional loads are imparted on the existing foundation elements.

Foundations immediately adjacent to the existing building should be founded at or

below the elevation of the existing foundations.

3. SLAB-ON-GRADE

Ground-supported floor slabs should be designed as free floating and should not be

connected to the other structural elements (e.g., walls, framing, etc.) of the buildings.

Isolation joints should be utilized at the interface of proposed ground-supported floor

slabs and structural elements to accommodate potential differential settlement;

A minimum 10 mil polyethylene vapor barrier and free-draining subbase, consisting of

at least 4 inches of poorly graded crushed stone aggregate, such as AASHTO SP-57

stone, should be provided beneath floor slabs; and

Subgrade conditions should be modeled for design utilizing a subgrade modulus, KS of

150 pci, provided subgrade preparation is performed as recommended in this report.

Page 7

4. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered during the field exploration at the site and

the review of regional geologic maps, a “D” site classification is recommended for the

analysis of seismic conditions, as defined by 1613.3.2 of the 2015 International Building

Code and Chapter 20 of the American Society of Civil Engineers Minimum Design Loads

for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10).

5. CONTROL JOINTS

Masonry walls should be provided with frequent control joints placed at architecturally

convenient locations (e.g., windows and doorways) to provide a “preferred” location for

differential settlement to occur to reduce the potential for cracking of the walls.

6. EXISTING UTILITIES

The presence of utilities beneath a structure could result in crushing of pipes and/or

undermining of proposed buildings. Therefore, it is recommended that existing utilities be

removed and relocated outside of the proposed building areas. The resulting excavations

should be backfilled with structural fill, placed and compacted in accordance with the

recommendations of this report. Alternatively, existing pipes could be abandoned left in-

place, and grouted “full” throughout its length. If the utilities cannot be relocated outside

of the proposed building area, foundations should be designed to bear at or below the invert

elevations of the pipe.

7. SITE GRADING

Site grading should be designed to provide positive drainage away from the proposed

construction area. Positive site drainage should be maintained throughout the construction

activities. Final site grading should provide drainage aware from all structures.

8. ASSUMPTIONS

The proposed grading and structural loading considered in this evaluation should be

verified by the project team prior to the completion of their design. If the proposed loading

conditions vary from those considered herein, Duffield should be notified to possibly

modify the recommendations provided herein as required.

Page 8

CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

1. PROOFROLLING AND SUBGRADE PREPARATION

It is recommended that the trees, topsoil, and pavement, be removed in their entirety

from the building addition area (defined herein at the area extending 10 feet beyond the

proposed building perimeters). The resulting excavations made by tree removal should

be backfilled with structural fill, placed and compacted as recommended herein.

Following rough grading and prior to footing excavation, placement of fill, or

construction of floor slabs, it is recommended that the exposed subgrade in the building

area be proofrolled. The proofrolling should be performed using a minimum of two

passes of a 10-ton static roller or a fully-loaded tandem dump truck in the presence of a

qualified soils technician working under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer.

The purpose of the proofrolling is to identify yielding subgrade conditions. The

proposed construction area should be proofrolled at least 10 feet beyond the building

perimeters.

Yielding subgrade conditions encountered within the proposed building areas should be

undercut to firm, subgrade conditions, and backfilled with compacted structural fill

placed in accordance with the recommendations of this report. If acceptable to the

project’s engineer, granular soils may also be densified in place. The subgrade review

should confirm the consistency and texture of the exposed soils with the conditions

encountered by this evaluation, as described herein.

2. FOUNDATION SUBGRADE REVIEW

All shallow foundations should be placed on firm, dry, non-frozen subgrade consisting

of medium dense to dense sand, or on structural fill, placed and compacted as

recommended herein. Foundation excavations should be reviewed by a qualified

technician working under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer who is familiar

with the recommendations of this report; and

If soft/loose or unsuitable subgrade conditions area encountered at the proposed building

area depths, additional excavation should be performed until they are uniformly

encountered across the base of the foundation’s excavation or, if acceptable to the project

geotechnical engineer, the natural sand soils can be densified in place. Foundation

undercut areas should be backfilled with structural fill as recommended herein.

3. RE-USE OF ON-SITE SOILS AS STRUCTURAL FILL

On-site soils free of organic material, topsoil, miscellaneous fill, debris, and rock

fragments in excess of 3 inches in their largest dimension may be suitable as structural

fill.

A majority of the on-site materials that will be available as fill from the excavations

will consist of the Stratum B sand. These soils, free of organics and debris are

considered suitable for backfill, as long as the moisture content of the soils is within the

range in which the specified compaction requirements can be achieved. The shallow

soils observed in the test borings were generally observed to have moisture contents

within the range at which specified compaction requirements can be achieved.

Page 9

If sufficient quantities of suitable on-site soils are not available for structural fill,

imported borrow consisting of, or a combination of, GP, GM, GC, SW, SP, SM, and

SC soil as classified by the most recent edition of ASTM D2487. AASHTO #57 stone

could also be utilized as structural fill at locations, as recommended by the project

engineer, and should be considered for localized, relatively deep fills such as

foundation undercuts.

4. COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS

Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts with a maximum thickness of 8 inches;

Each lift of fill placed within the proposed building construction areas (defined as the

area extending at least 5 feet beyond the foundation element perimeters) should be

compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density, as determined by the Modified

Proctor test (ASTM D 1557);

Structural fill for site pavements and for utility trenches located outside of the proposed

building construction areas should be compacted to at least 90% of the Modified

Proctor maximum dry density;

Structural fill placed in proposed landscaped areas should be compacted to at least 85%

of the maximum dry density, as determined by the Modified Proctor test; and

The placement and compaction of structural fill should be monitored on a full-time

basis by a qualified technician working under the supervision of a geotechnical

engineer.

5. EXCAVATION SAFETY

All utility and foundation excavation should be performed in accordance with OSHA

guidelines. Typically the sand soils encountered in the borings can be characterized by

OSHA CFR Part 1926 Excavation Standards as Type C soils. Should it be required, all

temporary sheeting, shoring, benching, and sloping should be designed by a qualified

engineer registered in the State of New Jersey.

6. PROTECTION OF SUBGRADE SOILS

If foundation excavations are left open, precipitation may result in the collection of water

within the excavation. Provisions for removal of water by drainage or sumping are

recommended. Subgrade soils disturbed by precipitation and construction traffic should be

either scarified and re-compacted, or undercut and replaced with structural fill as

previously recommended in this report.

7. GROUNDWATER CONTROL

Groundwater was generally observed in the test borings performed during this evaluation at

depths ranging from approximately 11.5 to 12.0 feet below the existing ground surface

which corresponds to elevations ranging from approximately 107.7 to 111.7feet (NAVD

88). Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, regional groundwater conditions will

likely be below the depth of typical shallow foundations depending on the final design

elevations. However, it is possible that “perched” groundwater may be encountered. If

perched groundwater is encountered during excavation for foundations or utilities,

Page 10

localized sumping may be required. Wherever significant quantities of stormwater or

groundwater are encountered during excavation, it may become necessary for the resulting

excavation to be over-excavated by a minimum of 6 inches and backfilled with AASHTO

#57 stone to facilitate sumping and protect the exposed subgrade during construction.

8. SUBSURFACE DATA

All contractors interested in bidding on phases of this work, which involve subsurface

conditions, should be given full access to this report so that they can develop their own

interpretations of the available data.

9. CONSTRUCTION REVIEW

It is recommended that the project budget include provisions for the cost for independent

construction monitoring of the earthwork and foundation construction by a qualified

engineering firm retained by the Owner, to review conformance of construction with the

recommendations of the project geotechnical evaluation, as well as the project plans and

specifications.

Page 11

QUALIFICATIONS

The recommendations of this report have been prepared according to generally accepted soil

and foundation engineering practice, and are based on the conditions encountered by the test

borings and infiltration tests performed at the site. Although soil quality has been inferred from

the interpolation of the sampling data, you should explicitly note that subsurface conditions

beyond the test borings are, in fact, unknown. Should any conditions encountered during

construction differ from those described in this report, this office should be notified

immediately in order to review, and possibly modify these recommendations. This report

applies solely to the size, type, and location of the structures described herein. In the event that

changes are proposed, this report will not be considered valid unless the changes have been

reviewed and the recommendations of this report modified and re-approved in writing by

Duffield Associates, Inc.

Page 12

ENCLOSURES

SITE LOCATION SKETCH

TEST BORING LOCATION SKETCH

TEST BORING LOGS (5)

GENERAL NOTES

APPROXIMATE

SITE LOCATION

E-MAIL: [email protected]

OFFICES IN DELAWARE, MARYLANDPENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

FILE:

DESIGNED BY:

SHEET:

PROJECT. NO.

SCALE:

DATE:

ASSOCIATESDUFFIELDSoil, Water & the Environment

5400 LIMESTONE ROADWILMINGTON, DE 19808-1232TEL. 302.239.6634FAX 302.239.8485

SITE LOCATION SKETCH

WILSON HALL

DANCE PROGRAM EXPANSIONROWAN UNIVERSITY, GLASSBORO, NEW JERSEY

02 JANUARY 2020

1" = 2000'

12214.GA

1 OF 1

APC

APC

SBZ

A-12214GA-01

NOTE:

THIS SKETCH IS ADAPTED FROM A 7.5 MINUTE SERIES U.S.G.S TOPOGRAPHIC MAP TITLED

"PITMAN EAST, N.J., " DATED 2019.

TB-01

TB-02TB-03

TB-04

TB-05

ASS

OCI

ATE

SD

UFF

IELD

Soil,

Wat

er &

the

Envi

ronm

ent

PE

NN

SY

LV

AN

IA A

ND

NE

W J

ER

SE

YO

FF

ICE

S I

N D

EL

AW

AR

E, M

AR

YL

AN

D

E-M

AIL

: DU

FF

IEL

D@

DU

FF

NE

T.C

OM

DR

AW

N B

Y:

DE

SIG

NE

D B

Y:

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y:

FIL

E:

DATE:

SCALE:

SHEET:

PROJECT NO.

5400

LIM

ES

TO

NE

RO

AD

WIL

MIN

GT

ON

, DE

198

08-1

232

TE

L. 3

02.2

39.6

634

FA

X 3

02.2

39.8

485

TE

ST B

OR

ING

LO

CA

TIO

N S

KE

TC

H

WIL

SON

HA

LL

DA

NC

E P

RO

GR

AM

EX

PAN

SIO

NR

OW

AN

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

, GL

ASS

BO

RO

, NE

W J

ER

SEY

02 JANUARY 2020

1" = 15'

12214.GA

1 OF 1

AD

B

APC

SBZ

B-1

2214

GA

-02

LEGEND:

APPROX. TEST BORING LOCATION

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

11.2

17.8

30.9

22.4

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

5-4-10-9

10-21-13-23

13-15-16-16

13-12-14-14

7-6-7-5

4-3-3-2

3-6-8-10

11-11-19-23

TOPSOIL (± 0.7 feet)Tan fine SAND, some silt, little subangular coarse sandand fine gravel (moist)

Gray fine to medium SAND and Silt, little coarse sandand fine gravel (moist)

Gray fine SAND, some silt (moist)



Gray fine SAND, little medium sand, some silt (wet)

Gray medium SAND, some silt, little rounded coarsesand to fine gravel (wet)

Gray medium SAND, little coarse sand and fine gravel,trace silt (wet)

1.6

1.8

1.9

1.6

1.2

2.0

1.7

1.6

SM

5-4-10-9

10-21-13-23

13-15-16-16

13-12-14-14

7-6-7-5

4-3-3-2

3-6-8-10

11-11-19-23

TOPSOIL (± 0.7 feet)Tan fine SAND, some silt, little subangular coarse sandand fine gravel (moist)

Gray fine to medium SAND and Silt, little coarse sandand fine gravel (moist)




Gray fine SAND, little medium sand, some silt (wet)

Gray medium SAND, some silt, little rounded coarsesand to fine gravel (wet)

Gray medium SAND, little coarse sand and fine gravel,trace silt (wet)

1.6

1.8

1.9

1.6

1.2

2.0

1.7

1.6

SM

11.2

17.8

30.9

22.4

Depthin

feet

Blows per6 inches

0

5

10

15

20

25

Recovery(ft)

Water Levels

Surf.Elev.122 ft

PercentPassing

200 Sieve

SampleNumber

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

GR

AP

HIC

(Page 1 of 1)

Recovery(ft)

Water Levels

Surf.Elev.122 ft

PercentPassing

200 Sieve

SampleNumber

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

MoistureContent

(%)

Sample Condition

US

CS

SA

MP

LE

S

0

5

10

15

20

25

TEST BORING TB-01

DESCRIPTION

120

115

110

105

100

95

Remolded

: December 20, 2019

: December 20, 2019

: ADB

: 19° Clear

: J. Blemmings/CGC Geoservices LLC

Date Started

Date Completed

Logged by

Weather

Driller/Agency

GR

AP

HIC

NOTES:1. Test boring terminated at ± 25.0 feet below existing ground surface (b.e.g.s.).2. Wet-on-spoon conditions observed at ± 18.0 ft b.e.g.s.3. Water level through augers during drilling at ± 13.0 ft b.e.g.s.4. Water level through augers at completion of drilling at ± 11.5 ft b.e.g.s.5. Boring elevation estimated from site plan prepared by CME Associates, dated

October 17, 2019. (Datum: NAVD 88)6. Soil descriptions performed in general accordance with ASTM D 2488, the

Practice for Description and Indentification of Soils (Visual - Manual Procedure)

MoistureContent

(%)

Sample Condition

US

CS

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

120

115

110

105

100

95

Remolded

: December 20, 2019

: December 20, 2019

: ADB

: 19° Clear


Date Started

Date Completed

Logged by

Weather

Driller/Agency

Drilling Equipment

Drilling Methods

Surface Elevation

: CME 55 Truck Mount

: SPT, ASTM D 1586

: 122 feet

Geotechnical EvaluationWilson Hall Dance Program Expansion

Rowan University, Glassboro, New JerseyProject No. 12214.GA

Depthin

feet

Blows per6 inches




(Page 1 of 1)

After Completion

During Drilling

Wet-on-Spoon

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

15.5 27.7

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

3-2-5-6

7-16-11-13

11-8-7-7

11-14-27-29

7-8-9-9

2-2-2-2

3-6-10-13

7-9-8-8

TOPSOIL (± 0.75 feet)

Brown fine SAND, some silt (moist)

Brown and black fine SAND, some silt (moist)

Brown and black fine SAND, trace coarse sand, somesilt (moist)

Brown fine to medium SAND, some silt and quartz gravel(moist)

Homogenous gray and brown fine SAND, some silt(moist)

Homogenous gray and brown fine SAND, some silt(wet)

Homogenous gray and brown fine SAND, some silt (wet)

Brown fine SAND, some medium sand and silt (wet)

0.4

1.7

1.3

0.5

1.8

1.9

1.8

1.4

SM

3-2-5-6

7-16-11-13

11-8-7-7

11-14-27-29

7-8-9-9

2-2-2-2

3-6-10-13

7-9-8-8


Brown fine SAND, some silt (moist)

Brown and black fine SAND, some silt (moist)

Brown and black fine SAND, trace coarse sand, somesilt (moist)

Brown fine to medium SAND, some silt and quartz gravel(moist)

Homogenous gray and brown fine SAND, some silt(moist)

Homogenous gray and brown fine SAND, some silt(wet)

Homogenous gray and brown fine SAND, some silt (wet)

Brown fine SAND, some medium sand and silt (wet)

0.4

1.7

1.3

0.5

1.8

1.9

1.8

1.4

SM

15.5 27.7

Depthin

feet

Blows per6 inches

0

5

10

15

20

25

Recovery(ft)

Water Levels

Surf.Elev.

123.7 ft

PercentPassing

200 Sieve

SampleNumber

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

GR

AP

HIC

(Page 1 of 1)

Recovery(ft)

Water Levels

Surf.Elev.

123.7 ft

PercentPassing

200 Sieve

SampleNumber

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

MoistureContent

(%)

Sample Condition

US

CS

SA

MP

LE

S

0

5

10

15

20

25

TEST BORING TB-02

DESCRIPTION

120

115

110

105

100

Remolded

: December 20, 2019

: December 20, 2019

: ADB

: 19° Clear


Date Started

Date Completed

Logged by

Weather

Driller/Agency

GR

AP

HIC




MoistureContent

(%)

Sample Condition

US

CS

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

120

115

110

105

100

Remolded

: December 20, 2019

: December 20, 2019

: ADB

: 19° Clear


Date Started

Date Completed

Logged by

Weather

Driller/Agency

Drilling Equipment

Drilling Methods

Surface Elevation


: SPT, ASTM D 1586

: 123.7 feet



Depthin

feet

Blows per6 inches




(Page 1 of 1)

After Completion

During Drilling

Wet-on-Spoon

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

9.0

11.9

18.9

9.1

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

2-4-6-3

4-9-22-23

9-14-14-15

10-6-9-8

2-2-4-5

1-1-3-3

9-8-8-7

7-12-13-13


Dark brown fine SAND, some silt

Brown fine SAND, little rounded to subangular finegravel, little silt

Homogenous light brown fine SAND, trace silt

Homogenous brown fine SAND, some silt (wet)

Bedded brown and gray fine SAND, some silt


Brown fine SAND, some silt and medium sand, littlecoarse SAND

Brown medium SAND, some silt, trace coarse sand

1.4

0.9

1.2

1.6

0.8

1.0

2.0

2.0

SM

2-4-6-3

4-9-22-23

9-14-14-15

10-6-9-8

2-2-4-5

1-1-3-3

9-8-8-7

7-12-13-13


Dark brown fine SAND, some silt

Brown fine SAND, little rounded to subangular finegravel, little silt

Homogenous light brown fine SAND, trace silt

Homogenous brown fine SAND, some silt (wet)



Brown fine SAND, some silt and medium sand, littlecoarse SAND


1.4

0.9

1.2

1.6

0.8

1.0

2.0

2.0

SM

9.0

11.9

18.9

9.1

Depthin

feet

Blows per6 inches

0

5

10

15

20

25

Recovery(ft)

Water Levels

Surf.Elev.

123.5 ft

PercentPassing

200 Sieve

SampleNumber

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

GR

AP

HIC

(Page 1 of 2)

Recovery(ft)

Water Levels

Surf.Elev.

123.5 ft

PercentPassing

200 Sieve

SampleNumber

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

MoistureContent

(%)

Sample Condition

US

CS

SA

MP

LE

S

0

5

10

15

20

25

TEST BORING TB-03

DESCRIPTION

120

115

110

105

100

Remolded

: December 20, 2019

: December 20, 2019

: ADB

: 19° Clear


Date Started

Date Completed

Logged by

Weather

Driller/Agency

GR

AP

HIC

NOTES:1. Test boring terminated at ± 50.0 feet below existing ground surface (b.e.g.s.).2. Groundwater levels not recorded due to the introduction of drilling water into the

borehole to prevent heaving sands.3. Boring elevation estimated from site plan prepared by CME Associates, dated

October 17, 2019. (Datum: NAVD 88)

4. Soil descriptions performed in general accordance with ASTM D 2488, thePractice for Description and Indentification of Soils (Visual - Manual Procedure)

MoistureContent

(%)

Sample Condition

US

CS

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

120

115

110

105

100

Remolded

: December 20, 2019

: December 20, 2019

: ADB

: 19° Clear


Date Started

Date Completed

Logged by

Weather

Driller/Agency

Drilling Equipment

Drilling Methods

Surface Elevation


: SPT, ASTM D 1586

: 123.5 feet



Depthin

feet

Blows per6 inches





(Page 1 of 2)

S-9

S-10

S-11

S-12

S-13

S-9

S-10

S-11

S-12

S-13

10-16-20-22

17-20-26-31

6-8-11-11

7-10-13-14

13-12-13-11


Brown fine SAND, some medium sand, some silt

Red fine SAND, some medium SAND, little silt

Dark gray/Black fine SAND, some silt


1.8

1.9

1.4

1.6

0.8

SM

10-16-20-22

17-20-26-31

6-8-11-11

7-10-13-14

13-12-13-11


Brown fine SAND, some medium sand, some silt

Red fine SAND, some medium SAND, little silt



1.8

1.9

1.4

1.6

0.8

SM

Depthin

feet

Blows per6 inches

30

35

40

45

50

Recovery(ft)

Water Levels

Surf.Elev.

123.5 ft

PercentPassing

200 Sieve

SampleNumber

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

GR

AP

HIC

(Page 2 of 2)

Recovery(ft)

Water Levels

Surf.Elev.

123.5 ft

PercentPassing

200 Sieve

SampleNumber

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

MoistureContent

(%)

Sample Condition

US

CS

SA

MP

LE

S

30

35

40

45

50

TEST BORING TB-03

DESCRIPTION

95

90

85

80

75

70

Remolded

: December 20, 2019

: December 20, 2019

: ADB

: 19° Clear


Date Started

Date Completed

Logged by

Weather

Driller/Agency

GR

AP

HIC





MoistureContent

(%)

Sample Condition

US

CS

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

95

90

85

80

75

70

Remolded

: December 20, 2019

: December 20, 2019

: ADB

: 19° Clear


Date Started

Date Completed

Logged by

Weather

Driller/Agency

Drilling Equipment

Drilling Methods

Surface Elevation


: SPT, ASTM D 1586

: 123.5 feet



Depthin

feet

Blows per6 inches





(Page 2 of 2)

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

18.2 18.0

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

1-3-5-3

7-10-10-8

4-5-6-5

5-4-3-3

2-2-2-2

1-2-1-3

3-13-30-50/5

50/4


Dark brown fine SAND, some silt, little rounded coarsesand (moist)

Tan fine SAND, little silt, course sand and fine gravel(moist)

Tan fine SAND, little silt, coarse sand and fine gravel(moist)


Mottled gray and tan fine SAND, coarse sand and finegravel, some silt (wet)

Poorly sorted, tan fine SAND, some medium sand, littlecoarse sand, some silt (wet)

Red fine and medium SAND, some silt, trace coarsesand (wet)

Red fine and medium SAND, some silt, some coarsesand (wet)

1.0

1.6

0.2

1.1

1.3

1.4

2.0

0.4

SM

1-3-5-3

7-10-10-8

4-5-6-5

5-4-3-3

2-2-2-2

1-2-1-3

3-13-30-50/5

50/4


Dark brown fine SAND, some silt, little rounded coarsesand (moist)

Tan fine SAND, little silt, course sand and fine gravel(moist)



Mottled gray and tan fine SAND, coarse sand and finegravel, some silt (wet)

Poorly sorted, tan fine SAND, some medium sand, littlecoarse sand, some silt (wet)

Red fine and medium SAND, some silt, trace coarsesand (wet)

Red fine and medium SAND, some silt, some coarsesand (wet)

1.0

1.6

0.2

1.1

1.3

1.4

2.0

0.4

SM

18.2 18.0

Depthin

feet

Blows per6 inches

0

5

10

15

20

25

Recovery(ft)

Water Levels

Surf.Elev.

119.7 ft

PercentPassing

200 Sieve

SampleNumber

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

GR

AP

HIC

(Page 1 of 1)

Recovery(ft)

Water Levels

Surf.Elev.

119.7 ft

PercentPassing

200 Sieve

SampleNumber

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

MoistureContent

(%)

Sample Condition

US

CS

SA

MP

LE

S

0

5

10

15

20

25

TEST BORING TB-04

DESCRIPTION

115

110

105

100

95

Remolded

: December 20, 2019

: December 20, 2019

: ADB

: 19° Clear


Date Started

Date Completed

Logged by

Weather

Driller/Agency

GR

AP

HIC




MoistureContent

(%)

Sample Condition

US

CS

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

115

110

105

100

95

Remolded

: December 20, 2019

: December 20, 2019

: ADB

: 19° Clear


Date Started

Date Completed

Logged by

Weather

Driller/Agency

Drilling Equipment

Drilling Methods

Surface Elevation


: SPT, ASTM D 1586

: 119.7 feet



Depthin

feet

Blows per6 inches




(Page 1 of 1)

After Completion

During Drilling

Wet-on-Spoon

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

9.4

8.6

15.0

18.7

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

2-5-7-5

4-5-8-11

7-13-17-5

11-24-8-4

6-5-9-13

4-4-4-4

22-33-48-50/3

50/5


Gray and brown fine SAND, some silt, little coarse sandand fine gravel (moist)

Red fine SAND, little silt, little coarse sand and finegravel (moist)

Bedded brown fine SAND, trace coarse sand, some silt(moist)

Bedded brown fine SAND, little coarse sand, some silt(moist)

Brown and gray fine SAND, little medium sand, little silt(moist)

Brown and gray fine SAND, some silt (wet)

Brown medium SAND, some silt (wet)

No Recovery

1.9

1.6

0.8

0.8

1.7

1.1

1.9

0.0

SM

2-5-7-5

4-5-8-11

7-13-17-5

11-24-8-4

6-5-9-13

4-4-4-4

22-33-48-50/3

50/5


Gray and brown fine SAND, some silt, little coarse sandand fine gravel (moist)

Red fine SAND, little silt, little coarse sand and finegravel (moist)

Bedded brown fine SAND, trace coarse sand, some silt(moist)

Bedded brown fine SAND, little coarse sand, some silt(moist)

Brown and gray fine SAND, little medium sand, little silt(moist)

Brown and gray fine SAND, some silt (wet)

Brown medium SAND, some silt (wet)

No Recovery

1.9

1.6

0.8

0.8

1.7

1.1

1.9

0.0

SM

9.4

8.6

15.0

18.7

Depthin

feet

Blows per6 inches

0

5

10

15

20

25

Recovery(ft)

Water Levels

Surf.Elev.

122.3 ft

PercentPassing

200 Sieve

SampleNumber

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

GR

AP

HIC

(Page 1 of 1)

Recovery(ft)

Water Levels

Surf.Elev.

122.3 ft

PercentPassing

200 Sieve

SampleNumber

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

MoistureContent

(%)

Sample Condition

US

CS

SA

MP

LE

S

0

5

10

15

20

25

TEST BORING TB-05

DESCRIPTION

120

115

110

105

100

Remolded

: December 20, 2019

: December 20, 2019

: ADB

: 19° Clear


Date Started

Date Completed

Logged by

Weather

Driller/Agency

GR

AP

HIC




MoistureContent

(%)

Sample Condition

US

CS

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

120

115

110

105

100

Remolded

: December 20, 2019

: December 20, 2019

: ADB

: 19° Clear


Date Started

Date Completed

Logged by

Weather

Driller/Agency

Drilling Equipment

Drilling Methods

Surface Elevation


: SPT, ASTM D 1586

: 122.3 feet



Depthin

feet

Blows per6 inches




(Page 1 of 1)

After Completion

During Drilling

Wet-on-Spoon

GENERAL NOTES

DUFFIELD ASSOCIATES uses the following definitions and terminology to classify and correlate the field and laboratory samples.

VISUAL UNIFIED CLASSIFICATIONS: The soil samples are described by color, major constituent, modifiers (by percentage), and density (or consistency). Coarse Grained or Granular Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a No. 200 sieve; they are described as: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a No. 200 sieve; they are described as: clays or clayey silts if they are cohesive and silts if they are noncohesive. In addition to gradation, granular soils are defined on the basis of their relative in-place density and fine grained soils on the basis of their strength or consistency and their plasticity.

The Unified Soil Classification symbols are:

COARSE GRAINED SOILS FINE GRAINED SOILS

GW - Well graded gravels ML - Silts of low plasticity GP - Poorly graded gravels CL - Clays of low to medium plasticity GM - Silty gravels OL - Organic silt clays of low plasticity GC - Clayey gravels MH - Silts of high plasticity SW - Well graded sands CH - Clays of high plasticity SP - Poorly graded sands OH - Organic silt clays of high plasticity SM - Silty sands PT - Peat and highly organic soils SC - Clayey sands

SIZE DESCRIPTION MODIFIERS (PERCENTAGE)

F - Fine Tr - Trace 1 - 10% M - Medium Ltl - Little 11 - 20% C - Coarse Some 21 - 35% G - Gravel & - And 36 - 50%

COLOR

Or - Orange Blk - Black Vc - Varicolored Yel - Yellow Gr - Gray Dk - Dark Br - Brown R - Red Lt - Light

DENSITY: COARSE GRAINED SOILS CONSISTENCY: FINE GRAINED SOILS

Very loose 4 blows/ft or less Very soft 2 blows/ft or less Loose 5 to 10 blows/ft Soft 3 to 4 blows/ft Medium 11 to 30 blows/ft Medium 5 to 8 blows/ft Dense 31 to 50 blows/ft Stiff 9 to 15 blows/ft Very Dense 51 blows/ft or more Very stiff 16 to 30 blows/ft

Hard 31 blows/ft or more

NOTE: The Standard Penetration Test "N" value is the number of blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch O.D. split spoon sampler, except where otherwise noted.

Documents

January 21, 2020 Jill Lavine, RA, LEED AP BD+C Principal ......Fifteen Architecture and Design 28 N 3rd Street, 4R Philadelphia, PA19105 RE: Project No. 12214.GA Geotechnical Evaluation