Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Gibbs Tract ... report details our understanding of the project, the exploration procedures used, the subsurface conditions encountered, and

Preliminary Geotechnical

Investigation

Gibbs Tract

Berkeley County, SC

WPC Project # CHS-06-221

Prepared for

Mr. Edward J. Guiltinan

Rockefeller Group Development Corporation

500 International Drive, Suite 345

Mt. O live, NJ 07828

June 14, 2006

Prepared by WPC

IO 17 Chuck Dawley Boulevard

Mount Pleasant, SC 29464

June 14, 2006

Mr. Edward J. Guiltinan Rockefeller Group Development Corporation 500 International Drive, Suite 345 Mt. Olive, NJ 07828

Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Gibbs Tract

Berkeley County, SC \\'PC Project#:

CHS-06-221

Dear Mr. Guiltinan:

WPC has completed the preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed Gibbs Tract industrial development near the intersection of Jedburg Road and 1-26 in Berkeley County, South Carolina. This report details our understanding of the project, the exploration procedures used, the subsurface conditions encountered, and provides preliminary recommendations for site preparation, including stripping and anticipated undercutting depth ranges, preliminary foundation recommendations, and other geotechnical related issues that may affect construction. The recommendations are based upon our understanding of the proposed construction, our field data, and our experience with similar projects and conditions.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed development is located approximately 2 miles east south east of the intersection of Jedburg Road and Interstate 26 in Berkeley County, South Carolina as seen in Figure 1. The site is approximately 400 acres in size and is currently owned by Westvaco. The tract has been partially timbered and is currently being rented by Westvaco to local hunting organizations based on permitting information found on perimeter trees across the site. Numerous unpaved trails and/or roads bisect the site which allowed limited access to the sounding locations for our ATV style testing equipment. Additionally, across the site, residential wastes were observed at several locations, consisting of garbage, abandoned buildings, an abandoned school bus, etc. Please refer to WPC Phase I Environmental Site Assessment titled "G;bbs ESA Report" for further details.

It is our understanding the tract will be developed with industrial facilities, but currently location, size, and loading conditi ons of structures within the development are unknown. The potential exists for moderately loaded structures to be built on the project site. Based on a limited reconnaissance, the fill quantities across the tract wi ll likely be variable and highly dependant on individual building requirements.

----Project Site

Figure 1. Proposed Project Site

EXPLORATION PROCEDURES Our field investigation consisted of a total of fi ve (5) soundings which included four (4) Cone Penetration Tests (CPTu's) (ASTM 05778) and one ( I) Flat Blade Oilatometer Test (OMT) (ASTM 0 6635). Simultaneous seismic testing was performed within one of the CPTu soundings to collect shear wave velocities for seismic site class ification. The CPTu soundings were terminated at depths ranging between 35 and 52 feet below the ground surface and the DMT sounding was terminated at a depth of approximately 40 feet below existing grade. The near surface conditions were explored with one ( 1) Hand Auger Boring (HAB) at each of the sounding locations. The approximate locations for the various tests relative to the project site are shown on the Test Location Plan presented in the report Appendix.

Piezocone Penetration The Piezocone Penetration Test (CPTu) hydraulically pushes an instrumented cone Test (CPTu) through the soil while continuous readings are recorded to a portable computer. The

instrumented cone has a cross-sectional area of IO square cen timeters ( cm2) with a 60 conical tip . The cone is advanced through the ground at a constant rate of 2 centimeters per second (2 cm/sec). No soi l samples are gathered through thi s subsurface investigation technique. However, insitu measurements of tip and side resistance and porewater pressure are taken every 2 centimeters (approximately I inch). Porewater pressure measurements are taken directly behind the tip, while a CHS-06-221 Gibbs Tract Prelimina ry Geo Page 2 of 12

Seismic Piezocone Penetration Test

(SCPTu)

Flat Blade Dilatometer (DMT)

Hand Auger Borings (HAB's)

Overview

load cell located above the cone tip takes side friction measurements. The CPTu test was conducted in accordance with ASTM 05778 Standard Test Method for Pe,forming Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing ofSoils.

The CPTu logs in the report Appendix graphically illustrate the relative strength of the soils encountered and provide an approximate soil stratigraphy. Stratification lines on the CPTu logs represent approximate boundaries between soil types based on behavioral characteristics. Soil behavior is based on currently accepted correlations between the tip, side, and porewater pressure measurements. A detailed explanation of these correlations can be found in the Appendix.

The Seismic Piezocone Penetration Test (SCPTu) is identical to the CPTu test with added instrumentation to determine shear wave velocity with depth. This additional information is collected via an accelerometer placed above the instrumented cone. A shear wave is generated at the ground surface, such as a hammer striking a steel plate, which propagates through the soil and is recorded by the accelerometer at selected intervals (typically l meter). From this data, the interval shear wave velocities of the soil are calculated. These interval velocities are used to develop the shear wave velocity profile for the site, which is presented in the report Appendix.

The Flat Blade Dilatometer Test (DMT) was performed using the Marchetti dilatometer. The Marchetti dilatometer consists of a stainless steel blade with an expandable circular steel membrane mounted flush on one face. The steel membrane is expanded into the soil using nitrogen gas at 20-centimeter intervals. The pressure required to expand the membrane flush with the blade and I millimeter into the soil is recorded. From these measurements, soil type and various soil engineering properties can be determined. An illustration of the DMT is provided in the report Appendix. The DMT test was conducted in accordance with the ASTM D 6635 Standard Test Method for Performing the Flat Plate Dilatometer.

The Hand Auger Borings (HAB's) allow for physical sampling of the near surface soils for classification. The HAB logs are included in the report Appendix.

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS In general, our subsurface investigation encountered approximately 6 inches of topsoil which was underlain by medium dense to dense clean to silty sands to depths ranging from 2 to 10 feet. The sand layer tended to be thicker along the northern third of the project site. Underlying the sands are interbedded very soft to stiff silts and clays to depths ranging from 32 to 46 feet with an average depth of approximately 37Y2 feet. The silts and clays transition into a dense to very dense

CHS-06-221 Gibbs Tract Preliminary Geo Page 3 of 12

clean to silty sand to the termination depth of the deepest sounding (C3) at a depth of 51 feet. The lone exception was observed in SC2 in which the deep sands transitioned into a sandy silt at a depth of 42 feet. This sandy silty layer is known locally as the Cooper Marl Fom1ation and is typically 100 to 200 feet thick in the Charleston area.

Groundwater At the time of our exploration, the groundwater levels were estimated between 4\1.i and 6:Y4 feet with an average depth of approximately 5Y2 feet below the ground surface. The groundwater depth was determined from calculating the hydrostatic line (height of water below the ground surface) on the penetration porewater pressure (U) graph in the Piezocone Penetration Logs. Groundwater was not observed in the HAB's perfonned next to each sounding location. Rainfall events, drainage constraints, and seasonal weather patterns can vary with time and influence the level of the groundwater table.

The fine-grained soils near the ground surface may drain poorly during and after periods of heavy rainfall. A "perched" groundwater table occurs when water collects above low permeability soils, such as the clays and silts. During periods of heavy rainfall , water will tend to move laterall y across the site and collect in low-lying areas before it slow ly descends into the groundwater table.

Seismic Analysis According to IBC 2003, structures are required to be designed to a design earthquake from a 50 year exposure period with a 2% Probability of Exceedance (PE) (i.e. a 2,475-year design earthquake). The 2% PE in 50 year design earthquake has a Moment Magnitude (Mw) of 7.3 and a Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) of 0.39g, as determined from data provided by the IBC 2003 Code. The IBC 2003 seismic design code is based on the 1997 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Building and Other Structures (FEMA 302 and 303) and the USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project.

Due to the high seismicity of the Charleston, South Carolina area, we performed a liquefaction potential analysis for the site to evaluate the stability of the subgrade soils. Ground shaking at the foundation of structures and liquefaction of the soil under the foundation are the principle seismic hazards to be considered in design of earthquake-resistant structures. Liquefaction occurs when a rapid buildup in water pressure, caused by the ground motion, pushes sand particles apart, resulting in a loss of strength and later densification as the water pressure dissipates. This loss of strength can cause bearing capacity failure while the densification can cause excessive settlement. Potential earthquake damage can be mitigated by structural


and/or geotechnical measures or procedures common to earthquake resistant design. Our analysis indicated that a major portion of the soils underl ying the site have a fines conten t that limits the potential for liquefaction. However, portions of the sands and si lty sands encountered below the groundwater surface at the site have the potential to liquefy during the design earthquake.

While the amount of the settlement is dependent on the magnitude and distance from the seismic event, we estimate that settl ements from the design earthquake may approach 1 inch. Differential settlement may range up to I 00% of the total settlement .

~ 0.80 -t -- t-------, - ----+--------r------t- - - - ---,

"' (/)

~ [ 0.20 -- - ----l--- - -+'""=---+-- --f - - - - ----l (/)

4 5

0.00 - --- -~-----~---- - ~ ------ ----~

0 2 3 Period, T (seconds)

Figure 2. Design Response Spectrum

According to the !BC 2003 Code, thi s potential for liquefaction classifies the site as Site Class F. However, IBC 2003 provides an exception to the Site Class recommendation for a structure with a fundamenta l period equal to or less than 0.5 seconds. This exception states that a si te can be classified as whatever Site Class it would be wi thout considering liquefaction to determine spectral accelerations for CHS-06-221 Gibbs Tract Preliminary Geo Page 5 of 12

structural design. Based on this exception and the co llected in situ test data, structures with a period less than 0.5 seconds would be classified as Site Class D based on the weighted shear wave velocity average of 835 feet per second (fps) as determined from procedures outlined in IBC, the SCPTu test data and conservative assumed shear wave velocity of the Cooper Marl Formation. Seismic design parameters for the site are as follows: Fa= 1.0, F" = 1.58, Sos= 0.96, and Soi = 0.44. Figure 2 presents the Design Response Spectrum for this site (Note - This is not a Site Specific Seismic Evaluation). We note, for the larger structures planned for thi s tract a Site Specific Seismic Evaluation (SSSE) may be warranted to minimize structural costs. The necessity of a SSSE will be highly dependant on the size of individual structures.

PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Overview Based on the limited quantity of data collected, the soils that underlie the proj ect site

wi ll likely provide adequate support for the proposed industrial structures. However, due to the presence of very soft to stiff silt and clays that underlie a significant portion of the tract, the potential exists for excessive consolidation induced settlements to occur under fill and building loads (i.e. fill heights of 2 feet or greater combined with structural building loads of 100 to 200 kips or more). The above mentioned loading may generate significant total settlements of 2 inches or more with differential sett lements Yi to :Y4 of the total. Settlements of this magnitude are typically considered unacceptable and will be detrimental to these structures (i.e. cracking, damage/misalignment to sensitive equipment, etc.) Magnitude of settlements wi ll be directly proportional to building loads and fill requirements and should be examined on a case by case basis as loading information and building locations become available.

Excessive settlements may be mitigated utilizing pre-loading/surcharging (for moderately loaded structures) or in extreme loading conditions, a deep foundation system should be considered. Again, as stated previously, the range of possible loading scenarios is extensive and should be examined on a case by case basis once building locations are selected.

The fo llowing paragraphs discuss preloading and surcharging m a general perspective.

Preloading It preloading is necessary, we recommend that the building pads be fill ed as needed and the underlying soi ls allowed to consolidate under the weight of the fi ll prior to beginning construction. The amount of time necessary to conso lidate the underlying so il s will be dependant on the fill height placed, but in general, our experience has

Cl IS-06-22 1 Gibbs Tract Preliminary Geo Page 6 of 12

been that one ( 1) to three (3) months is typically a sufficient amount of time to allow primary settlement to come to an effective conclusion. The fill soils should be graded to promote drainage and prevent excess water from ponding wi thin the filled area.

Surcharging Surcharging involves mounding soil above the finished subgrade to simulate a whole or portion of the anticipated structural loads and consolidating the underlying soils in a shorter timeframe and to a greater degree than would be possible without the extra fill. Once the underlying soils have been consolidated a sufficient amount, the excess fill can be removed and the foundations constructed. The surcharge fill should be graded to promote drainage to prevent excess water from ponding within the surcharge.

The building pads should be filled above finished grade with the surcharge load and then be allowed to consolidate under the weight of the fill prior to beginning foundation construction. Again, the time required for the surcharge load to be left in place will be dependant on building loads and the height of surcharge material to be placed. Once the surcharge is complete, the excess soil can be used to grade the site.

Surcbarge/Preload If surcharging/preloading is required, we recommend that a minimum of four ( 4) Monitoring settlement plates be installed within each building footprint prior to filling so fill

induced settlements can be monitored during the surcharge program. The actual number of plates to be installed will be a function of the size of the surcharge/preload program. Larger areas will likely require significantly more monitoring plates to insure adequate coverage and provide a level of redundancy. Using the settlement plates may allow the geotechnical engineer to end the surcharge program early. Refer to Figure B in the rep011 Appendix for a typical settlement plate detail.

PRELIMINARY SITE PREPARATION General The ability to successfully develop this tract while limiting costly time delays and

increased development costs due to ground instability will be highl y dependant on adequately draining the site. As stated in a previous section, perched groundwater conditions may be encountered across the project site in which, the near surface sandy soils were underlain by impermeable clays and silts, which impede the migration of storm water into the natural groundwater regime effectively ponding water within these near surface soils. If site drainage is not incorporated into the overall site development plans and scheduling, the near surface soi ls wi ll likely become unstable during site clearing activities resulting in deeper undercuts and/or utilization of ground stabilizing methods to facilitate construction, which can be especially significant after rain events. Therefore, we recommend that a

C HS-06-221 Gibbs Tract Preliminary Geo Page 7 of 12

comprehensive site drainage plan be implemented prior to large-scale site clearing acti vities. No large-scale site clearing activities should be performed until such a time as site drainage plans have been finalized and impleme11ted. Initial site drainage ca11 be accomplished with a series oflimited cleari11g operatio11s ill which the excavatio11 of temporary dete11tio11 ponds, drainage ditch es, and/or swales across the project site are u11dertake11. This can be undertaken at the same time infrastructure (i.e. roadways, utilities, etc.) for the development are constructed. These drainage systems can be incorporated into the final site grading plans.

Stripping The building pads, parking, and roadway areas should be cleared and stripped of topsoil, organics, and/or any other deleterious materials. Preliminary indications are that stripping depths will likely be approximately 6 inches on average across the much of the tract. However, isolated areas may requiring deeper stripping such as in low lying areas or areas of natural drainage.

Proofrolling and After stripping topsoil, the subgrade within the proposed building, parking, and Undercutting roadway areas should be proofrolled. Proofrolling will help detect any isolated so ft

or loose areas that "pump", deflect or rut excessively. A full y loaded pneumatic tired tandem ax le dump truck, capable of transferring a load of in excess of20 tons, should be utilized for this operation. Proofrolling should be perfo rmed under the observation of the geotechnical engineer or their representative. Undercutting potenti al appears minimal at four of the fi ve test locations. However, a zone of very soft fine grained soils between approx imately 2 to 4 feet below the ground surface at sounding SC2. These soils will likely require undercutting. Thus variability across the site should be anticipated. Then implementation of drainage measures in advance of site grading will help minimize undercutting.

Controlled Fill Controlled Fill soils should be free of organics and debris. Fi ll soils should be sand classified as SM or SC according to the Unified Soil Classification System, with a Modified Proctor Maximum Dry D ensity of at least 100 pounds per cubic foot (pct) (ASTM D 1557). The fill should have a maximum fines content (i.e. percent passing a #200 sieve) of 35%. Controlled Fi ll should be placed in uni form li fts no greater than 10 inches in height and compacted to at least 95% of its Modified Proctor Maximum Dry Density as determined by ASTM D1 557. In general, only the upper 1 to 3 feet of the site soils appear to meet this criteria.

It is important that fill be unifom1ly well compacted. Accordingly, fi ll placement should be monitored by a qualified soil technician working under the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer. In addition to thi s visual evaluation, the technician should perform a sufficient number of in-place field density tests.


Shallow Foundations

Deep Foundations

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS With proper soil preparation, and preloading/surcharging where required, shallow foundations can likely be used to support lightly to moderately loaded structures (i.e. maximum column loads of 100 to 200 kips or less). Shallow foundations can tentatively be designed using a maximum allowable soil contact pressure between 2,000 and 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) . To prevent punching failure of the foundations, minimum widths of 18 inches should be used for sizing of the wall footings and 24 inches for co lumn footings. Footings should bear on competent soils. A Geotechnical Engineer should inspect the footings prior to pouring concrete and areas that are soft or wet should be undercut and replaced with Controlled Fill, crushed stone, or over-poured with lean concrete. Due to the presence of near surface very soft soils observed at sounding location SC2, shallow footing bearing near or within this layer will likely require additional remedial action, such as undercut and replacement to provide a stable subgrade for footings.

We estimate less than 1 inch of total settlement, with differential settlement approximately one-half of the total settlement from the assumed static structural loading. This estimated settlement is based on the static structural loading and fill heights and is different than the estimated settlement from seismic events previously discussed.

For heavily loaded structures in which remedial options are not viable or economical the structures should be supported on a deep foundation system such as driven piles.

If a driven pile foundation option is selected, we recommend the use of pre-stressed concrete (PSC) piles. PSC piles are commonly used throughout the Charleston area. As alternatives, other pile types such as steel H-piles or pipe piles, may also be utilized for heavily loaded structures. WPC can provide recommendations on these deep foundation options upon request.

The allowable axial compressive capacity wi ll vary depending on the actual structural loads, selected foundation system type, and embedment depth. As a preliminary estimate, 12 inch PSC piles bearing on the dense sand layer located between 32 and 46 feet can be expected to generate a total allowable axial compressive capacity ranging between 50 to 80 tons . A factor of safety of 2.5 was use in our preliminary calcul ations. However, exact embeddement depths and axial capacity will be highl y location dependant and should be examined once definitive building locations and foundation loads are known.

C HS-06-221 Gibbs Tract Preliminary Geo Page 9 of 12

Pile Installation

Driven Pile Quality Control

Additional Driven Pile Considerations

Upon selection of the pile size and the contractor's driving system, a wave equation analysis of piles (WEAP) of the hammer-pile-soil system should be conducted. The WEAP analysis w ill determine if the selected hammer has suffi cien t energy to install the selected pile size to the required length, if the driving stresses (both compressive and tensi le) during installation are within acceptable limits, and provide pile driving criteri a. Hammer and/or pile sizes can be vari ed until an acceptable hammer-pile system is found. Upon request, WPC can provide assistance in evaluating the selected hammer and determining the pile driving criteria.

An engineering technician, supervised by a registered professional engineer, should monitor and document the production pile install ations. A pile driving record should be kept for each individual production pile. The individual pile driving records should have the following minimum information:

Pi le size Final pile embedment depth. Pile tip and head elevation. Pile installation date and time. Pre-augering information. Pile blow counts per one (1) foot interval. Relevant Hammer and Cushion Information.

Hammer Stroke. Installation notes (as required)

Test Pile Program Based on the variab le nature of the site and the depth at w hich a competent bearing stratum may be encountered, a test pile program should be instituted for each structure. Typically, a test pile program will consist of at a minimum, two (2) piles installed per struc ture (larger facilities may require additional test piles). These piles may be installed at production locations to minimize costs. The resu lts of the test pile program will be used to modify final production pile length and the pile-driving criteria (as necessary). The geotechnical engineer should select the test pile locations in conjunction with the structural engineer. In addition, the geotechnical engineer should be present during the installation of the test piles. Hammer restrikes should be performed on each of the test piles a minimum of 3 to 7 (three to seven) days after installation to determine final axial capacity, depending on end bearing stratum. This wait period w ill account for the time dependent pi le capacity gain (i.e. pile "setup" or " freeze") characteristics of coastal plain deposits. The piles should be dynamically monitored during installation and hammer restrikes in accordance with ASTM 0 4945 Standard Test Method for High-Strain Dynamic Testing of Piles.

CHS-06-22 1 Gibbs Tract Preliminary Geo Page 10 of 12

Vibration Monitoring Although the tract and surrounding areas are currently undeveloped, the need for monitoring ground vibrations at a later date may be necessary as construction in and around the industrial development takes place. It may be prudent to consider monitoring vibrations during construction if existing structures are located within two (2) pile lengths of an active pile installation program. An engineering technician, supervised by a registered professional engineer, can conduct vibration monitoring in conjunction with pile installation monitoring.

Preliminary Flexible Preliminary pavement design was performed using the American Association of State Pavement Design Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) Structural Number (SN) system.

No specific traffic estimates have been provided to us, thus we have assumed a design traffic loading (18-kip equivalent ax le loads) over a 20-year pavement design life for an industrial park of 100,000 to 200,000 Equivalent Single Axial Loads (ESAL's) for a light duty pavement section (such as employee parking lots) and 500,000 to 1,000,000 ESAL's for a heavy duty pavement section (such as main thoroughfares) for this proj ect. For pavement design considerations an initial serviceability of 4.2, a terminal serviceability of 2.0, and a subgrade California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 8 for properly compacted in-situ or Controlled Fill soils. Table 1 provides a summary of our recommended pavement design. We note the preliminary nature of these estimates and that the assumed CBR value should be confirmed prior to actual pavement design/construction. Once final traffic information becomes avai lable, we recommend that WPC be allowed to review this information and modify our recommendations as necessary. In particular, depending on the size of the industrial park, the main thoroughfares may have more than 1 million ESAL's.

Table 1. Preliminary Pavement Section Design Summary . . __ . _- _ .. . - . _ _ . Aggregate Base A/C Base A/C Surface

Type (SCOOT GABC) (SCOOT '!J'.pe B_or_C)__ (SCOOT Type B or C) .

Light Duty 8 inches 2 inches

Heavy Duty 8 inches 3 inches

Drainage Pavement underdrains may be required in the low-lying areas to prevent seasonal Considerations groundwater fluctuations from saturating the subgrade and/or asphalt thereby

effecti vely reducing the design life of the pavement. The necessity of pavement underdrains will depend upon final grading of the site and can consist of a 4 to 6- inch diameter perforated PVC pipe, covered with #57 stone, and wrapped in filter fabric. WPC can provide additional geotechnical design criteria and input for underdrains

CHS-06-22 1 Gibbs Tract Preliminary Geo Page 11 of 12

once site grades are finalized. Establishment of proper sub grade drainage is essential to achieving the design life of the pavement system.

WPC appreciates the opportunity to provide this report. This report is for the sole use of this project and should not be relied upon otherwise. Should the project change significant ly, we can review and modify our recommendations as needed. If you have questions concerning the contents herein, please contact us.

Respectfully submitted, WPC


e

ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL APPENDIX & CONSTRUCTION SERV I CES

FIGURE A. TEST LOCATION PLAN

C1

c:a ~ -

~ =SC2

~cs

N

LEGEND

S PIEZOCONE PENETRATION TEST (C-)* FLAT BLADE DILATOMETER (0-) ~ SEISMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST (SC-)

Drawn By: SC

Approved By: KZ E NGrNEERING, E NVIRONMENTAL

Project Number: & CON STRUCTION SERV ICES

CHS--06-221 tel. 843.884.1234

Date: 06.06.06 1017 Chuck Dawley Boulevard fax. 843.884.9234 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 www.wpceng.com _______ __......Scale : NTS

GIBBS TRACT

BERKELEY COUNTY, SC

c FIGURE A. TEST LOCATION PLAN )

..

http:www.wpceng.comhttp:06.06.06

ue ~, APPENDIXE N G IN EE RI N G , E N VI RO N ME NTAL

& CO NSTR UCT IO N S E RV ICE S

PIEZOCONE TEST LOGS

u2 [tsf] lqt 11sn - I j fs[tsf] - I jsu 1tsf] - I INGOO - I Uc [tsf]

0 100 200 0 2 4 6 0 2.5 5.Ul 20 10 20 30 40 50

_Gravelly sand to sand (7)1_Very stiff sand to clayey sand (8)

Clean sands 10 silty sands (6)

Very stiff fine grained (9)

Very stiff fine grained (9) ;;Clayey silt 10 silly clay (4)

Clayey silt to silly clay (4)

Clayey silt to silty clay (4) - r I

2

Clayey sill to silty clay ( 4 )

EJSilly sand to sandy silt (5) Clean sands lo silty sands (6) Silty sand to sandy s,ll (5)

Clays: clay to silt

a=i.Clayey silt to 1 Y clay (3)1---1 s1 ty clay (4)

Clean sands to silly sands (6)

ISj 3 L.

4

_1,. ___ .;. _ __ J,. ____ _ 1--------L 1- - - J. - J - - - - l. 44-

~

_

,

_,

L===d Silly sand 10 sandy sil l (5)

t==:l")"lly sand to sandy s,ll ( J

__.1.. ______ _ 1---1-_.J ____ _44~ - - - - ~ - L - - - ___ _ ,--L--- '- --------- ---L-------

4 ------ - -r--------11--r----r---------EI 1- --r -- - - - , I - - -, I - - - ,-

I------

-----L-1

2,

32

-L-.------

4

- -- -

~ .,:; a. Q)

s2~---~---~0

------------ - ---- - - -

!qt [tsf] - I u2 [!sf] !rs[tsfl - I lsu [tsf] - ! IN600 - 1 Uo [tsf]

~

~

Clean sands to silty sands (6)

,.Gravelly sand to sand (7)

Gravelly sand to sand (7)

~ Clean sands to silty sands (6)

f!!!!!!!!!!lClays: clay to silty clay (3)

Silty sand to sandy silt (5)

Clays: clay to silty clay (3)

Clayey silt to silty clay ( 4)

Clayey silt to silty clay ( 4)

.Clayey silt to silty clay (4) Clays: clay to silty clay (3)

Clays: clay to silly clay (3)

Clayey silt to silty clay (4)

.Clayey silt to silty clay (4)

Clean sands to silty sands (6)

0 100 200 0 2 4 6 0 2.5 5.CD 20 10 20 30 40 50

'

I ' I -T---1 - ----r-

~ .c a. QJ

0

----l- --

' ----- 1 -------I - - - - -- L

2

24

3

4

' ' L -- -----I

48+ - - - - - ~ - - - - - -

52-'-~~~~'--~~~--'

'

I ______ J._

Location: Position: Ground level: ITest no:

b X: 0.00 m, Y: 0.00 m o.oo C3BERKELEY COUNTY, SC Date: IScale:Project ID: Client: ROCKEFELLER GROUP DEVELOPMENT CORP 5/19/2006 CHS-06-221 Project: Page: IFig:!lf Cone No: O

1/2GIBBES TRACTTip aroa (cm2): 10 File: Sleeve area (cm2): 150 CHS221C3.CPT

....- _____"] Gravelly sand to sand (7)



Clayey sill to silly clay (4)

r-,Clayey silt lo silly clay (4) Silly sand lo sandy sill (5)

,-Clayey sill to silly clay (4)


Clays; clay to silty clay (3)

,_Clays; clay 10 silly clay (3)


LJClayey sill to silly clay (4 ) _Silly sand lo sandy sill (5)


.Clayey sill to silly clay (4)Clays; clay to silly clay (3)

,_Clayey silf to silly clay (4)

Clean sands to silly sands (6)

0

2

28

32

3

4

44

4

~ .t:: c.

l qt[l sf] - j u2 [tsn Uo [tsn

100 200 0 2 4 6

_J... ______ ._ .l __

------L--------..1.

-r---- ; ---:

!rs[tsf] - j I Su [tsf) - j

0 2.5 5.CD 20

I- -------'

I------- ,. _____ _

- - - ... - - I - - .I. - -

------,

Q)

0 52'-'-~~~---'~~~---'

!li

e

APPENDIXE NG I N EERI NG, E NVIRONMENTAL

& CONSTRUCT ION SERVI CES

PIEZOCONE PENETRATION CLASSIFICATION

Cone Penetration Classification

The tip resistance (qc) is measured as the maximum force over the projected area of the tip. It is a point stress related to the bearing capacity of the soi l. The measured qc must be corrected for porewater pressure effects (Lunne et al, 1997), especially in clays and silts where porewater pressures typically vary greatly from hydrostatic. This corrected value is known as q ,, which is reported in the Piezocone Penetration Logs. T he u2 position e lement is required for the measurement of penetration porewater pressures and the correction of tip resistance. The sleeve fri ction (t) is used as a measure of soil type and can be expressed by friction ratio: FR = f5/q1.

The estimated stratigraphic profiles included in the Pie zocone Penetration Logs are based on relationships between q1, t and Ui. The normalized friction ratio (F~)is calculated by using:

FRN = fs ,x I 00% q, - a ,.o

and is indicative of soil behavior and is used to classify the soil behavior type. Typica lly, cohesive soils, such as plastic silts and clays, have high FR values, low q values, and generate large excess penetration porewater pressures. Cohesionless soils, such as sands, have lower FR's, high q1 values, and typically do not generate excess penetration porewater pressures. The following graph (Robertson, 1990) presents one of the accepted correlations used to classify soils behavior types.

10(1 0

t:) ~IO . _ .t'.'I C"

u.J

v z -:! f

...."' ~

a! .... z 0 v

100.... N :::;

~ a! () z

Zone Or'N O~CTiption

2 $.J-J NORMALIZE.J q, - O ,c

~ ~"'

rest Site: Gibb~ Tract Truck: Pagani 220-73

Location: Berkeley County, SC Cone: Geotech AB 5 ton

EN(; I N t : EHI !',;(;, EN\'I HONl\11.:'. N'l',\L Client: Rockefellar Group Development Corp. Sounding: SC2 Project: CHS-06 221 GWT (ft j : 6.0& CON:-'' l ' H\ 'C'J'lON SE lt\'ICE:-:

Latitude: 33.07258 ASTM: 05778

Longitude: 80.18024 Engineer: K. Zur

Elevation: Date: 611312006 Operator: BR ~!M

0

0 .

Vs (ftls)

500 1000

..----- ----

1500

Tip 10 Geophone (ft): 0.98 Cone lo Source (fl): 1.64

10 ,

Depth Vs feet ftls 2.0 1646 5.2 431 8.5 431 11 .8 468 15.1 477 18.4 508 21 .6 464 24.9 453 28.2 670 31 .5 670 34.8 827 38.0 1748 41.3 798

g ,: 20 a...

0

--4 - - - - ... -1 - - - - - - r v s = ~ite Class: 835 D_ ftls I Per /BC 2003 Weighted Shear Wave Velocity Criterion (Liquefaction, Soft Clay, etc, Not Considered In This Calculation)

.____/

30

40

e .

E NGI N EERI N G, E NV JRO N MEl\"TAL APPENDIX & CONSTRUCTIO N SERV I CES

SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY PROFILE

Beforo Afler

AA(bu) 0 1 0 1 48 (bar) 06 06 z... lbu)

Tott Sile: Clt5b.i Y'rct "r,ucl~Pauoni 2}'0.tJ Location: Jodburg, SC Blndo: 57B

Cliont: Rochfeller Group Sounding: Q4 ProJoct: CHS-05211 GWT(fl): 6

Latitude; 33.07258 ASTM: 0 ~6JS Longlluda: 80. 18024 Su pcN1sor: Kl

Q_ate: 05119/06 .!!!!!!,tO.!: E!_R

ED (bar)

\

Clatarr1c-aHon

Silty S,nd Silty Sand

.Siil Sandy Slit

flcandJSlll C} l)'OY Sil\ Siity Stnd Clay.ySllt

Siil Sandy SIU

Sandy Slit

Slit Sandy Slit

Slit Sandy Sill Cloyey SIII Siity Cl,iy

Silty Clay c ,ay,y SUt

Clay SII\JI Sand Siity Clay

Cby Siily Clay

Clay Clay

Sllly Cly Clay

Clay

,Siiiy City Clay

Clay S1n1lttwJlne G talned

91/lyCJey S..nalO..... Fine CralMd s.n1tt;,,e Fine G,.. lned

CII )' s.n11tlv1 Fine Gn1lntd S.nalllve Fine GrIMd

Clay Clay

Ctay

Sensitlvt F,ne Grained , Silty Clay Cl>yoySIII ClaytySUt

St1>dy SUI San

e

E N GINEERI NG, ENV I RONMENTAL APPENDIX & CONSTRUCT I ON SERVI CES

FLAT BLADE DILATOMETER DESCRIPTION

Flat Blade Dilatometer

Similar to the CPTu, the Flat Blade Dila tometer (DMT) is hydraulically pushed into the ground. The DMT consists of a steel blade with a circular membrane near the center of the blade. Every 20 mi llimeters (8 inches) in depth, the steel membrane is inflated 1.1 millimeters (1 /1 6 inches) into the surrounding soil. From the pressure required to inflate the membrane, the Dilatometer Modulus (0 ) can be calculated. The 0 is very similar to the Youngs Modulus and thus a stress-stra in relat ionsh ip can be determined for the so il profile.

A schematic of the front and side profile of the Flat Blade Dilatometer.

e

E N G I NEERI NG, E NV IRO NMENTA L APPENDIX & CONSTRUCT ION SERV ICES

HAND AUGER BORING LOGS

LOG OF HAND AUGER BORJNGS

Gibbs Tract

Berkeley County, SC

\VPC Project #C HS-06-221

BORI NG

NUMBER

HA by SC I

HA by SC2

HA by CJ

HA by 0 4

HA by CS

DEPTH (inches)

Oto 6 6 to 30

30 to 48

Oto 6 6 to 24

24 to 48

Oto 6 6 to 24

24 to 48

Oto 6 6 to 48

Oto 6 6 to 24

24 to 48

SOIL DESCRJPTION

Topsoil Brm:vn, Tan. and Gray Silty SAND (SM)

Tan, Orange, and Brown

Sil ty Sandy CLAY (CL)

No Groundwater Encountered

Topso il Tan and Brown Si lty SAND (SM)

Ora nge, Gray, and Tan Silty Sandy CLAY (CL)


Topso il Tan and Brown Silty SAND (SM)

Orange, Grav, and Tan Silty Sandy CLAY (CL)


Topsoil Tan, Orange, and Brown Sandy CLAY (CL)


Topsoil Tan and BrO\vn Silty SAND (SM)

Orange, Gray, and Tan Silty Sandy CLAY (CL)


e

E NG I NEER I NG, E V IRONMENTAL APPENDIX & CONSTRUC TIO SERV ICES

FIGURE B. SETTLEMENT PLATE DETAIL

~--.,__1 to 2 " 0 STEEL RISER PIPE (ASTM A 53, GRADE B)

3" MIN 0 SCHEDULE ---140 PVC PIPE

----

TOP VIEW

PVC CAP

1" 0 THREADED STEEL RISER PIPE

TOP OF FILL

. ' , ..... . ; .'~ ~ .. . . . ..

i . : - .

r/..i---3" MIN. 0 SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE 1" 0 NUT WELDED----~ TO STEEL PLATE

SIDE VIEW

Drawn By: SC

Approved By: KZ E NGINEERING, ENVIRONMENT AL

Project Number: & CONSTRUCTIO N SERV ICES

CHS--06-221

le i. 843.884.1234 Date: 06.14.06 fax. 843.884 .9234

www.wpceng.comScale: NTS

1017 Chuck Dawley Boulevard Ml. P leasant. SC 29464

GIBBES TRACT

BERKELEY COUNTY, SC

( FIGURE B. SETTLEMENT PLATE DETAIL ) 0 \2006\CHS-06-221 GIBBES TRACnCADICHS-06-22 1 FIGURE 8 SETTl.EMENT PLATE

http:www.wpceng.comhttp:06.14.06

Structure Bookmarks4 5 CHS221 C1 .CPT

Documents

Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Gibbs Tract ... report details our understanding of the project, the exploration procedures used, the subsurface conditions encountered, and