Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BLD2008-01617 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION.TIF
August 1, 2008 1+0754/29 -- Via UPS MCCULI" ENGLAND ASSOCIATES l ik"H IT11"C` R ECEIVED "1-62008 Ms. Clara Coulbourne Plans Facilitator City of Hickory Development Assistance Center 76 North Center Street Hickory, North Carolina 28601 Re: Frye Regional Medical Center Linear Accelerator Addition and Radiology Renovations Reference # PLN2008 -00389 and #PLN2008 -00390 Dear Ms. Coulboume: Please find the enclosed information for the above referenced project, as required by the 2006 NCSBC for Special Inspections of the referenced project: • Report of Geotechnical Exploration (30 pages total) dated January 7, 2008 as prepared by Froehling & Robertson, Inc. • Geotechnical Recommendations (4 pages) dated April I, 2008 as prepared by Freehling & Robertson, Inc. If you have any questions, please contact us. Architects James Nf Wiley, AIA Senior p hitect Enclosures cc: Craig Hume - Frye Regional Medical Center (via email) Carol Kammer - Frye Regional Medical Center (via email) Jim Smith - Frye Regional Medical Center (via email) Kim Pulliam — Tenet Health System (via email) Mark Walle — Hostetter & Keach, Inc. (via email) I o.n;,.a,I .dI ,„,.,,I i 1 )1111 J, n.1 rm 11 If i .. i If i .n „_.iii ui I ,� James Nf Wiley, AIA Senior p hitect Enclosures cc: Craig Hume - Frye Regional Medical Center (via email) Carol Kammer - Frye Regional Medical Center (via email) Jim Smith - Frye Regional Medical Center (via email) Kim Pulliam — Tenet Health System (via email) Mark Walle — Hostetter & Keach, Inc. (via email) I o.n;,.a,I .dI ,„,.,,I 51NCE F �A FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. K ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL 910 Tate Boulevard, SE, Suite 101, Hickory, NC 28602 1 USA pp T 828.324.4081 1 F 828.324.6770 1981 April 1, 2008 Frye Regional Medical Center c/o Mr. Mike Rowell McCulloch England Associates, Architects 100 Queen's Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28204 Reference: Geotechnical Recommendations Vault Project Hickory, North Carolina F &R Project No. 177 -146G Dear Mr. Rowell: Froehling & Robertson, Inc. (F &R) has completed the additional geotechnical evaluation as requested by Mr. Mike Hoyle of Laurette, Rickher & Sorrell, P.C. for the Frye Medical Center Vault project in Hickory, North Carolina. These services were performed as authorized by Mr. Jim Smith of Frye Regional Medical Center on March 19, 2008. We previously issued a Geotechnical Report for this project dated January 7, 2008 and an Addendum to the geotechnical report dated January 20, 2008. Please refer to those documents for the results of our findings and recommendations. This letter report contains our recommendations and findings for the support of the proposed linear accelerator vault construction project based upon information provided by Laurene, Rickher & Sorrell, P.C. We understand from conversations with you, Mr. Hoyle and Mr. Jim Wylie of McCulloch England Associates, Architects, two schemes (Scheme A and Scheme B) are being considered for the project. Project Information Scheme A and Scheme B have been derived with a proposed future basement addition, located to the south of the vault area, is to have a finished floor elevation of 1125.17 feet. HO: 3016 DUMBARTON ROAD RICHMOND, VA 2322a USA T804.264.2701 F 804.264.1202 Nvww.FandR.wm VIRGINIA • NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA • MARYLAND • DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA • EASTERN EUROPE Scheme A We understand Scheme A consists of the construction of a perimeter spread foundation bearing at a depth of 14 to 16 feet below existing grade. The vault slab area will then be backfilled with washed stone up to planned finished floor elevations and will have a future basement wall. The perimeter foundation will be stepped up from approximately minus 15 feet to minus 6 feet below existing grade from south to north for a distance of approximately 39 feet. During construction of the perimeter spread foundation system, it is anticipated that the soils beneath four adjacent shallow pier foundations shown to be located at a 3 -foot depth may be disturbed in order to construct the perimeter foundations. Scheme B Scheme B is proposed to consist of a single future basement wall constructed along section line "C" between rows 1 and 3 of the provided "Foundation + Load Info" drawing provided by McCulloch England Associates, Architects. Based upon conversations with you, we understand that the wall will bear at a 14 to 16 -foot depth below existing grades for Scheme B. Scheme B involves the construction of a mat foundation in addition to the wall, to provide support for the linear accelerator. During construction of the future basement wall, it is anticipated that the soils beneath four adjacent shallow pier foundations shown to be located at a 3 -foot depth will be disturbed in order to construct the wall foundation. Supporting materials for Scheme B are proposed to consist of, from north to south, existing soils to approximately one -third to one - half of the vault area transitioning to a soil backfill material. Possibly a washed stone backfill material may be placed directly against the future basement wall. Settlement Evaluation We evaluated both schemes with regard to providing adequate bearing support and settlement Settlement will be primarily contingent upon the characteristics of the subgrade soils and the structural loads. Our estimate of foundation settlement for the two schemes is based upon our understanding of the vault project information provided to F &R and on the provided structural Frye Regional Medical Center April 1, 2008 GeotechNCal Recommendations -Vault F &R Project No. 177 -146G Hickory, NC Page 2 loading conditions for the maximum vertical column loads and wall loadings on the order of 150 kips and 3 kips per linear foot, respectively. Additionally, we were provided the vault weight to be approximately 3,000 kips. We understand that our estimated settlement information will be provided to the linear accelerator manufacturer for the manufacturer to determine what amount of settlement is deemed acceptable. For either scheme selected for Construction, efforts should be implemented as directed by an engineer, (temporary shoring, bracing, etc.) to perform the excavation operations in a manner which does not undermine the existing foundations and /or supporting soils for the adjacent existing structures. Please refer to our geotechnical report for additional information regarding excavation recommendations. Scheme A We anticipate total settlements for Scheme A, related to the provided structural loads for the vault, to be on the order of % inch or less for the proposed perimeter walls. Estimated long -term differential settlement should be less than one half of the total settlement. Scheme B Scheme B will derive support for the project from existing soils near the adjacent building, re- compacted backfill soil material (backfill to be placed in accordance with our geotechnical report), proposed wall and mat foundation. Due to the compression potential of the 14 to 16 feet of controlled backfill soils Caused by the weight of the fill itself, it is recommended that construction of the vault be delayed one to two months prior to construction of the mat foundation if this option is selected. This time will allow settlement of the backfill to occur and will minimize possible damage to the proposed structure and equipment due to settlement of the backfill soil materials. Surface settlement monuments are recommended to be installed after the fill operations are completed. The surface monuments should be surveyed by a licensed INC registered surveyor weekly to insure that settlements have subsided to an acceptable rate. Surveying equipment should be accurate to 0.001 foot. Frye Regional Medical Center April 1, 2008 Geotechnical Recommendations -Vault F &R Project No. J77 -1466 Hickory, NC Page 3 F &R We understand that the project is on a pressed completion schedule, and the time required forth e settlement of the backflll soils may not be available. If the construction is delayed, we anticipate total settlements for Scheme B, related to the provided structural loads for the vault, to vary from approximately 1 inch in the areas where support is derived from existing soils to a % inch or less at the proposed wall location. Recommendation Based upon our review of the documents and our evaluations, we recommend Scheme A be considered as the option to construct the vault. Scheme A provides a more uniform distribution of loads across more similar materials, and thus produces the possibility of a more uniform settlement with no delay in construction. Additionally, the stepped foundations shown on the plan for Scheme A may help minimize the area of disturbance during construction. It is possible with Scheme A that fewer pier foundations will have significant disturbance. We also recommend to minimize settlement of the washed stone backf ll for either scheme, that the washed stone be placed in 18 -inch thick lifts and consolidated with a flat plate vibratory compactor. This procedure should be repeated to reach proposed subgrade elevations. We trust that this letter report is sufficient for your needs at this time. F &R appreciates the opportunity to provide our additional geotechnical services for the Frye Regional Medical Center Project and to be of continued service to Frye Regional Medical Center and its representatives. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter. Respectfully Submitted, FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. Michelle D. Flowers, E.I. Staff Engineer Senior Review by: William F. Edekq P.E. Regional Vice Presbem Mi�el clan, P.£ Branch Manger N.C. License No. 25776 Frye Regional Medical Center April 1, 2008 Geotechniral Recommendations -Vault F &R Project No. 177 -146G Hickory, NC Page 4 SIYCE F &R FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL• GEOTECHNICAL 010 Tate Boulevard, SE, Suite 101, Hickory, NC 28002 I USA pp T 828.324.4081 1 F 828.324.6770 l eel January 7, 2008 Frye Regional Medical Center c/o Mr. Mike Rowell 100 Queen's Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28204 Reference: Report of Geotechnical Exploration Tower and Vault Addition Hickory, North Carolina F &R Project No. J77 -108G Dear Mi. Rowell: Freehling & Robertson, Inc. (F&R) has performed a Geotechnical Exploration at the above referenced site located in Hickory, North Carolina. Our services were performed in general accordance with our Proposal No. 0877 -045G dated December 3, 2007, as authorized by you. This report presents the results of our exploration, and our geotechnical evaluation and recommendations for foundation design and site preparation. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding this report or if you need additional services. Sincerely, FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. ( `� °'•. Michelle D. Flowers, E.I. Michael W.so an, SEg Geotechnical Engineering Staff Hickory Branch Manager 3 i L• NC License No. 25776 O 776 P �� •'••F •: Senor Review by: Senio eowemioeE. 7 t/EE `� � Se L i..e No. I W Engineer yii�Fl 1 NC Gicertse No. ❑550 9 ■ HO: - 3015 DUMBARTON ROAD RICHMOND; VA 23228 USA TB04.254.2701 F004.204.1202 GiivW.FandR.corn 9 ■ VIRGINIA -NORTH CAROLINA -SOUTH CAROLINA - MARYLAND -DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA- EASTERN EUROPE 11 E &R TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX ASFE PAMPHLET APPENDIX II SITE LOCATION PLAN, DRAWING No. 1 BORING LOCATION PLAN, DRAWING No. 2 APPENDIX DI UNITED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM BORING LOGS Traver and I a F &P Project No. D7 -108G Idick.n� NC jonr,00, 7, 2008 Paee 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................... ....... ............. ......... ..... 1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................ ._........................ ...................... 1 3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES ...................................................... ..............................2 3.1 Field Exploration.. ....... ..................................................... ........ ........ ............. 2 32 Laboratory Test ing .................................................................. ............................... 3 3.3 Corrosion Study .............. ........................................................ ............................... 3 4.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..................................... ............................... 4 4.1 Site Conditions ........................................................................ ............................... 4 4.2 Regional Geology ................................................................... ............................... 4 4.3 Subsurface Conditions., .... ................. .................................................................. 5 4.4 Groundwater Condit ions .......................................................... ..............................6 4.5 Corrosion Study Findings ....................................................... ............................... 7 5.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION and RECOMMENDATIONS ...... ..............................9 5.1 General Development Considerations ................................... . ............................... 9 5.2 Site Preparation ..................................................................... ............................... 10 5.3 Structural Fill Placement ...................................................... ............................... 10 5.4 Excavation Recommendations ............................................... ............................. 11 5.5 Foundation Support ................................................................ ............................. 11 5 .5.1 Settlement .................. .......... ............................................. ................................... 12 5.6 Floor Slabs ............................................................................ ............................... 12 5.7 Below Grade Walls ............................................................... ............................... 13 5.8 Pavement Design .................................................................. ............................... 15 6.0 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY CONTROL ... ........ ......... ....... .. ............. ... .... ...... ........... 15 7.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................. ............................... 16 APPENDIX ASFE PAMPHLET APPENDIX II SITE LOCATION PLAN, DRAWING No. 1 BORING LOCATION PLAN, DRAWING No. 2 APPENDIX DI UNITED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM BORING LOGS Traver and I a F &P Project No. D7 -108G Idick.n� NC jonr,00, 7, 2008 F &R 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES The purposes of our involvement on this project were as follows: 1) provide general descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered at the project site, 2) provide foundation design recommendations, and 3) comment on geotechrdcal aspects of the proposed comt uction. In order to accomplish hire above tasks, we undertook the following scope of services: �I 1. Visited the site to observe existing surface conditions and features, and to locate the borings. �I 2. Coordinated utility clearance with NC One Call, Frye Regional Medical Center and a private utility locator. 3. Reviewed available geologic and subsurface information relative to the project site. 4. Executed a gemechnical subsurface exploration program consisting of two Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings drilled to depths ranging from 23.5 to 50 feet. 5. Evaluated the findings of the soil test borings relative to foundation support. 6. Prepared this written report summarizing our services for the project, providing descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered, foundation design recommendations, and geotechnical considerations for construction. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION The site is located on the west side of 1" Street N.E. on the campus of Frye Regional Medical Center in Hickory, North Carolina (See Drawing No. 1 in Appendix R). Based upon information provided by you, the proposed project includes the construction of a cast -in -place concrete vault and adjacent retaining walls. The vault is to be located near the southeast comer of the existing Frye Main Campus building. Adjacent building space will be one and two- stories tall, constructed of steel framing. Retaining walls may be necessary as much as 16 feet high and require surcharge loading from adjacent traffic lanes. A finished floor elevation was not provided for the project, however, we understand that the finished floor elevation will be T.w, and I au!( Addition Puge 1 F&R P/' jen No. D7408G 11Wk ", NC January 7, 2008 F& o approximately 14 to 16 feet below existing grades based upon the provided retaining wall height observed on the Linear Accelerator Plan Sheet provided to its by you. In addition, a future four -story Tower building is to be located on south side of the existing Frye Main Campus Building. Based upon infomnation provided by you, the proposed project includes the construction of a four -story building with cast -in -place concrete foundations with no basement. Above grade framing will utilize steel framing with diagonal steel bracing for the lateral system. Exterior cladding will be a combination of masonry and spandrel glass. The Tower is planned to be constructed near existing grades. Based upon information provided to us by Mr. Mike Rowell of McCulloch England Associates, Architects, we understand that the maximum column loads for the Vault will be on the order of 150 kips, while some of the lighter column loads will be in the range of 80 kips. Wail loadings will not exceed 3 kips per linear foot and may be necessary on some of the basement walls for the Vault. The provided loadings for the Tower indicate the maximum column loads will be on the order of 450 kips, while some of the lighter column loads will be in the range of 100 kips. In the event that the actual structural loadings are different than those stated here -in, we request this information be provided prior to construction in order to confirm that our recommendations are pertinent based on the available project information. 3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES 3.1 Fsum ExpwltATIoN F &R advanced two soil test borings (B -1 and B -2) in the project area. One boring was placed in each of the proposed footprints at the locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan, Drawing No. 2 provided in Appendix 11. The borings were drilled to depths varying from approximately 23.5 feet to 50 feet below existing grades. The actual boring locations were determined in the field by F &R based upon existing site conditions, and should be considered approximate according to the methods used. The existing grade elevations shown on the Boring Logs and Subsurface Profiles are elevations based upon a reference datum point elevation of 100 feet. Tmrer and i'aal/ dddifwn Page 2 FM Project No J77-108G Hwko ,, .NC Jonuory 7, 2008 F &R A track mounted CME -55 drill rig was used to advance the soil test borings at the project site. The soil test borings were advanced using hollow stem augers for borehole stabilization in general compliance with ASTM test standards. Representative soil samples were obtained with an automatic hammier using a standard two -inch outside diameter (O.D.) split -barrel sampler without the inner liner in general compliance with ASTM standards for sampling of soils and the Standard Penetration Test. The number of blows required to drive the split -barrel sampler three consecutive 6 -inch increments is recorded and the blows of the last two 6 -inch increments are added to obtain the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N- values representing the penetration resistance of the soil. Standard Penetration Tests were performed at intervals of five feet or less in general accordance with ASTM requ A representative portion of the soil was obtained from each SPT sample, sealed in sample containers, labeled and transported to our laboratory for classification by a geotechttical engineer. The soil samples were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), using visual -manual identification procedures per ASTM D 2488. 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING F &R performed laboratory tests on selected soil samples collected during the field drilling activities. The laboratory testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM standards. Laboratory testing consisted of Standard Proctor Testing, CBR testing, pH, resistivity, sulfate ion, chloride ion, and soil classification. The results of the laboratory tests for the Standard Proctor testing and classification and CBR test for the pavement design will be presented in an addendum to our report and submitted at a later date. 3.3 CORROSION STUDY Soil resistivity, pH, chloride ion and sulfate ion we measured to estimate corrosion potential for structures in contact with the soil. The intent of this study was to identify locations where concrete mid steel structures require protection from soils with high corrosion potential. This study assessed corrosion potential for concrete and/or metal structures in direct contact with in- situ soil materials. The corrosion potential of the soil can be influenced by contaminants, oxygen rich rain water, or by dissolved air pollutants in the new surface groundwater. Corrosion Tome, and Vmdt Addisw,u Page 3 MR Project Na. J77 -J 08G HicAarg NC January 7.2008 � F &R potential is typically greater new the ground surface in aerobic conditions and lower in anaerobic conditions at depths where less oxygen is present. Soil saznples were collected at the soil test boring locations and returned to our laboratory for testing in general accordance with ASTM and AASHTO standard procedures. 4.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDTTIONS 4.1 SITE CONDITIONS The Vault site is currently a concrete surfaced area that is relatively level. The proposed Tower site is sparsely grass covered and rises approximately 5 to 8 feet to the center of the vacant lot. Medical Center structures bound the site to the west, north and south. The site is bounded by 1" Street N.E. to the east. It appears that the vacant lot at the proposed Tower location was once the site of a residence. In the center of the proposed Tower location, it appears that the home had a basement that was excavated approximately 5 to 6 feet deep and measuring approximately 20 feet by 30 feet. The soils in the bottom of the excavation were visibly saturated, and were very soft. 4.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY Based on our review of the Geologic Map of North Carolina (Brown, 1985), the project site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina. (See Drawing No. 1 in Appendix 10. According to the Geologic Map of North Carolina (1985), the site is reportedly underlain by biotite gneiss and schist (CZbg). Ground elevations within the Piedmont Province vary from approximately 400 feet above sea level in the east to 2,000 feet in the west. The topography of the Piedmont Plateau generally consists of well- rounded hills and long - rolling ridges with a northeast- southwest trend. This rolling topography is the result of strearns flowing across and acting on rocks of unequal hardness. The Piedmont Plateau region is underlain by older crystalline (metamorphic and igneous) rock formations that trend northeast- southwest and vary greatly in their resistance to weathering and erosion. The major streams generally flow across these rock structures without regard to their northeast - southwest tending structures. The typical residual soil profile consists of fine - grained soils (clays/silts) near the surface, where ` soil weathering is more advanced, underlain by more coarse- grained soils (sandy silts/silty sands) ■Y Tmrer.,d VauG Addawn Pags 4 F &R Prayed NO J77 -1086 Hxkap NC Januap 7, 2008 F &R with depth. The boundary between soil mid rock is not sharply defined. This transitional zone, termed "weathered rock," is normally found overlying the parent bedrock. The degree of weathering is facilitated by fractures, joints, and by the presence of less resistant rock types. Consequently, the profile of the "weathered rock" and (lard rock is quite irregular and erratic, even over short horizontal distances. Possible boulders) /weathered rock was encountered in soil test boring B -1 at a depth of 23.5 feet. 4.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Strata breaks designated on the Boring Logs mid Subsurface Profiles represent approximate boundaries between soil types and /or rock. The transition from one soil type to another may be gradual or occur between soil samples. This section of the report provides a general discussion of subsurface conditions encountered within areas of proposed construction at the project site. The elevations shown on the Boring Logs and Subsurface Profiles have been based upon an assumed reference datum of 100 feet and our site observations. T'he elevations variances depicted should be considered approximate according to the methods used. More detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions at the individual boring locations are presented on die Boring Logs in Appendix III. Surface Conditions: The surface conditions at the soil test borings indicated less than %, inch of organic laden surficial soils are present at the proposed Tower site. Surficial soils typically contain root mat and/or other fibrous organic matter and are generally unsuitable for engineering purposes. Actual surficial soil depths may vary in unexplored areas of the site. During grading operations to construct the Tower, it should be noted that undercutting may be required due to the basement excavation that may have ponded water frequently. The Vault location was observed to be surfaced with a 10- inch concrete pavement placed directly on the subgrade soils. Residual Soil: Residual soils, forted by the in -place weathering of the parent rock, were encountered at both borings B -1 and B -2. The borings encountered loose to dense silty SANDS (SM)) to depths varying from the existing ground surface to approximately 22 to 50 feet below existing grade. SPT N- values ranged from 5 to 39 blows per foot (bpf) with an average N -value of Tower and Rontr dddWo, Page 5 F&R Project No. J77-IesG Hickory. NC Janrza. ),7,2008 13 bpf. Possible Boulder /Weathered Reek: Beneath the residual soils at the Vault boring (B -2), a possible boulder /weathered rock was encountered at a depth of approximately 22 feet below the surface. The 2006 North Carolina Building Code defines soft weathered rock as material with �I Standard Penetration Tests indicated "N" values of 50 blows for 2 to 6 inches of penetration and hard weathered rock (HWR) with "N" values of 50 blows for 0 to 1 inch of penetration. The �j possible boulder /weathered rock was satnpled as silty sands. Auger Refusal: Boring B -2 was terminated upon encountering auger refusal at a depth of approximately 235 feet below the existing ground surface. Auger refusal is defined as material �i that could not be penetrated with the drill rig equipment used on the project Auger refusal material may consist of large boulders, rock ledges, lenses, seams or the top of parent bedrock. Core drilling techniques would be required to further evaluate the character and continuity of the refusal material. Due to the depth of the material that caused the auger refusal, the material �1 should not impact construction operations and was therefore, not recommended to be further evaluated with rock coring techniques. 4.4 GROUNDWATER CONDMONS Groundwater level measurements were performed at the termination of drilling operations. Groundwater was encountered during our geotechnical study in boring B -1 at a depth of 28.5 feet. However, after the 24 -hour stabilization period the boring was observed to be dry. It should be noted that the elevation of the groundwater table is dependent upon seasonal factors such as the amount of precipitation and the temperature. Therefore, the elevation of the groundwater may be different at other times of the year and from the elevations presented in this report. Generally, the higher groundwater levels occur in late winter and early spring, and the lower levels in late summer and fall. We note that the project area is currently in a severe drought which may have affected the groundwater levels. The soil test borings were backfilled after our field operations were completed and boring B -2 located in the Vault was concrete patched using freshly mixed concrete. Tmver and t mdi Addition Page 6 F&R Project No J77 -108G Hxkoq% Jannam 7.2008 tl F &R 4,5 CORROSION STUDY FINDINGS The following conunents are based on the results of the pH and resistivity testing, available references regarding soil corrosion potential, and our experience with typical concrete production practice. We recommend that the concrete mix utilize Type I Portland cement with a maximum waterkement ratio of 0.45 as a precaution to resist the site's apparently acidic soils (pH 4.43). With respect to buried piping, available references indicate that the use of cast -iron and copper piping is acceptable for below grade use when the surrounding soil's resistivity is greater than 5000 ohm-cm and 500 ohm -cm, respectively. Based on the soil resistivity results (resistivity 8,361 ohm -cm), no additional measures with respect to potential corrosion are recommended for buried copper or iron pipes. We note that the project structural and mechanical designers (and/or other applicable parties) should also review the soil pH and resistivity test results for their determination of whether any corrective or preventative actions are required to protect foundations and other below -grade materials (such as pipes or other buried steel) from corrosion. Resistivity: Resistivity is the inverse of conductivity and measures the soil's capacity to transfer or absorb electric current. Resistivity typically decreases with increased soil moisture content. The electrical resistivity of a soil sample is measured in the laboratory with an ohmmeter. The units for resistivity are ohm- centimeters (ohm -cm). The soil resistivity of the sample tested was in the relatively low range with a reading of 8,361 ohm -em indicating mildly corrosive potential. Low resistivity may result from highly conductive contaminants in the soil. Table 1: Soil Cormsivity Versus Resistivity, presented on the next page is taken from the publication "Effects of Soil Characteristics on Corrosion" prepared by the American Society for Testing and Materials, Bulletin STP -1013. Tinier mid Vook Addition Page 7 F&R Project No J77 -108G Hrokmy, NC Jmmo, 7, 2008 F&R Table 1: Soil Corrosivitv Versus Resistivity Soil Corrosiviy Soil Resistivity (olun -cm) Very severely corrosive 0 to 1,000 A Severely Corrosive 1,001 to 2,000 Moderately corrosive 2,001 to 5,000 Mildly corrosive 5,001 to 10,000 Very mildly corrosive >10,001 PH: pH measures hydrogen ion concentration and indicates the intensity of acidity or alkalinity of a sop. A pH value of 7 indicates neutrality whereas values greater than 7 indicate alkalinity and values lower than 7 indicate acidity. Units of pH are Standard Units (SU). Based on our past experience, soils with pH greater than about 5.5 are typically considered to have a slight degree of aggressiveness with regard to corrosion potential to concrete and steel. Soils with pH lower dran 4.5 are considered to have a high degree of corrosion potential. Extreme high or low values indicate increased corrosion potential. The pH test result for the sample was 4.43 indicating acidic to weakly acidic conditions. High pH can be associated with excess lime addition in agricultural use soils, other contaminants, or dissolved air pollutant in the new surface groundwater. Typically, soils in Catawba County, North Carolina have a pH range of 5 to 6. Sulfate Ion: Sulfate ion occurring as a dissolved salt is associated with sea water, salt remnants of sea water, or ionized mineral content in the soil. Units of measure for sulfate ion content are typically milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) that is equivalent to parts per million (ppm). The American Concrete Institute (ACI) Manual of Concrete Practice indicates that up to 0.10 percent sulfate by weight in soil and 150 ppm of sulfate in water is considered negligible as far as corrosion potential to concrete. VAien exposed to air after being disturbed, soils containing iron sulfides produce sulfuric acid and may release excessive quantities of iron, aluminum and heavy metal. Acid sulphate soils can weaken concrete, deteriorate steel, and binder vegetation growth. Based on the soils identified in the boring, and the results of sulfate ion testing, the presence of acid sulphate soils is not anticipated to affect construction. However, if acid sulphate soils are encountered during construction, agricultural lime can be utilized to neutralize the sulfuric acid. Tower and 1..11 Additim Page 8 F &R Project No. P7.108G Hicdary, NC Jammr9 7, 2008 F&R The measured sulfate content in the soil tested was 93 ppm, within the range that should be considered negligible for corrosion potential. Chloride Ion: Chloride ion occurs in soil in a manner similar to sulfate ion. The chloride content obtained from the laboratory analysis of the soil sample tested indicated 22 ppm. The results are considered relatively low for corrosion potential. In general, ACI recommends that a minimum concrete protective covering for reinforcement should be 3 inches for concrete deposited against the ground. Also, ACI indicates reducing the allowable water /cement ratio of concrete mixes will reduce corrosion potential to concrete. 5.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMIIENDATIONS 5.1 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS The recommendations contained in this section of the report are based upon the results of our soil test borings, site observations, laboratory testing results, and on information provided regarding the proposed construction. If the assumed structural loading, geometry, or proposed building locations are changed or significantly differ from those outlined herein, or if conditions are encountered during construction that differ from those enwuntered at the soil test boring locations, F &R requests the opportunity to review our recommendations based on the differing conditions and make the necessary changes to this report On the basis of our findings and observations, the site can be developed for the planned Vault construction provided the recommendations presented in subsequent sections of this report are followed throughout the design and construction phases of this project. Based on the data obtained, the planned Vault building can be supported on conventional shallow spread foundations bearing on the medium dense residual sods, expected at the planned bearing depth (16 feet below existing grades). Based on the data obtained, the proposed Tower building may require support on deep foundations. One boring placed in the proposed Tower building footprint, as requested by you, did not provide sufficient data to prepare a deep foundation design, It is possible that other foundation alternatives can be explored or recommended to include structural slab(s), mat - foundations and/or alternative 77.,, and PaW, Addidan Page 9 F&R Project Na. J77 -108G Hicko,y, NC Jaaamy 7,1008 F& m deep foundations such as geoptes, micropiles, timber piles or steel piles. Shallow spread foundations do not appear to be capable of supporting the proposed building loads without expecting settlement in excess of I inch. Settlement less than 1 inch is the standard acceptable settlement for buildings. Dynamic compaction should not be considered due to sensitivity of the adjacent buildings and location of the site in the Historical Block District in Hickory, North Carolina. Dynamic compaction may move the adjacent buildings from the existing foundations and/or cause cracking along mortar joints, and other damages to adjacent structures. This report will not have any further considerations for the Tower. 5.2 SITE PREPARATION During earthwork and construction activities, surface water runoff should be drained away from the construction areas to prevent water from ponding on or saturating the soils within excavations or on subgrades. Earthwork construction during seasonally wet times of the year (typically October to May) may result in soft subgrade conditions, difficulties in properly placing and compacting the on -site soils and possible undercutting in excess that would otherwise be expected. 5.3 STRUCTURAL FILL PLACEMENT The soils to be used as structural fill should be free of organics, roots or other deleterious materials. Fill soils in structural areas should contain less than three percent (by weight) organic material, have a plasticity index (PI) less than 25, and have a maximum dry density greater than 90 pounds per cubic foot as determined by Standard Proctor testing (ASTM Test Method D698) and be classified as a low plasticity soil. We recommend that during fill/backfill placement, field density tests should be performed by a qualified soils technician to document the degree of compaction obtained in the field. Ball material should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. The moisture content of all fill/backfill soils should be within plus or minus 2 percentage points of the optimum moisture content based on the Standard Proctor (ASTM Test Method D -698). Some moisture conditioning of the soils (such as wetting or drying) may be required during the filling operation to obtain the required degree of compaction, The in -place dry density of soils placed Traver mid Yaull.tdditim Page 10 Fd-RP,,#m Na J77 -108G Hkb'o NC Jammp' 7, 2008 F& at depths greater than one foot below proposed finished subgrade elevations should equal or exceed 98 percent of the Standard Proctor as determined by laboratory testing, unless otherwise specified. The top 12 inches of soils placed within building and parking and drive areas should be compacted to at least 100% of the Standard Proctor. All structural fill should be placed under the control and supervision of F &R's geotechnical engineer or engineering technician working under the direction of our geotechnical engineer The contractor should provide positive drainage away from the building pad at all times. Wet, pumping or yielding soils should be undercut and replaced with approved structural fill compacted and tested in accordance with the project requirements. 5.4 EXCAVATION RE ommENDATwNS Mass excavations and other excavations required for construction of this project must be performed in accordance with the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines (29 CFR 1926, Subpart P, Excavations) or other applicable jurisdictional codes for permissible temporary side -slope ratios and/or shoring requirements. The OSHA guidelines require daily inspections of excavations, adjacent areas and protective systems by •'competent person" for evidence of situations that could result in cave -ins, indications of failure of • protective system, or other hazardous conditions. Difficult excavation is not a consideration for this site. 5.5 FOUNDATION SUPPORT As previously indicated, the planned Vault building can be supported on conventional shallow spread foundations bearing on approved residual soils at the expected depth of 16 feet. Spread foundations can be designed for net allowable soil bearing capacity of 3,000 psf. Wall and column foundations should have minimum widths of 18 and 30 inches, respectively. The actual footing sizes should be determined by the project structural engineer based upon design loads, building code requirements, and other structural considerations. We recommend that F &R's geotechnical engineer or his representative evaluate the fooling excavations and bearing grades prior to installation of reinforcing steel or concrete. The field - testing may consist of performing shallow hand auger borings and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Touvr and Vmdtidditim, Page I MRProject No. J77 -ING H24ory. NC Jmmaq J, 2008 F& e (DCP) testing of the bearing grade soils in selected areas. If soft, loose, or otherwise unsuitable soils are encountered at the footing bearing level, undercutting to suitable soils and replacement with properly compacted engineered &11 or washed stone may be recommended. We also recommend that footing concrete be placed the same day sealing the footing area to prevent entry of rainfall and runoff water, as well as preventing excessive drying of the soils. Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the footing bearing level if excavations remain open for long periods of time. The foundation bearing surface should be level or suitably benched and free of loose and /or frozen soil, ponded water and debris. If the bearing soils are softened by surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation excavation immediately prior to placement of concrete. Foundation excavations must be maintained in a drained/de- watered condition throughout the foundation construction process. If the foundation excavations must remain open overnight, or if rainfall becomes imminent while the bearing soils are exposed, we recommend that the foundation be over - excavated 2 to 4 inches and that a 2 to 4 inch thick "mud mat" of ]can concrete (1,500 psi) be placed on the bearing soils before placing the reinforcing steel. In addition, F &R stresses the need for positive perimeter surface drainage around the building areas to direct all runoff water away from the building and foundations. 5.5.1 SETTLEMENT Settlement will be primarily contingent upon the characteristics of the subgrade soils and the structural loads. Our estimate of foundation settlement is based upon our understanding of the Vault project information provided to F &R and on the provided structural loading conditions for the maximum vertical column loads and wall loadings on the order of 150 kips and 3 kips per linear foot, respectively. If the recommendations of this report are followed, we anticipate total settlements related to the assumed structural loads for the Vault to be Y inch or less. Estimated long -term differential settlement should be less than one half of the total settlement. 5.6 FLOOR SLABS The building ground floor may be designed as a concrete slab -on -grade. Based upon the anticipated presence of silty /sandy soils (residual soils), a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 150 pounds per Tamer and Paidtddditi0n Page 12 F &RProjmt No. J]] -108G Hickory. NC Jammry 7, 2008 F &R cubic inch (pci) can be used for slab design. The subgradc soils for support of floor slabs should be prepared as outlined in previous sections of this report. Utility and other construction excavations performed in the prepared floor slab subgrade of the building should be backfilled in accordance with previously referenced structural earth fill criteria to aid hr providing uniform floor support. The floor slab should be supported on at least 4 inches of washed stone to provide a uniform well - drained and compacted material immediately beneath the slab. Vapor barrier coustructon should be perfurmed m accordance with applicable ACI guidelines. Floor slab design and construction should incorporate isolation joints around columns, utility penetrations, and along bearing walls to allow for differential movement to occur without damage to the floor. 5.7 BCOWGRADEW Eanh pressures on walls below grade we influenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of construction and/or compaction, and the strength of the materials being restrained. The most common conditions assumed for earth retaining wall design aze the active and at -rest conditions. Active conditions apply to relatively flexible earth retention structures, such as freestanding walls, where some movement and rotation may occur to mobilize soil shear strength. Walls that are rigidly restrained, such as basement, pit, and tunnel walls, require design using at -rest earth pressures. A third condition, the passive state, represents the maximum possible pressure when a structure is pushed against the soil, and is used in wail foundation design to help resist active or at -rest pressures. Because significant wall movements are required to develop the passive pressure, the total calculated passive pressure should be reduced by one -half to two- thirds for design purposes. Based on the subsurface exploration, we envision that the site subsurface profile generally consists of residual silty/sandy material described as silty sand. We recommend that a low - plasticity and/or granular material be used as backfill behind retaining walls. A select cohesionless backfill material consisting of No. 57 or No. 10 crushed stone screenings may also be considered. The select material should be extended laterally from the back face of the basement wall, or for site walls, the back heel of the wall footing, a minimum distance of 0.5 times the wall height at the top of the wall. Tower oat Pa,dt AddiIw,, Page 13 FdR ProjeN No J77-1086 Hmka'� NC Ja,, mw y 7, 2008 F& m No. 57 crushed stone should be placed in lifts no greater than 2 feet in thickness and compacted with a backhoe bucket or similar. In addition, we recommend that the No. 57 crushed stone backfill be placed using a separation geotextile at the interface between the coarse- grained crushed stone backfill and existing residual soils, partially weathered rock or new soil fill materials. "Die recommended lateral earth pressure coefficients and equivalent fluid pressure parameters for design of retaining or below grade walls using a select No. 57 crushed stone, or silty sand backfill are provided in the following tables: No. 57 CRUSHED STONE Earth Pressure Conditions Coefficient Recommended Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcf) Active (Ka) 0.22 23 At -Rest (KC) 0.36 38 Passive (K,) 4.60 - -- A crushed stone unit weight of 105 pounds per cubic foot should be used for design calculations. SILTY SAND (SM) Earth Pressure Conditions Coefficient Recommended Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcf) Active (K,) 0.36 40 At -Rest (K 0.53 58 Passive (K,) 2.8 - -- A moist soil unit weight of t 10 pounds per cubic foot should be used for design calculations. Our recommendations assume that the ground surface above the wall is level. The recommended equivalent fluid pressures assume that constantly functioning drainage systems are installed between walls and crushed stone backfill to prevent the accidental buildup of hydrostatic pressures and lateral stresses in excess of those stated. If a functioning drainage system is not installed, then lateral earth pressures should be determined using the buoyant weight of the soil. Hydrostatic pressures calculated with the unit weight of water (62.4 pcf) should be added to these earth pressures to obtain the total stresses for design. For design calculations of resistance to sliding, a value of 0.3 should be used as the coefficient of friction between concrete surfaces and the rb and l'ovb Addw,, Page 14 F&RN jeer No. J77 -1086 HirAory. NC Jonum"• 7,1008 f& a underlying soils. Heavy equipment should not operate within 5 feet of below grade walls to prevent lateral pressures in excess of those cited. If footings or other surcharge loads are located a short distance outside below grade walls, they may also exert appreciable additional lateral pressures. Surcharge loads should be evaluated using the appropriate active or at -rest pressure coefficients provided above. The effect of surcharge loads should be added to the recommended earth pressures to detennine total lateral stresses. 5.8 PAVEMENT DESIGN General Design Basis: F &R, Inc: has utilized the "American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials" AASHTO Pavement Design Guide, 1986 as guidance for the analysis and design process as well as for selection of subgrade soil support values, structural coefficients for pavement layers and selection of recommended pavement components. Our pavement design will be submitted as an Addendum to this report. 6.0 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY CONTROL As previously discussed, the Geotechnical Engineer of record should be retained to monitor and test earthwork activities, and subgrade preparations for foundations, floor slabs and pavements. It should be noted that the actual soil conditions at the various subgrade levels and footing bearing grades will vary across this site and thus the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative during construction will serve to validate the subsurface conditions and recommendations presented in this report. We recommend that F &R be employed to monitor the earthwork and foundation construction, and to report that the recommendations contained in this report are completed ht a satisfactory manner. Our continued involvement with the project will aid in the proper implementation of the recommendations discussed herein. The following is a recommended scope of services: • Review of project plans and construction specifications prior to construction to verify that the recommendations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and implemented; • Observe the earthwork process to document that subsurface conditions encountered during construction are consistent with the conditions anticipated in this report; Tmveraod VmdtdddiBOe Page 1J F&R Project NO. J77d08G Hickory. NC Jmumry 7, 2008 F &R • Observe undercutting and replacement with engineered fill, if required; • Observe the subgrade conditions before placing structural fill including proofroll observations; • Observe the placement and compaction of all structural fill in specified areas, acid perform laboratory and field compaction testing of the fill; and Evaluate all foundation excavations and footing bearing grades for compliance with the recommended design soil bearing capacity. 7.0 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Frye Regional Medical Center and their assignees for specific application to the Vault in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. These recommendations do not reflect variations in subsurface conditions that could exist intermediate of the boring locations or in unexplored areas of the site. Should such variations become apparent during construction, we reserve the right to re- evaluate our recommendations based upon on -site observations of the conditions. In the event changes are made in the proposed construction plans, the recommendations presented in this report shall not be considered valid unless reviewed by our firm and recommendations of this report modified or verified in writing. Prior to final design, F &R should be afforded the opportunity ity to review the borrow soils, and site grading and layout plans to determine if additional or modified recommendations are necessary. There are important limitations to this and all Geotechnical studies. Some of these limitations �I are discussed in the information prepared by ASFE, which is included in Appendix I of this report. We ask that you please review this information and contact us should you have any y� questions. To +ver and f.0t Addition Page 16 F&R Project No. Di -108G Hickory, NC January ], ?003 APPENDIXI ASFE Pamphlet Tmeer mrd I'an(lAddi(ian H,A., NC F&R Frajea No. J]7 108C, January 1, 1008 Geotechnical Engineering Report Geatechnical Services Are Performed top SpecUfc Purposes, Persons, and Projects Gedechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geolechnial engineering study mnducled la a civil mgi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnial engineering shy is unique, each geolechnial engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. no one except you should rely on your geolechnical engineering report wfthoul first widening with [It geolerhnical engineer who prepared IL And no one —not am you — should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the full Report Serious problems have occurred because (hose relying on a geotechnial engineering report did not read it alt. Do nor rely on an mecdive summary. Do not read selected elements only. - A Geatechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project- Specift Factors Geolechnial engineers consider a number of unique, project- spedric fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the slruclum involved, its sue, and wnfnguralion; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geolechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do nor rely on a geolechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site exploned, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an misfing geolechnical engineering repod include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the Proposed structure, • composition of IN design team, or • project ownership. As a general mle, aMaysinform your geolechnial engineer of project changes- -even minoronesand request an assessment of their impact. Geolechni al engineers cannot accept responsibility orliability laproblems that oarnberau>ea Iheiropons dd not wnsiderdevnlopmenls of which they were not infomred. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A gcolechnical engineering report is based on conditions that misled a( the time the study was performed, Do not rely on a geolechnial wgineer- ingmpor dose adequacy may have been alfecled by: the passage of time; by man -made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site: or by natural events, such as goods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- fions. Always; coolant the geotechnial engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A mina amount of additional testing or analysis could prevail major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Ophdons Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geolechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their molessional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ— sometimes signiticanlly— from those indicated in your report. Retaining the gederhnial engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overmly on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those 2commendationsare not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geolechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. Are geo erchnical engineer oho developedyour report cannot assume responsibility or iiabnily for the region's recanmandations if met engineer does notpadam construction obserreboa A Geotechnicai,Enghmertng Report is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team numbers' misinterpretation of geolechnical engineering reports has resulled in costly problems. Loner that risk by having your pao- lechnical engineer confer with appropriate msbors of the design team alter submirling the m pat. Also Town your geofeohnigl engineer to review pedi- ranl elements of the design leam's plans and specifications. Contractors ran also misinterpret a geolechnical engineering report Reduce Ifal risk by having your geotelmicel engineer participate in prebid and preconslruchon conferences, and by providing conslosaw observation. Do Not Redraw the Eoghmer's Logs Geolechnical engineers prepare final boring and feeling logs based upon their inlerprlalimn of field logs and IabmaMry data. To prevent arras or omissions, the togs included in a gook chnfcel engineering report should newrbe redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize first sepamling logs from the report cap elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some ovmers and design professionals mistakenly believe they ran make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent crossly problems, give con- tractors the complete geolechoicat engineering report, but preface it with a clearly smitten letter of Iran amlrial. In that ki advise commclus that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy a limited; encourage them to confer with the geolechniral engineer who prepared the report (a modest feemay be required) anWor to conduct additional study to obtain the specifM types of inlomation Ihey need or prefer. A pallid conference can also be valuable. Be sure coMrac- lors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give conlradors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least sham some of the financial responsibilities slamming from unamicipalcd conolbon5. Read Rosponsibitdy Provislons Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that gimechntral enginea4ing ta far loss exact Man other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Somealims labeled 'imitations' many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers aspnnsi- bilifies begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read Meseprovishins closely Ask questions. Your geolechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoeuviromoental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mernalsludy differ signi licarily from More used to worm a gemwbniol study, For that town, a geritechnical engineering report does not usually fatale any geoenvironmeMal findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of eluountering underground storage tanks or regulated coMaminanls. Unanticipated enviourn malproblems have led to numemusprged failures. II you have not yet obtained your an geoen- vironmenlal information, ask your geolechnical consultant for riskman- agunenl guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepafedfor somemw else. Ohtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Maid Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, Gperation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of maid Iron growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold preven ial Mutlant Because Just a small amount dwaler or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention sualegis focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as pan of the geotechnaal ulguoioing stud/ whose findings are conveyed in-this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geolechnreal engini study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implemenfagan of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or an the structure involved. M on Your ASK- Member Geotechncial Lear for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFErthe Best People on Farah exposes geotechnical engirians to awide allay of risk management techniques Mal can be of genuine cement [or everyone involved wit a construction proW Confer with you ASFE- member geolechnical engineer for mom information. A5FE TO. ROOT F.g10 •e EW* 8811 Coirawfle Road/Suife 9106, Silver Spring, MO 20910 Telephone: 301 /565.2733 Facsimile: 301 /589 -2017 e -mail: ioloillasteum www.asleurg Copydeh'P by ASfF, Inc 0epnsaffon, rePnvl fbn,wro ➢Ptto of Nis ExuMnr, 1n1Wwreormpan, tynrymeans spa Trc ,tdtten perm6 ,r Tit qudfoe, a *. ertmNea Wo1d0 trap M Z..? 9 parmM MY lard eMm. pfxholmly rmnh nrbsok mNerv. only members a4Sl£nuy use NR daemeer u a mrm rf m ass an rrrm, fwmUvil,orotherrnmy Nat so uses Nrs documero wwrout sane m AsAr member cold be..fi a men, nGFAWDrom wahasrss Fa APPENDIXH Site Location Plan, Drawing No. 1 Boring Location Plan, Drawing No. 2 Tb,.-and Vmdl dddilmn re Rgftcf No.177 -108G Hwkl m, NC 7, 2008 North Carolina Geology Site ® Blue Ridge Bell ® Raleigh Belt 7, 2008 Ch.o.tle Belt N Q Coastal Plain ® Conlin. got. Bell Q Gings m.wwn Belt Ianu Piodmont ® Mamie Basin ® Buplry Bell Eadetn Blaie Belt © Itilten Belt Drawing. No. Site FROEHLING 8 ROBERTSON, INC. DATE: January 7, 2008 GEOTECHNICAL•ENVIRONMENTAL • tMTER1AL5 SCALE: No Scale ENGINEERS • LABORATORIES •OL87f24Y&YSO DRWN: I MDF Site Location Plan (J77 -1080) Drawing. No. Tower and Vault Addition Hickory, North Carolina I Z 4-- N.C. HWY, 527 ui i W a 4 i i I _.J Legend 0 B -1 Boring Location Drawing No. 2 Derived from Site Plan provided by McCulloch England Associates, Architects FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. DATE: January 7, 2008 ENGINEERING• ENVIRONMENTAL• GEOTECHNICAL SCALE: Not To State •• DRWN: NIDF Boring Location Plan Tower and Vault Addition (J7 Drawing No. 2 APPENDIX III United Soil Classification System Boring Logs Traver and I'ov /t dddiliwe H,,4." NC F&RProjec A Ji Z708G Jammry 7, 2008 fa UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) MAJOR DIVISION TYPICAL NAMES ^." GW Well graded gravels GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVEL Poorly graded grovels More than 50Y. (little or no fines) GP of coarse fraction Iorger GM Silty grovels than No. 4 sieve GRAVELS Clayey gravels with fines GC SW Wellgroded sands SANDS CLEAN SAND (little or no fines) More than 50% = SP Poorly graded sands of coarse fraction smaller SM Silty sands, than No. 4 sieve SAND sand /silt mixtures ith fines F Clayey sands, SC sand /clay mixtures Inorganic silts, sandy ML and clayey silts with slichttv elasticit SILTS AND CLAYS Sandy or silty clays Liquid Limit is less than 50 CL of low to medium plasticit Organic silts of low 01L plasticity Inorganic silts, MH sandy micaceous or clayey elastic silts SILTS AND CLAYS Inorganic clays of Liquid Limit is greater than 50 CH high pplosticity, fat lo s Organic clays of OH medium to high plasticity HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils PWR (Partially Weathered Rock) Rack MISCELLANEOUS Asphalt MATERIALS ABC Stone ?' �• y . Concrete l.. 1 .; Surficial Organic Soil s,wce BORING LOG ER ENLI I �R FRONO ROBERTSON, INC. t F K GEOTE • E ER S • MATERIAL-5 ENGINEERS • LABORATOWS "OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SERVIcf" Rcpon No.: J77 -JORG Dam: 1/3/2008 client Frye Regional Medical Center Project, Tosser and Vault Addition, Hickory, N.C. f Noting No.: 13-1 (1 Of 2) Toth 50.0' Elev: 100.0111 Location: See Drawing #2 'type or¢oring - . 2 -114" HSA Stared. 12110/07 Complemd, 12(10!07 Driller Innovative Gmvironmental Elevation Dcptlt DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS (Classibcudon) ' sample ¢lows Dep -o feet N Value (blowslft) REMARKS X. RGSIM/AL:Medium dense to loose red brown silty 4 -6 -5 medium SAND (SM), moist I.5 ( I 3.0 8 3-4-4 4.5 6.0 7 1 -3-4 7.5 91.5 8.5 Loose brown white Stay ten micaceous Silly fine to 8 ' S 5 2 - 2 - 3 coarse SAND (SM), moist 10.0 13.5 7 2 -2 -5 I5.0 8S 8 344 20.0 76.5 23.5 —,'. Medium dense and loose brown tan micaceous silty 23.5 14 -5 -9 fine SAND tSM), moist 25.0 28 30.0 7 Groundwater was measured to be at 28.5 feet immediately a ft er drilling. 2 -34 Cave -in depth was measured to be 30 fret immediately after dritling. 33.5 S 2 -3_5 35.0 61.5 38.5 Loose to medium dense brotm mieacaoua silty Eve 38 S 9 ; 3 -3 -6 AN S moist ' umber oflAom required for a 140 to aulomnic hammer dropping 30" in drive 2" O.D., 1.375" LD. split -spoon sampler in wcmmivo 6 "inmemcros. The sum of the second and thm increments ofl, wension B termed the Srmdard Penetration Ten value, "N ". =,ReE BORING LOG EHLI N(CAL /�� FRO ROBERTSON, , F GEOTE - • & ERTS E N V IR O NMENTA L • INC, NC, nIS ENGINEERS • LABORATORIES "OVER ONE NUNRREO YEARS OF SERVICE" R,,on Nc.: J77 -1080 Dam: 1/3/2008 ❑lem: Frye Regional Medical Center Project Tower and Vault Addition, Bickory,N,C. Boring No.: B -1 (2 0172.)) Tm @ 50.0'1 E1,1 IOO.Oft t tocItow See Drawing #2 Type of Boring: 2-1/4" BSA i Son,& 12110107 Completed: 12110/07 Dr01cr; Innovative EnAroanteatal Elcvalion Depd, DESCRIPTION OF MA'fERIACS •Semple sample am Nvaloe REMARKS (Classifscaa.) Blows fees (bluays/0) 59.0 41.0 QAT - Loose to medium dense brown micaceous silty fine SAND(SM), moist 43.5 15 5-6-9 45.0 48.5 20 5 7 -13 50.0 50.0 i I Boring terminated a150 feet. I I I �Nambcr ofblows required for a 140 lb automatic hemmer i4oppmg 30" to Edve 2" O.D., 1,375" I.D. split-spoon sampler m successive 6' i teremcnM The anm If Ne second and ddrd toe cs ms a17prpt,"Jon is lensed Ne Smudmd P."Iion Test vxam ' 61nCE BORING LOG AJ( � w FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. V GEOTECNNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL - MATERIALS ENGINEERS • IARORATORIES "OVER ONEHUNDREO YEARS OFSERVIOE" R,rot No.: J77 -i USG tae, c Dan, : 113/2008 L'lien Frye RegioDal Madical Center Project Tower and Vault Addition, Hickory, N.C. Borins No.: R -2 (1 of I) D 23.5' Elcv: 104.0ft t Location: See Drawing H2 Type ofBming: 2 -114" HSA Start,& 12110/07 Completed: 12110/07 1 Driller: Innovative Environmental ElevationOcplb DESL7UPTfDN OF MATERIALS `Sample DepPh NValue REMARKS 81., l eer (bows ( R) 103.2 0.8 CONCRETE 10 inches Hand Augedog was RESIDUAL: Red brown tan silty SAND (Sal), performed to 6 feet due to es pssible presence of moist u o .known utilities. No groundwater was encountered during drilling. 98.0 6.0 6.0 12 Medium dense red brown tan white silty fine to 4-7-5 coarse SAND (SM), moist 7.5 8.5 10 3 -5 -5 IO.D 90.5 13.5 Dense brown tan silty fine to course SAND (SM), 13.5 39 1b -22 -17 moist 15.0 Cave -in depth was me asured 1. I4.9 fee( immediately after dr0ling. 18.5 19 6 -742 20.0 82.0 7 2.0 SDNT WEATHERED ROCK: sampled as brown 80.5 23.5 tan silty Ent to coarse SAND (S , moist Anger refusal at 23.5 tact. 'honer of Mows requlmd for a 14016 avtomanchommer droppmg 3V to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D, split - ,spoon saopler in successive 6- inaremeam The sum oflhe second and Ina] increments ofpmetmtion is termed the Standard Psaelmnon Test vatue, W%