REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND … M/0109_softballSocc… · REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION Luckett & Farley Architects University

REPORT OF SUBSURFACEEXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING EVALUATION

Luckett & Farley ArchitectsUniversity of Kentucky Soccer Complex Expansion

Lexington, Kentucky

AMEC Project No. 7-7350-0015

Prepared By:

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.690 Commonwealth Ctr.

11003 Bluegrass ParkwayLouisville, KY 40299

Prepared For:

Luckett & Farley Architects737 South Third Street

Louisville, Kentucky 40202

December 2012

IMPORTANT NOTICE

This report was prepared exclusively for Luckett & Farley Architects byAMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (AMEC). The quality ofinformation, conclusions and estimates contained herein is consistentwith the level of effort involved in AMEC’s services and based on: i)information available at the time of preparation, ii) data supplied byoutside sources and iii) the assumptions, conditions and qualificationsset forth in this report. This report is intended to be used by Luckett &Farley Architects only, subject to the terms and conditions of itscontract with AMEC. Any other use of, or reliance on, this report byany third party is at that party’s sole risk.

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.690 Commonwealth Center11003 Bluegrass ParkwayLouisville, KY 40299Tel: 1+ (502) 267-0700Fax: 1+ (502) 267-5900 www.amec.com

5 December 2012

Mr. Kyle Beasley, PELuckett & Farley Architects737 South Third StreetLouisville, KY 40202

Re: Geotechnical Subsurface ExplorationUniversity of Kentucky Soccer ExpansionAMEC Project No. 7-7350-0015

Dear Mr. Beasley:

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (AMEC) has completed a geotechnical study for theabove referenced project. The following pages present the data along with our evaluation andrecommendations. The objectives of this study were to assess the subsurface conditions withinthe areas proposed for construction and to develop recommendations for foundation designand site preparation.

The ASFE organization has prepared important information regarding studies of the typeperformed, which is presented in Appendix 1 for your review. Our professional services,findings, and recommendations have been prepared in accordance with our proposal dated 7November 2012 and generally accepted engineering principles and practices. No otherwarranty, expressed or implied, is made. Accordingly, this report does not address thechronology of previous land use, the determination of the presence of any toxic or hazardoussubstances, or any related environmentally sensitive issues.

AMEC appreciates this opportunity to be of continuing service to Luckett & Farley. Once youhave had an opportunity to consider the information presented, we will be happy to discuss anyquestions that you may have.

Sincerely,

Nicholas R. Jones, EIT J. Wade Turner, PEStaff Engineer Principal Project Manager

Licensed Kentucky #15380

Enclosures

/cf

Luckett & Farley Architects AMEC Project No. 7-7350-0015University of Kentucky Soccer Complex Expansion December 2012Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTSSECTION PAGE NO.

1.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING......................................................................................1

2.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS..........................................................................................1

3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................................................23.1 Site Conditions.....................................................................................................23.2 Published Geologic Information ...........................................................................23.3 Subsurface Conditions.........................................................................................23.4 Groundwater ........................................................................................................3

4.0 SEISMICITY....................................................................................................................3

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................35.1 Karst Topography ................................................................................................35.2 Expansive Clays ..................................................................................................45.3 Site Preparation ...................................................................................................45.4 Foundation Design...............................................................................................55.5 Foundation Settlement.........................................................................................65.6 Slabs-On-Grade...................................................................................................65.7 Retaining Walls....................................................................................................7

6.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING....................................................................................7

TABLES

Table 1. Boring Depth Summary.................................................................................................3

FIGURES

Site Location and Vicinity Map .........................................................................................Figure 1Geology Map ...................................................................................................................Figure 2Boring Location Plan........................................................................................................Figure 3Retaining Wall Requirements ..........................................................................................Figure 4

APPENDICES

ASFE Information Sheet ............................................................................................. Appendix 1Key Sheet and Boring Logs ........................................................................................ Appendix 2

Luckett & Farley Architects AMEC Project No. 7-7350-0015University of Kentucky Soccer Complex Expansion December 2012Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Page 1

1.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING

In order to provide data on which to base our comments and recommendations for theproposed University of Kentucky Soccer Complex Expansion, AMEC drilled three boringslabeled B-1 through B-3 and three rock soundings labeled RS-1 through RS-3 at the approximatelocations shown on Figure 3. The borings and rock soundings were advanced to auger refusalwhich varied from 8.0 feet to 10.5 feet below existing grade. The exploration locations weredetermined in the field using a tape measure and pacing off existing site features. Boringlocations should only be considered accurate to the degree implied by the method ofmeasurement used.

To assess the engineering characteristics of the soils, the borings were advanced using hollow-stem augers and drive-sampled in general accordance with the requirements of ASTM D 1586(Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils). Standard penetration test (SPT) sampleswere generally obtained at 2.5-foot intervals. Upon completion, the borings were backfilled withthe previously excavated materials. Soil samples were visually examined and logged in ourlaboratory by members of our professional staff. Laboratory testing was performed on selectedsoil samples to provide data from which to estimate engineering properties. Our interpretationsof the soil, along with laboratory test results, are included on the graphic logs presented inAppendix 2. The soil samples will remain on file at our laboratory for a period of at least 60days. Thereafter, they will be discarded unless otherwise directed by you.

2.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Based on the provided information, we understand the University of Kentucky has proposed anupgrade at their existing soccer facility in Lexington, Kentucky. The upgrade will consist of anapproximate 13,500 square-foot masonry building containing a training room, men’s andwomen’s locker rooms and lounges and visitor’s restrooms, and the University of Kentucky hasproposed a 2,600 square foot second level seating area. We understand column and wallloads will not exceed 300 KIPS and 6.0 KLF, respectively.

We have utilized our experience, the information obtained during this study and the precedingcriteria in formulating our comments and recommendations. If the actual loads, buildinglocations or assumed elevations differ from that assumed herein, we must have the opportunityto review and possibly revise our recommendations in light of the differences. In addition, asthe design process moves forward, we must review our recommendations in light of the finaldesign.


3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The site and subsurface conditions reported herein were documented during our site visit inNovember 2012.

3.1 Site Conditions

The site is relatively flat with an overall topographic relief of less than 3 feet. The site iscurrently being used as a soccer complex. The adjacent softball facility was under constructionat the time of our visit.

3.2 Published Geologic Information

Karst topography, particularly sinkholes, are common on the University campus in the areassurrounding the project. Topographic mapping indicates the Tanglewood member on thisportion of the Campus is relatively stable with few mapped solution features (closed surfacedepressions). The Bryan Station Fault Zone is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of theproject location.

Based on published geologic information for the site (see Figure 2), as well as our examinationof the soils recovered during exploration, the site appears to be underlain by the MiddleOrdovician aged rock deposits belonging to the Tanglewood Limestone Member andMillersburg Member of Lexington Limestone Formation. As part of this study, we reviewed theUSGS map titled Geologic Map of the Lexington West Quadrangle, Lexington East Quadrangle,Fayette and Scott Counties, Kentucky. According to this publication, the TanglewoodLimestone Member is mapped as the uppermost rock unit in the project area. Underlying theTanglewood Member, at a depth of about 20 feet, is the Millersburg Member.

Tanglewood Limestone Member is described as light gray, shaly, medium to coarse grained,thin to thick bedded limestone with thin shale partings throughout. Map notes on the LexingtonEast USGS quadrangle map describe this formation as limestone (80%) and shale (20%).Millerburg Member consists of limestone (50%) and shale (50%). Limestone is described asgray, shaly, fine to medium grained.

3.3 Subsurface Conditions

Our borings typically encountered stiff to hard, reddish brown, clay to auger refusal. The clayexhibited standard penetration resistance N-values ranging from 7 blows per foot (bpf) to 24bpf, with an average N-value of 14 bpf corresponding to a stiff soil consistency. Table 1, showsdepth to assumed bedrock below the existing ground surface.


Table 1. Boring Depth Summary

Boring/Sounding RefusalDepth

B-1 10.5B-2 9.5B-3 9.8

RS-1 8.0RS-2 8.5RS-3 8.5

3.4 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered at the time of our field activities. The boreholes werebackfilled with the excavated material after the completion of drilling. It should be noted thatgroundwater levels fluctuate due to seasonal rainfall events and might be found at elevationsdiffering from those encountered during our drilling.

4.0 SEISMICITY

Based on the Kentucky Building Code (KBC), Section 1615.5.3, a “C” Site Classification shouldbe used for design of the structures. This site class was determined using equation 16-42 fromthe KBC, which correlates standard penetration resistance N-values for the soil layers to siteclassification. In addition, the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program on-line latitude/longitudesearch (Earthquake Ground Motion Parameter Java Application - Version 6.0) was utilized toreview the mapped coefficients based on site location. Based on these sources, we recommendusing 23.1 and 8.8 percent, relative to the acceleration of gravity (g) for ss and s1, respectively.

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Our findings and recommendations for site preparation, foundations, and groundwater controlare contained in this report section.

5.1 Karst Topography

The project site is underlain by soluble bedrock which can lead to the development of Karstfeatures (i.e., solution cavities, sinkholes, etc.). Although no sinkhole activity was apparent on-site, previous geotechnical investigations and construction projects at the University of Kentucky(i.e., football stadium) have identified karst features in various areas of the campus includingsignificant weathered joints and highly irregular bedrock surface. It is noted that bedrock was foundto be irregular during this exploration ranging from 8.0 to 10.5 feet below existing ground surface.The present state-of-the-art geotechnical engineering does not allow us to predict, with certainty,when or where future sinkholes might occur. In general, the highest potential of risk of subsidenceoccurs within areas that have already experienced subsidence. Although the potential risk of futuresubsidence is inherent within the geologic setting of the property, we believe the risk at this site is no


greater than at other sites in general project vicinity. Although the risk of sinkhole activity cannot beeliminated, careful attention to details in design and construction can reduce the risk to a level thatmany Owners find acceptable.

Ponding and subsequent infiltration of water into the subgrade is a significant factor in initiatingground subsidence and sinkhole formation. Accordingly, the site design should include provisionsfor positive drainage and water should not be allowed to pond on site, either during or afterconstruction. If possible, surface water runoff should be piped away from structures and dischargeddirectly into storm sewers. If incipient sinkholes are noted during construction, they must berepaired, as determined by the geotechnical engineer, on a case-by-case basis. Provisions shouldbe made to repair bedrock weaknesses during construction.

5.2 Expansive Clays

Although our laboratory and field testing indicates samples acquired during our explorationwere clays with moderate to low plasticity, the natural clay soil deposits, which were observedduring our previous field exploration for the on-going softball expansion, are clas of highplasticity. The recommendations included in this report are to help mitigate the potential effectsof soil shrinkage and expansion. Measures should be taken to reduce the potential for thefoundation soils to experience excessive wetting and/or drying. Water infiltration into thefoundation soils can be created by exterior sources associated with the planned improvements.Such sources include inadequate drainage around the structures, water discharge from roofdrains, subsurface migration through backfill in utility trenches, and from irrigation formlandscaping.

5.3 Site Preparation

Site preparation within the construction area should begin by removing existing topsoil, brush,shrubbery, and trees and any existing structures and relocate utilities encountered at the sitewithin development areas. Stripping operations should extend for a distance of at least 10 feetbeyond the limits of the proposed structure and 5 feet beyond proposed pavement limits, wherepossible. Based on the exploration, stripping operations required to remove the existing topsoilprofile will probably average less than 6 inches in depth; however, please note that topsoildepths can vary across the site. Removal of root balls associated with trees will likely extend toseveral feet. Topsoil can be utilized in non-structural landscaping areas, or wasted off-site.

Subsequent to the stripping operations, the exposed subgrade within areas to receive fill shouldbe systematically and thoroughly proofrolled with heavy, rubber-tired equipment in order todetect soft or unstable soils. If soft areas are detected during grading operations, the areasshould be undercut to firm ground and the resulting excavation backfilled with engineered fill.

Engineered fill should consist of soils with Plasticity Indices less than 30, with a maximumparticle size less than 4 inches. Based on laboratory testing, we believe the on-site, organic-free, soils can be re-used as engineered fill; however, due to the nature of the on-site soils strictmoisture control must be maintained during fill placement. Based on our experience, the upper


silty soils become friable and unstable under repetitive loads as they dry, and are unstable anddifficult to compact if they are wet of optimum. These soils should be placed at +/- 1 percent ofits optimum moisture content during fill placement. The clayey soils encountered on-siteconsisted of low to moderate clays with the potential for clays of high plasticity to be present,which can be susceptible to volumetric changes (shrink/swell) with changes in moisture content.In severe situations, these volumetric changes can cause damage to structures if they are notproperly managed. Strict moisture control during the placement of these clays, as well asproviding a grading plan that directs surface water away from the structure, can help mitigatethe risk associated with the use of high plasticity clays as engineered fill.

Engineered soil fill placed within the proposed building area should be compacted to at least 98percent of the soil's maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D 698 (standard Proctor).The soils should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness prior to compaction.Engineered soil fill placed in pavement areas should be compacted to 95 percent of the soil’smaximum dry density up to the upper 1 foot, which should be compacted to 98 percent of themaximum dry density. Although compaction requirements can be achieved outside of thespecified moisture content range, strict moisture control is desired due to the nature of the on-site soils. Contractors should be prepared to reduce or increase the soil’s moisture, asrequired, to maintain the soil’s moisture content within the specified range.

The site should be maintained in a well-drained condition, both during and after construction toprevent water from ponding on the soil subgrade. Ponding water could lead to deterioration ofthe soil subgrade, necessitating over-excavation of the softened soil.

5.4 Foundation Design

Provided the site is prepared in accordance with the recommendations stated previously, theproposed soccer facility additions may be supported by means of a conventionally designed,shallow foundation system bearing on engineered fill, stable, undisturbed soil, or a combinationthereof. Based on a safety factor of at least 3 with respect to general shear failure, werecommend an allowable load bearing capability for the stable, natural soil and properlycompacted, engineered fill of 2.0 kips per square foot (KSF) for strip/wall footings and columnfootings.

A minimum footing width of 2 feet should be specified for foundations, regardless of loading, inorder to accommodate minor subgrade inconsistencies and to resist punching failure. Further,the perimeter building footings should be designed to bear at least 30 inches below exterior,finished grades to provide frost protection and adequate confinement, and to provide a bearingsurface that is below the depth of significant seasonal moisture change for the on-site clays.

Lateral loads applied to the foundations can be resisted by passive pressure developed againstthe face of the footing and by friction acting between the base of the concrete foundation andthe underlying subgrade. For foundations embedded in engineered fill or undisturbed naturalsoil passive resistance against the face of the footing can be based on passive pressure


coefficient (kp) of 2.0 and a moist soil unit weight of 115 pounds per cubic foot (PCF) for theclay soils. Adhesion between the foundation and the underlying soils can be computed basedon an ultimate value of 750 pounds per square foot (PSF). In order to develop full passiveresistance, foundation concrete must be cast “neat” against the unformed sides of theexcavation. A safety factor of at least 1.5 should be included in the design analysis forhorizontal loads.

Uplift loads can be resisted by the mass of the foundation concrete and by the weight of thematerial overlying the foundation members. Where engineered fill (i.e., soil fill compacted to atleast 98 percent of its maximum standard Proctor dry density) is used for backfill over thefoundation members, the mass of the fill can be calculated based on a soil unit weight of 125PCF. The volume of the soil mass can be based on a theoretical shear surface extendingupward from the top, outside edge of the footing at an angle of 30 degrees off vertical.

Based on water level data generated during this study, we do not expect shallow foundationexcavations will experience significant groundwater inflows. However, it is possible excavationswill encounter some perched water or seepage, especially near the soil/rock interface. In anyevent, it will be necessary for the Contractor to maintain excavations in a dewatered conditionduring inspection and prior to concrete placement. The bottom of the excavations must bethoroughly cleaned prior to concrete placement; concrete should not be cast if excavationscontain loose soil, debris, or water. Whenever possible, foundation excavations should beopened and cast with concrete on the same day. If soil excavations must remain open for anextended period, they must be protected from rainfall, excessive drying, and surface waterinfiltration. In order to assess the condition of the bearing surface, footing excavations shouldbe observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer immediately prior to theplacement of concrete.

5.5 Foundation Settlement

Based on empirical data we estimate the maximum, long-term settlement of the proposedstructures will be less than 1.0 inch for soil-supported foundations. Differential settlementbetween similarly loaded, adjacent foundation members could approach 50 percent of the totalsettlement. Because measurable increments of settlement are likely to occur, the design ofbrick veneer walls should include provisions for liberally spaced, vertical control joints tominimize “cosmetic” cracking.

5.6 Slabs-On-Grade

Concrete slabs-on-grade are expected to perform satisfactorily if founded on a properlyprepared subgrade. A free-draining, granular base, at least 4-inches thick, and a vapor barriershould be incorporated into the slab design. Slab thickness and reinforcing requirements canbe designed based on an estimated subgrade reaction modulus of 100 pounds per cubic inch(PCI). An appropriate number of control joints should be included in the slab design toaccommodate any minor differential settlement that may occur. Additionally, slabs-on-grade


should be constructed structurally independent from building columns and foundation membersto allow these components a degree of freedom of movement relative to one another.

5.7 Retaining Walls

We recommend backfill material placed against retaining walls consist of a free-drainingmedium, such as uniformly sized crushed stone, size No. 57, as per ASTM D 448. The stoneshould be compacted with vibratory sled compactors and be placed in lift thickness not exceeding16 inches. This wedge of stone should extend the entire height of the wall except that the uppertwo feet of the backfill should consist of a relatively impervious soil. A pipe or an outlet at the baseof the wall should positively drain the stone backfill. The top of the wedge should extend outwardfrom the heel of the wall’s footing at least one-half the height of the wall (see Figure 4). Providedthe backfill is level and consists of this type material, the walls can be designed based on thefollowing earth pressure coefficients:

For retaining walls unrestrained from movement at the top of the walluse the Coefficient of active earth pressure, Ka..................................................0.33For below grade walls braced or tied back to resist earth pressure orfor toe resistance; use the Coefficient of passive earth pressure, Kp..................3.0For basement walls restrained from movement at the top of the wall;use the Coefficient of earth pressure at rest, Ko .................................................0.50Free Draining Stone unit weight (above the water table) ....................................110 PCFSubmerged (buoyant) unit weight of stone .........................................................50 PCF

The preceding values presume a horizontal backfill with no load applied to the backfillimmediately adjacent to the wall. Any surcharge loads, hydraulic loads, traffic loads, pointloads, or sloping backfill will increase the pressures against the wall and should be consideredseparately based on individual circumstances. Further, apply factors of safety of 1.5 for slidingand global stability, 2.0 for overturning, and 3.0 for bearing capacity for design and analyses ofretaining walls.

6.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING

The satisfactory, long-term performance of the foundations, slabs and retaining walls will bedependent on the workmanship and adherence to details contained in our recommendationsand the project specifications. To achieve the project goals and implement therecommendations contained in this report, all aspects of the site preparation and installation ofthe multiple, inter-related foundation elements must be monitored by a qualified engineer ortechnician responsible to the geotechnical engineer of record and the Owner. As statedpreviously, quality control testing and inspection are important aspects of successful installationof deep foundation systems. The proofrolling operations and remedial treatment to thesubgrade and the placement and compaction of engineered fill should also be continuouslymonitored and periodically tested.


The recommendations contained in this report presume our firm will continue to assist you onthis project by providing these and other normally specified quality assurance services. Ourreport, plans and specifications were prepared contingent on our observation of theconstruction as the Owner’s representative to permit us to make any changes in the designnecessary due to conditions which may only be discovered during construction. Unless we arepresent during construction, the Owner/contractor must accept full and unqualified responsibilityfor our recommendations and designs. We recommend you review the attached documenttitled “Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report,” prepared by ASFE.The document points out, among other things, that, “The geotechnical engineer who developedyour report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s recommendations if thatengineer does not perform construction observation.” The risks associated with unanticipatedconditions on misinterpretation of recommendations can be reduced by:

Keeping the geotechnical engineer informed of changes in the project; Retaining the geotechnical engineer to review pertinent parts of plans and

specifications; and, Retaining the geotechnical engineer to provide construction observations.

REV. NO.:

DATE:12/4/10

PROJECT NO:7-7350-0015

FIGURE No.

1AS SHOWNPROJECTION:

DATUM:DWN BY:

CHK'D BY:

SCALE:NRJ

CAEUNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY SOCCER COMPLEX EXPANSIONPROJECT

TITLE

SITE LOCATION& VICINITY MAP

LUCKETT & FARLEYARCHITECTS

CLIENTCLIENT LOGOAMEC Environment & Infrastructure690 Commonwealth Center11003 Bluegrass Parkway

Louisville, Ky 40299(502) 267-0700

2000'1000'0'

1" = 2000'

REV. NO.:

DATE:12/4/10

PROJECT NO:7-7350-0015

FIGURE No.

2AS SHOWNPROJECTION:

DATUM:DWN BY:

CHK'D BY:

SCALE:NRJ

CAEUNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY SOCCER COMPLEX EXPANSIONPROJECT

TITLE

GEOLOGY MAP

LUCKETT & FARLEYARCHITECTS

CLIENTCLIENT LOGOAMEC Environment & Infrastructure690 Commonwealth Center11003 Bluegrass Parkway

Louisville, Ky 40299(502) 267-0700

2000'1000'0'

1" = 2000'

B-1

B-2

B-3

RS-1RS-2

RS-3

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY SOCCER COMPLEXEXPANSION

TITLE

PROJECTCLIENT LOGO

FIGURE No.

LUCKETT & FARLEY ARCHITECTS

REV. NO.:

3

PROJECT NO:

7-7350-0015

CLIENT: DWN BY:

CHK'D BY:

12/4/12DATE:

SCALE:

NRJ

AS SHOWN

CAE

BORING LOCATION PLANAMEC Environment & Infrastructure

690 Commonwealth Center11003 Bluegrass Parkway

Louisville, Ky 40299(502) 267-0700

BORING LOCATIONB-1

RS-1ROCK SOUNDING LOCATION

100' 150'50'0'

1" = 100'

Luckett & FarleyUniversity of Kentucky Softball Stadium

AMEC PROJECT NO. 7-7350-0015

H/2 (MIN.)

2’ of cohesive fillor pavementfinished grade

(MIN.)

H

Finished Flooror Exterior Grade

Free-draining, sized stone(size #6 or #57 as per ASTM D448)or free-draining river gravelor sand

Perforated, rigid conduit sloped

STANDARD BELOW-GRADE WALL BACKFILL REQUIREMENTS( APPLIES TO EITHER CANTILEVER WALL OR BASEMENT WALL )

THIS SKETCH IS INTENDED TO SHOW MINIMUM BACKFILL REQUIREMENTS, ONLY.NOTE:

e o ated, g d co du t s opedto allow gravity drainage

THIS SKETCH IS INTENDED TO SHOW MINIMUM BACKFILL REQUIREMENTS, ONLY.INCLINATION OF EXCAVATION BACKSLOPE TO BE DETERMINED BASED ON SOILCONDITIONS AT INDIVIDUAL LOCATIONS. CONTRACTOR TO BE SOLELYRESPONSIBLE FOR STABILITY OF EXCAVATION.

NOTE:

FIGURE 4

APPENDIX 1

ASFE INFORMATION SHEET

APPENDIX 2

KEY SHEET and BORING LOGS

THE BORING LOGS SHOWN DEPICT SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ONLY AT THESPECIFIC LOCATIONS DRILLED AND AT THE PARTICULAR TIMES, WHICH MAY BE

DESIGNATED ON THE LOGS. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS MAYDIFFER FROM CONDITIONS OCCURING AT THESE BORING LOCATIONS. ALSO, THE

PASSAGE OF TIME MAY RESULT IN A CHANGE IN THE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ATTHE BORING LOCATIONS DRILLED

100

89

100

100

3-7-6(13)

8-8-10(18)

5-4-9(13)

6-7-11(18)

20

23

20

23

40 20 2020

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

Topsoil (6 inches)

STIFF, reddish brown, lean CLAY (CL), trace gravel,moist

VERY STIFF, reddish brown, lean CLAY (CL), moist

STIFF to VERY STIFF, reddish brown and light gray,lean CLAY (CL), moist

VERY STIFF, dark reddish brown, lean CLAY (CL), tracegravel, moist

Refusal at 10.5 feet.Bottom of borehole at 10.5 feet.

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY Nick Jones

DRILLING METHOD HSA

HOLE SIZE 3.25

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Hoosier Drilling CO. GROUND WATER LEVELS:

DATE STARTED 11/13/12 COMPLETED 11/13/12

AT TIME OF DRILLING ---

AT END OF DRILLING ---

AFTER DRILLING ---

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

ATTERBERGLIMITS

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft)

PAGE 1 OF 1BORING NUMBER B-1

CLIENT Luckett & Farley

PROJECT NUMBER 7-7350-0015

PROJECT NAME UK Soccer Expansion

PROJECT LOCATION Lexington, Ky

GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

2/4/

12 1

2:51

- H

:\G

INT

\PR

OJE

CT

S\U

K S

OC

CE

R E

XP

AN

SIO

N.G

PJ

AMEC ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.

100

100

100

100

1-2-5(7)

4-8-9(17)

4-6-8(14)

4-5-6(11)

24

26

23

23

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

96

Topsoil and mulch (6 inches)

MEDIUM STIFF, dark brown, lean CLAY (CL), moist

VERY STIFF, reddish brown, lean CLAY (CL), moist

STIFF, dark gray, lean CLAY (CL), moist

STIFF, reddish brown and light gray, lean CLAY (CL),trace gravel, moist


NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION


DRILLING METHOD HSA

HOLE SIZE 3.25





AFTER DRILLING ---

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

ATTERBERGLIMITS

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft)






GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

2/4/

12 1

2:51

- H

:\G

INT

\PR

OJE

CT

S\U

K S

OC

CE

R E

XP

AN

SIO

N.G

PJ


67

100

89

100

3-5-7(12)

8-11-13(24)

5-6-8(14)

5-8-7(15)

17

20

22

24

41 26 1515

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

Topsoil (6 inches)

STIFF to VERY STIFF, reddish brown, lean CLAY (CL),moist

STIFF, medium brown, lean CLAY (CL), moist

STIFF, mottled reddish brown and light gray, lean CLAY(CL), moist


NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION


DRILLING METHOD HSA

HOLE SIZE 3.25





AFTER DRILLING ---

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

ATTERBERGLIMITS

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft)






GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

2/4/

12 1

2:51

- H

:\G

INT

\PR

OJE

CT

S\U

K S

OC

CE

R E

XP

AN

SIO

N.G

PJ


Rock Sounding, blank drilled to refusal depth. Nosamples taken


NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION


DRILLING METHOD HSA

HOLE SIZE 3.25





AFTER DRILLING ---

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

ATTERBERGLIMITS

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft)

PAGE 1 OF 1BORING NUMBER RS-1





GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

2/4/

12 1

2:51

- H

:\G

INT

\PR

OJE

CT

S\U

K S

OC

CE

R E

XP

AN

SIO

N.G

PJ




NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION


DRILLING METHOD HSA

HOLE SIZE 3.25





AFTER DRILLING ---

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

ATTERBERGLIMITS

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft)






GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

2/4/

12 1

2:51

- H

:\G

INT

\PR

OJE

CT

S\U

K S

OC

CE

R E

XP

AN

SIO

N.G

PJ




NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION


DRILLING METHOD HSA

HOLE SIZE 3.25





AFTER DRILLING ---

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

ATTERBERGLIMITS

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft)






GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S -

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

- 1

2/4/

12 1

2:51

- H

:\G

INT

\PR

OJE

CT

S\U

K S

OC

CE

R E

XP

AN

SIO

N.G

PJ


Documents

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND … M/0109_softballSocc… · REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION Luckett & Farley Architects University