Long Chapel United Methodist Church - LCU_Stormwater_Manual_20190222

Contents

Stormwater;
- Hydraflow Table of Contents
- Watershed Schematic
- Return Period Recap
- 1-year Summary Report and Hydrographs
- 10-year Summary Report and Hydrographs
- 100-year Summary Report and Hydrographs
- IDF Report and Pond Graphics
- Storm Sewer Reports
- Storm Sewer Profiles with HGL and EGL

Erosion Control;
- Drainage Area Map
- Drainage Area-A
• Hydrograph
• Sections & Profiles
• Stabilization Report
- Drainage Area-B
• Hydrograph
• Sections & Profiles
• Stabilization Report
- Drainage Area-C
• Hydrograph
• Sections & Profiles
• Stabilization Report
- Slope Stabilization Report
- Outlet Protection Worksheets
- Skimmer Basin Worksheets
- Temporary Diversions
• Hydrographs
• Sections
- Geotechnical Report
Hydrograph Return Period Recap
Hyd. Hydrograph Inflow Peak Outflow (cfs) Hydrograph
No. type hyd(s)Description
(origin) 1-yr 2-yr 3-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr
1 SCS Runoff ------ 9.681 ------- ------- ------- 21.72 ------- ------- 35.76 Watershed to Pond
2 Reservoir 1 0.760 ------- ------- ------- 11.99 ------- ------- 29.94 Sand Filter Routing
Proj. file: Longs Sand Filter Model.gpw Friday, 02 / 15 / 2019
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020
Hydrograph Summary Report
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph
No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description
(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft)
1 SCS Runoff 9.681 2 720 22,182 ------ ------ ------ Watershed to Pond
2 Reservoir 0.760 2 762 22,172 1 2561.62 10,222 Sand Filter Routing
Longs Sand Filter Model.gpw Return Period: 1 Year Friday, 02 / 15 / 2019
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Friday, 02 / 15 / 2019
Hyd. No. 1
Watershed to Pond
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 9.681 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 12.00 hrs
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 22,182 cuft
Drainage area = 5.480 ac Curve number = 85*
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 7.50 min
Total precip. = 2.42 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
* Composite (Area/CN) = [(3.490 x 98) + (1.990 x 61)] / 5.480
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
2.00 2.00
4.00 4.00
6.00 6.00
8.00 8.00
10.00 10.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Watershed to Pond
Hyd. No. 1 -- 1 Year
Hyd No. 1
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Friday, 02 / 15 / 2019
Hyd. No. 2
Sand Filter Routing
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.760 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 12.70 hrs
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 22,172 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 1 - Watershed to Pond Max. Elevation = 2561.62 ft
Reservoir name = Sand Filter Max. Storage = 10,222 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
2.00 2.00
4.00 4.00
6.00 6.00
8.00 8.00
10.00 10.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Sand Filter Routing
Hyd. No. 2 -- 1 Year
Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 1 Total storage used = 10,222 cuft
Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Friday, 02 / 15 / 2019
Pond No. 1 - Sand Filter
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on user-defined values.
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuft)
0.00 2558.00 n/a 0 0
1.00 2559.00 n/a 2,122 2,122
2.00 2560.00 n/a 2,123 4,245
3.00 2561.00 n/a 2,122 6,367
4.00 2562.00 n/a 6,217 12,584
5.00 2563.00 n/a 7,184 19,768
6.00 2564.00 n/a 8,205 27,973
Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures
[A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D]
Rise (in)= 24.00 4.00 0.00 0.00
Span (in)= 24.00 4.00 0.00 0.00
No. Barrels = 1 100
Invert El. (ft)= 2558.00 2558.00 0.00 0.00
Length (ft)= 40.00 0.50 0.00 0.00
Slope (%)= 0.50 0.00 0.00 n/a
N-Value = .013 .013 .013 n/a
Orifice Coeff.= 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Multi-Stage = n/a Yes No No
Crest Len (ft)= 12.00 Inactive 0.00 0.00
Crest El. (ft)= 2562.50 2563.00 0.00 0.00
Weir Coeff.= 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33
Weir Type = 1 Ciplti --- ---
Multi-Stage = Yes NoNoNo
Exfil.(in/hr)= 0.000 (by Wet area)
TW Elev. (ft)= 0.00
Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet (ic) and outlet (oc) control. Weir risers checked for orifice conditions (ic) and submergence (s).
0.00 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 15.00 18.00 21.00 24.00 27.00 30.00 33.00 36.00
Stage (ft)
0.00 2558.00
1.00 2559.00
2.00 2560.00
3.00 2561.00
4.00 2562.00
5.00 2563.00
6.00 2564.00
Elev (ft)
Discharge (cfs)
Stage / Discharge
Total Q
Hydrograph Summary Report
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph
No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description
(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft)
1 SCS Runoff 21.72 2 718 50,138 ------ ------ ------ Watershed to Pond
2 Reservoir 11.99 2 726 50,128 1 2562.95 19,259 Sand Filter Routing
Longs Sand Filter Model.gpw Return Period: 10 Year Friday, 02 / 15 / 2019
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Friday, 02 / 15 / 2019
Hyd. No. 1
Watershed to Pond
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 21.72 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 11.97 hrs
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 50,138 cuft
Drainage area = 5.480 ac Curve number = 85*
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 7.50 min
Total precip. = 4.07 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
* Composite (Area/CN) = [(3.490 x 98) + (1.990 x 61)] / 5.480
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
4.00 4.00
8.00 8.00
12.00 12.00
16.00 16.00
20.00 20.00
24.00 24.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Watershed to Pond
Hyd. No. 1 -- 10 Year
Hyd No. 1
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Friday, 02 / 15 / 2019
Hyd. No. 2
Sand Filter Routing
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 11.99 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 12.10 hrs
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 50,128 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 1 - Watershed to Pond Max. Elevation = 2562.95 ft
Reservoir name = Sand Filter Max. Storage = 19,259 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
4.00 4.00
8.00 8.00
12.00 12.00
16.00 16.00
20.00 20.00
24.00 24.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Sand Filter Routing
Hyd. No. 2 -- 10 Year
Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 1 Total storage used = 19,259 cuft
Hydrograph Summary Report
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph
No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description
(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft)
1 SCS Runoff 35.76 2 718 84,275 ------ ------ ------ Watershed to Pond
2 Reservoir 29.94 2 722 84,265 1 2563.40 23,082 Sand Filter Routing
Longs Sand Filter Model.gpw Return Period: 100 Year Friday, 02 / 15 / 2019
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Friday, 02 / 15 / 2019
Hyd. No. 1
Watershed to Pond
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 35.76 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 11.97 hrs
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 84,275 cuft
Drainage area = 5.480 ac Curve number = 85*
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 7.50 min
Total precip. = 5.93 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
* Composite (Area/CN) = [(3.490 x 98) + (1.990 x 61)] / 5.480
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
10.00 10.00
20.00 20.00
30.00 30.00
40.00 40.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Watershed to Pond
Hyd. No. 1 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 1
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Friday, 02 / 15 / 2019
Hyd. No. 2
Sand Filter Routing
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 29.94 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 12.03 hrs
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 84,265 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 1 - Watershed to Pond Max. Elevation = 2563.40 ft
Reservoir name = Sand Filter Max. Storage = 23,082 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
10.00 10.00
20.00 20.00
30.00 30.00
40.00 40.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Sand Filter Routing
Hyd. No. 2 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 1 Total storage used = 23,082 cuft
Hydraflow Rainfall Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Friday, 02 / 15 / 2019
Return Intensity-Duration-Frequency Equation Coefficients (FHA)
Period
(Yrs) B D E (N/A)
1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --------
2 42.8812 10.2000 0.8066 --------
3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --------
5 43.5948 10.2000 0.7473 --------
10 45.8140 10.2000 0.7237 --------
25 50.8262 10.4000 0.7054 --------
50 54.5533 10.4000 0.6939 --------
100 58.7343 10.5000 0.6860 --------
File name: Clyde-NC.IDF
Intensity = B / (Tc + D)^E
Return Intensity Values (in/hr)
Period
(Yrs)5 min1015202530354045505560
1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 4.78 3.80 3.18 2.74 2.43 2.18 1.98 1.82 1.69 1.57 1.48 1.39
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 5.70 4.61 3.91 3.41 3.05 2.76 2.53 2.34 2.18 2.04 1.92 1.82
10 6.39 5.20 4.43 3.89 3.48 3.16 2.91 2.69 2.51 2.36 2.23 2.11
25 7.39 6.06 5.19 4.57 4.11 3.74 3.44 3.20 2.99 2.82 2.66 2.53
50 8.18 6.73 5.78 5.10 4.59 4.19 3.86 3.59 3.37 3.17 3.00 2.85
100 8.96 7.40 6.37 5.63 5.08 4.64 4.28 3.99 3.74 3.52 3.33 3.17
Tc = time in minutes. Values may exceed 60.
Rainfall Precipitation Table (in)
Precip. file name: C:\Users\rhyatt\Desktop\Clyde precip.pcp
Storm
Distribution 1-yr 2-yr 3-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr
SCS 24-hour 2.42 2.93 0.00 3.30 4.07 5.79 6.80 5.93
SCS 6-Hr 0.00 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Huff-1st 0.00 1.55 0.00 2.75 0.00 5.38 6.50 0.00
Huff-2nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Huff-3rd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Huff-4th 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Huff-Indy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Custom 0.00 1.75 0.00 2.80 0.00 5.25 6.00 0.00
Drainage Area Map:
Culverts, Ditches, and Diversions
2/22/2019 ECMDS 6.0
https://ecmds.com/project/138449/channel-analysis/153872/show 1/1
North American Green
5401 St. Wendel-Cynthiana Rd.
Poseyville, Indiana 47633
Tel. [phone]
>Fax [phone]
www.nagreen.com
ECMDS v6.0
CHANNEL ANALYSIS
> > > DS-3
Name DS-3
Discharge 11.03
Peak Flow Period 0.23
Channel Slope 0.04
Channel Bottom Width 2
Left Side Slope 2
Right Side Slope 2
Low Flow Liner
Retardence Class C 6-12 in
Vegetation Type Mix (Sod and Bunch)
Vegetation Density Good 75-95%
Soil Type Clay Loam
C125
Phase Reach Discharge Velocity Normal
Depth
Mannings N Permissable
Shear Stress
Calculated
Shear Stress
Safety
Factor
Remarks Staple
Pattern
C125
Unvegetated
Straight 11.03 cfs 6.95 ft/s 0.52 ft 0.022 2.25 lbs/ft2 1.3 lbs/ft2 1.73 STABLE D
Unreinforced Vegetation - Class C - Mix (Sod & Bunch) - Good 75-95%
Phase Reach Discharge Velocity Normal
Depth
Mannings N Permissable
Shear Stress
Calculated
Shear Stress
Safety
Factor
Remarks Staple
Pattern
Unreinforced
Vegetation
Straight 11.03 cfs 3.15 ft/s 0.91 ft 0.065 4.2 lbs/ft2 2.28 lbs/ft2 1.84 STABLE --
Underlying
Substrate
Straight 11.03 cfs 3.15 ft/s 0.91 ft --0.05 lbs/ft2 0.03 lbs/ft2 1.53 STABLE --
2/22/2019 ECMDS 6.0
https://ecmds.com/project/138449/channel-analysis/153863/show 1/1
North American Green
5401 St. Wendel-Cynthiana Rd.
Poseyville, Indiana 47633
Tel. [phone]
>Fax [phone]
www.nagreen.com
ECMDS v6.0
CHANNEL ANALYSIS
> > > DS-2
Name DS-2
Discharge 11.03
Peak Flow Period 0.23
Channel Slope 0.02
Channel Bottom Width 2
Left Side Slope 2
Right Side Slope 2
Low Flow Liner
Retardence Class C 6-12 in
Vegetation Type Mix (Sod and Bunch)
Vegetation Density Good 75-95%
Soil Type Clay Loam
C125
Phase Reach Discharge Velocity Normal
Depth
Mannings N Permissable
Shear Stress
Calculated
Shear Stress
Safety
Factor
Remarks Staple
Pattern
C125
Unvegetated
Straight 11.03 cfs 5.51 ft/s 0.62 ft 0.021 2.25 lbs/ft2 0.77 lbs/ft2 2.92 STABLE D
Unreinforced Vegetation - Class C - Mix (Sod & Bunch) - Good 75-95%
Phase Reach Discharge Velocity Normal
Depth
Mannings N Permissable
Shear Stress
Calculated
Shear Stress
Safety
Factor
Remarks Staple
Pattern
Unreinforced
Vegetation
Straight 11.03 cfs 2.33 ft/s 1.12 ft 0.07 4.2 lbs/ft2 1.4 lbs/ft2 3.01 STABLE --
Underlying
Substrate
Straight 11.03 cfs 2.33 ft/s 1.12 ft --0.05 lbs/ft2 0.02 lbs/ft2 2.85 STABLE --
Hydrology Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Jan 18 2019
AREA B
Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge (cfs) = 8.106
Storm frequency (yrs) = 10 Time interval (min) = 1
Drainage area (ac) = 5.810 Runoff coeff. (C) = 0.35
Rainfall Inten (in/hr) = 3.986 Tc by User (min) = 19
IDF Curve = Clyde-NC.IDF Rec limb factor = 1.00
Hydrograph Volume = 9,240 (cuft); 0.212 (acft)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
2.00 2.00
4.00 4.00
6.00 6.00
8.00 8.00
10.00 10.00
Q (cfs)
Time (min)
Runoff Hydrograph
10-yr frequency
Runoff Hyd - Qp = 8.11 (cfs)
TR55 Tc Worksheet
Hydraflow Express by Intelisolve
Rational
<Name>
Description A B C Totals
Sheet Flow
Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011
Flow length (ft)= 300.0 0.0 0.0
Two-year 24-hr precip. ((in))= 2.20 0.00 0.00
Land slope (%)= 15.00 0.00 0.00
Travel Time (min)=18.51 +0.00 +0.00 =18.51
Shallow Concentrated Flow
Flow length (ft)= 0.00 0.00 0.00
Watercourse slope (%)= 0.00 0.00 0.00
Surface description = Paved Paved Paved
Average velocity (ft/s)= 0.00 0.00 0.00
Travel Time (min)
=0.00 +0.00 +0.00 =0.00
Channel Flow
X sectional flow area ((sqft))= 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wetted perimeter ((ft))= 0.00 0.00 0.00
Channel slope (%)= 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015
Velocity (ft/s)= 0.00 0.00 0.00
Flow length (ft)= 0.0 0.0 0.0
Travel Time (min)=0 +0 +0 =0.00
Total Travel Time, Tc ..............................................................................19.00 min
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
2/19/2019 ECMDS 6.0
https://ecmds.com/project/138449/channel-analysis/153892/show 1/1
North American Green
5401 St. Wendel-Cynthiana Rd.
Poseyville, Indiana 47633
Tel. [phone]
>Fax [phone]
www.nagreen.com
ECMDS v6.0
CHANNEL ANALYSIS
> > > PD1
Name PD1
Discharge 8.1
Peak Flow Period 0.317
Channel Slope 0.015
Channel Bottom Width 4
Left Side Slope 2
Right Side Slope 2
Low Flow Liner
Retardence Class C 6-12 in
Vegetation Type Mix (Sod and Bunch)
Vegetation Density Good 75-95%
Soil Type Clay Loam
C125
Phase Reach Discharge Velocity Normal
Depth
Mannings N Permissable
Shear Stress
Calculated
Shear Stress
Safety
Factor
Remarks Staple
Pattern
C125
Unvegetated
Straight 8.1 cfs 4.05 ft/s 0.41 ft 0.022 2.25 lbs/ft2 0.39 lbs/ft2 5.8 STABLE D
Unreinforced Vegetation - Class C - Mix (Sod & Bunch) - Good 75-95%
Phase Reach Discharge Velocity Normal
Depth
Mannings N Permissable
Shear Stress
Calculated
Shear Stress
Safety
Factor
Remarks Staple
Pattern
Unreinforced
Vegetation
Straight 8.1 cfs 1.6 ft/s 0.88 ft 0.085 4.2 lbs/ft2 0.82 lbs/ft2 5.09 STABLE --
Underlying
Substrate
Straight 8.1 cfs 1.6 ft/s 0.88 ft --0.05 lbs/ft2 0.01 lbs/ft2 7.14 STABLE --
Hydrology Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Nov 28 2018
AREA C
Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge (cfs)= 1.701
Storm frequency (yrs)= 10 Time interval (min)= 1
Drainage area (ac)= 0.280 Runoff coeff. (C)= 0.95
Rainfall Inten (in/hr)= 6.393 Tc by User (min)= 5
IDF Curve = Clyde-NC.IDF Rec limb factor = 1.00
Hydrograph Volume = 510 (cuft); 0.012 (acft)
0 5 10
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
Q (cfs)
Time (min)
Runoff Hydrograph
10-yr frequency
Runoff Hyd - Qp = 1.70 (cfs)
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
Culvert Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Nov 28 2018
C-1
Invert Elev Dn (ft)= 2570.95
Pipe Length (ft)= 53.00
Slope (%)= 2.91
Invert Elev Up (ft)= 2572.49
Rise (in)= 15.0
Shape = Circular
Span (in)= 15.0
No. Barrels = 1
n-Value = 0.012
Culvert Type = Circular Concrete
Culvert Entrance = Square edge w/headwall (C)
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.0098, 2, 0.0398, 0.67, 0.5
Embankment
Top Elevation (ft)= 2575.00
Top Width (ft)= 48.00
Crest Width (ft)= 0.00
Calculations
Qmin (cfs)= 0.00
Qmax (cfs)= 1.80
Tailwater Elev (ft)= (dc+D)/2
Highlighted
Qtotal (cfs)= 1.70
Qpipe (cfs)= 1.70
Qovertop (cfs)= 0.00
Veloc Dn (ft/s)= 1.83
Veloc Up (ft/s)= 3.55
HGL Dn (ft)= 2571.83
HGL Up (ft)= 2573.01
Hw Elev (ft)= 2573.20
Hw/D (ft)= 0.57
Flow Regime = Inlet Control
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Nov 28 2018
DS-1
Trapezoidal
Bottom Width (ft)= 2.00
Side Slopes (z:1)= 2.00, 2.00
Total Depth (ft)= 0.50
Invert Elev (ft)= 2564.00
Slope (%)= 3.00
N-Value = 0.025
Calculations
Compute by:Known Q
Known Q (cfs)= 1.70
Highlighted
Depth (ft)= 0.22
Q (cfs)= 1.700
Area (sqft)= 0.54
Velocity (ft/s)= 3.17
Wetted Perim (ft)= 2.98
Crit Depth, Yc (ft)= 0.26
Top Width (ft)= 2.88
EGL (ft)= 0.38
0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
2563.75 -0.25
2564.00 0.00
2564.25 0.25
2564.50 0.50
2564.75 0.75
2565.00 1.00
Reach (ft)
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
2/19/2019 ECMDS 6.0
https://ecmds.com/project/138449/channel-analysis/153859/show 1/1
North American Green
5401 St. Wendel-Cynthiana Rd.
Poseyville, Indiana 47633
Tel. [phone]
>Fax [phone]
www.nagreen.com
ECMDS v6.0
CHANNEL ANALYSIS
> > > DS-1
Name DS-1
Discharge 1.7
Peak Flow Period 0.083
Channel Slope 0.03
Channel Bottom Width 2
Left Side Slope 2
Right Side Slope 2
Low Flow Liner
Retardence Class C 6-12 in
Vegetation Type Mix (Sod and Bunch)
Vegetation Density Good 75-95%
Soil Type Clay Loam
C125
Phase Reach Discharge Velocity Normal
Depth
Mannings N Permissable
Shear Stress
Calculated
Shear Stress
Safety
Factor
Remarks Staple
Pattern
C125
Unvegetated
Straight 1.7 cfs 3.54 ft/s 0.2 ft 0.022 2.25 lbs/ft2 0.38 lbs/ft2 6 STABLE D
Unreinforced Vegetation - Class C - Mix (Sod & Bunch) - Good 75-95%
Phase Reach Discharge Velocity Normal
Depth
Mannings N Permissable
Shear Stress
Calculated
Shear Stress
Safety
Factor
Remarks Staple
Pattern
Unreinforced
Vegetation
Straight 1.7 cfs 1 ft/s 0.55 ft 0.135 4.2 lbs/ft2 1.03 lbs/ft2 4.1 STABLE --
Underlying
Substrate
Straight 1.7 cfs 1 ft/s 0.55 ft --0.05 lbs/ft2 0 lbs/ft2 14.57 STABLE --
User Input Data
Calculated Value
Reference Data
Designed By:RDH Date:2/19/2019
Checked By:Date:
Company:Wade Trim
Project Name:Longs Chapel
Project No.:LCU2001-02A
Site Location (City/Town)Clyde, NC
Culvert Id.Outlet-1
Total Drainage Area (acres)8
Rational Method for Flow
Outlet pipe diameter, Do (in.)24
Tailwater depth (in.) 24
Minimum/Maximum tailwater? Max TW (Fig. 8.06b)
Discharge (cfs)12.39
Velocity (ft./s)3.95
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Figure 8.06a Figure 8.06b
Riprap d50, (ft.)0.5
Minimum apron length, La (ft.)10
Apron width at pipe outlet (ft.) 6 6
Apron shape
Apron width at outlet end (ft.) 2 6
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Max Stone Diameter, dmax (ft.) 0 0.75
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Apron Thickness(ft.) 0 1.125
User Input Data
Calculated Value
Reference Data
Designed By:RDH Date:2/19/2019
Checked By:Date:
Company:Wade Trim
Project Name:Longs Chapel
Project No.:LCU2001-02A
Site Location (City/Town)Clyde, NC
Culvert Id.Outlet-2
Total Drainage Area (acres)8
Rational Method for Flow
Outlet pipe diameter, Do (in.)30
Tailwater depth (in.) 30
Minimum/Maximum tailwater? Max TW (Fig. 8.06b)
Discharge (cfs)20.31
Velocity (ft./s)4.14
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Figure 8.06a Figure 8.06b
Riprap d50, (ft.)0.5
Minimum apron length, La (ft.)10
Apron width at pipe outlet (ft.) 7.5 7.5
Apron shape
Apron width at outlet end (ft.) 2.5 6.5
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Max Stone Diameter, dmax (ft.) 0 0.75
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Apron Thickness(ft.) 0 1.125
User Input Data
Calculated Value
Reference Data
Designed By:RDH Date:2/19/2019
Checked By:Date:
Company:Wade Trim
Project Name:Longs Chapel
Project No.:LCU2001-02A
Site Location (City/Town)Clyde, NC
Culvert Id.Outlet-3
Total Drainage Area (acres)8
Rational Method for Flow
Outlet pipe diameter, Do (in.)18
Tailwater depth (in.) 18
Minimum/Maximum tailwater? Max TW (Fig. 8.06b)
Discharge (cfs)8.11
Velocity (ft./s)4.14
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Figure 8.06a Figure 8.06b
Riprap d50, (ft.)0.5
Minimum apron length, La (ft.)10
Apron width at pipe outlet (ft.) 4.5 4.5
Apron shape
Apron width at outlet end (ft.) 1.5 5.5
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Max Stone Diameter, dmax (ft.) 0 0.75
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Apron Thickness(ft.) 0 1.125
Okay
1.79 Disturbed Area (Acres)
6.34 Peak Flow from 10-year Storm (cfs)
3222 Required Volume ft3
2061 Required Surface Area ft2
32.1 Suggested Width ft
64.2 Suggested Length ft
80 Trial Top Width at Spillway Invert ft
30 Trial Top Length at Spillway Invert ft
2 Trial Side Slope Ratio Z:1
2 Trial Depth ft (2 to 3.5 feet above grade)
72 Bottom Width ft
22 Bottom Length ft
1584 Bottom Area ft2
3963 Actual Volume ft3 Okay
2400 Actual Surface Area ft2 Okay
10 Trial Weir Length ft
0.5 Trial Depth of Flow ft
10.6 Spillway Capacity cfs Okay
1.5 Skimmer Size (inches) Skimmer Size
0.125 Head on Skimmer (feet) (Inches)
1.25 Orifice Size (1/4 inch increments) 1.5
2.52 Dewatering Time (days) 2
Suggest about 3 days 2.5
3
4
5
6
8
Skimmer Basin-1
Okay
5.48 Disturbed Area (Acres)
19.4 Peak Flow from 10-year Storm (cfs)
9864 Required Volume ft3
6305 Required Surface Area ft2
56.1 Suggested Width ft
112.3 Suggested Length ft
120 Trial Top Width at Spillway Invert ft
60 Trial Top Length at Spillway Invert ft
2 Trial Side Slope Ratio Z:1
2 Trial Depth ft (2 to 3.5 feet above grade)
112 Bottom Width ft
52 Bottom Length ft
5824 Bottom Area ft2
13003 Actual Volume ft3 Okay
7200 Actual Surface Area ft2 Okay
12 Trial Weir Length ft
0.75 Trial Depth of Flow ft
23.4 Spillway Capacity cfs Okay
3 Skimmer Size (inches) Skimmer Size
0.25 Head on Skimmer (feet) (Inches)
1.75 Orifice Size (1/4 inch increments) 1.5
2.79 Dewatering Time (days) 2
Suggest about 3 days 2.5
3
4
5
6
8
Skimmer Basin-2
BLEINC.
Geotechnical Exploration Report May 10, 2017
Long’s Chapel – Lake Junaluska, NC BLE Project No. J17-11341-01
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
AUTHORIZATION ................................................................................................................................... 3
SCOPE OF EXPLORATION.................................................................................................................... 3
PROJECT INFORMATION..................................................................................................................... 3
SITE GEOLOGY........................................................................................................................................ 4
SITE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................. 4
SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................... 5
SURFACE MATERIALS ............................................................................................................................... 5
EXISTING FILL ........................................................................................................................................... 5
RESIDUUM ................................................................................................................................................. 5
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 5
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 6
ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 6
FOUNDATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 6
ADJACENT BUILDING CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................................... 7
SUBSURFACE WALLS AND LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE ........................................................................... 8
GRADE SLABS ......................................................................................................................................... 10
PAVEMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 10
SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION ............................................................................................................... 12
CUT AND FILL SLOPES............................................................................................................................. 12
SECONDARY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................. 13
CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................ 13
CLEARING,GRUBBING,AND STRIPPING.................................................................................................. 13
EXCAVATION ........................................................................................................................................... 13
CONSTRUCTION GROUNDWATER CONTROL ........................................................................................... 13
PROOFROLLING ....................................................................................................................................... 14
SUBGRADE STABILIZATION ..................................................................................................................... 14
STRUCTURAL FILL ................................................................................................................................... 14
SEDIMENT BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 15
SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW................................................................................................................. 16
LIMITATIONS......................................................................................................................................... 16
APPENDIX................................................................................................................................................ 17
FIGURE 1 –PHOTO OF EAST BREEZEWAY ............................................................................................... 17
FIGURE 2 -BORING LOCATION PLAN ...................................................................................................... 17
BORING LOGS (B-1 TO B-10) .................................................................................................................. 17
FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES ........................................................................................................ 17
KEY TO SOIL SYMBOLS AND CLASSIFICATION ....................................................................................... 17
BLEINC.
Geotechnical Exploration Report May 10, 2017
Long’s Chapel – Lake Junaluska, NC BLE Project No. J17-11341-01
3
AUTHORIZATION
A geotechnical exploration for the proposed Long’s Chapel addition was performed generally as
described in Bunnell-Lammons Engineering (BLE) Proposal No. P17-0224 Revision 2 dated March 21,
2017. The exploration was authorized by the signature of Mr. Torry Pinter, dated March 22, 2017 on
our proposal acceptance sheet.
SCOPE OF EXPLORATION
This report details the findings of the geotechnical exploration performed for the proposed Long’s
Chapel addition located at 133 Old Clyde Road in Lake Junaluska, North Carolina. The intent of this
exploration was to evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site and provide
geotechnical recommendations for site preparation, foundations, floor slabs, subsurface walls and
asphalt pavements. We have also included a discussion of secondary design considerations and
provided geotechnical related construction recommendations.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project information was initially obtained from a March 14, 2017 email from Mr. R. Daniel Hyatt,
PLA, ASLA with Wade Trim, which included a concept site plan with proposed boring locations. We
obtained additional project information from a review of current and historical aerial photography as
well as phone conversations with Mr. Torry Pinter.
Long’s Chapel United Methodist Church is currently planning the construction of a new building
addition in Lake Junaluska, North Carolina. The provided concept site plan indicates a building
addition to the east of the existing facility. We understand that west end of the proposed building will
consist of a basement that will extend approximately 30 to 40 feet west of the existing basement
building. The type of construction, building type and building loads are unknown at the time this
report was written. We assume the structure’s column loads will not exceed 50 kips and the
continuous wall loads will not exceed 2 kips per linear foot. Detailed site development information
had not been developed at the time this report was written. We also understand that there are tentative
plans for an underground stormwater management system. Detailed plans for the stormwater
management system had not been developed at the time this report was written.
According to the concept site plan there exists roughly 15 feet of relief across the proposed building area.
Anticipated cuts and fill depths are less than 15 feet. We understand the most recent church construction,
located west of the proposed addition was constructed after April 1998.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The site was explored by drilling 10 soil test borings (ASTM D 1586) at the approximate locations
shown on the attached Figure 2 - Boring Location Plan. The borings were located in the field by BLE
based on the provided concept site plan using site features as visible on publicly available aerial
imagery, and a handheld GPS unit capable of 3 to 5 meter accuracy. The boring locations were
referenced from the provided site concept plan. The ground surface elevations at the boring locations
BLEINC.
Geotechnical Exploration Report May 10, 2017
Long’s Chapel – Lake Junaluska, NC BLE Project No. J17-11341-01
4
were interpolated from the elevations obtained from current NCDOT LiDAR data. Boring Logs are
presented in the Appendix of this report. The boring locations on the Boring Location Plan and
elevations shown on the boring logs have not been surveyed, and should be considered approximate.
A description of our field procedures is also included in the Appendix.
SITE GEOLOGY
The project site is located in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province, an area underlain by ancient
igneous and metamorphic rocks. The virgin soils encountered in this area are the residual product of
in-place chemical weathering of the rock. In areas not altered by erosion, previous construction or
other activities of man, the typical residual soil profile consists of clayey and silty soils near the
surface where soil weathering is more advanced. The near surface clayey and silty soils are typically
underlain by sandy silts and silty sands.
The boundary between soil and rock is not sharply defined. This transitional zone is termed partially
weathered rock (PWR) and is normally found overlying the parent bedrock. For engineering purposes,
partially weathered rock is defined as residual material with a standard penetration resistance in excess
of 100 blows per foot, or 50 blows per 6 inches. Weathering is facilitated by fractures, joints, and the
presence of less resistant rock types. As a result, the profile of the partially weathered rock and hard
rock is quite irregular and erratic, even over short horizontal distances. Also, it is not unusual to find
lenses and boulders of hard rock and zones of partially weathered rock within the soil mantle, well
above the general bedrock level.
The upper soils along drainage features and in flood plain areas are generally water-deposited
(alluvial) materials that have been deposited by floods over geologic time or eroded and washed down
from adjacent higher ground. Alluvial soils are usually soft and compressible, having never been
consolidated by pressures in excess of their present overburden.
SITE CONDITIONS
Site conditions were observed by Mr. King Williams during a site reconnaissance. The property is
currently Long’s Chapel United Methodist Church with a separate office building, mobile classroom
building and associated asphalt parking and driveways. The existing structure is a two-story church with a
basement below. The building has a brick exterior and is presumably supported on a shallow concrete
foundation system. Structural distress was observed at the church’s east breezeway. We assume that
the subsurface soils below the breezeway are backfilled soils that had been placed behind the basement
wall during construction. We observed that the south side of the breezeway had settled approximately 2
to 4 inches lower than the north side of breezeway. See attached photo of breezeway (Figure 1).
Northeast of the main church building is a separate office building. The office is a single-story
building with a basement. North of the church is a mobile classroom building. The ground cover
consists of asphalt pavement along with crushed stone and maintained grass with a small stand of trees
on the northwestern end of the property. The topography of the site and surrounding area generally
BLEINC.
Geotechnical Exploration Report May 10, 2017
Long’s Chapel – Lake Junaluska, NC BLE Project No. J17-11341-01
5
appears to be sloping down gradually from the northeast toward the southwest edge of the property. The
site is bordered to the south by Old Clyde Road. North, east and west of the site is a partially wooded
residential area. According to the Haywood County GIS, the subject site consists of 5 parcels totaling
13.8 acres. There were no apparent groundwater springs or ponded water observed on the site during our
site visit.
SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS
The descriptions below provide a general summary of the subsurface conditions encountered. The
Boring Logs included in the appendix contain detailed information recorded at each boring location. The
Boring Logs represent our interpretation of the field logs based on engineering examination of the field
samples. The lines designating the interfaces between various strata represent approximate boundaries
and the transition between strata may be gradual. It should be noted that the soil conditions will vary
between boring locations.
Surface Materials
In the areas explored by borings, the surface conditions at borings B-2 through B-7 consisted of an
asphalt surface that varied in thickness from 3 to 4 inches underlain by 2 to 3 inches of crushed stone.
A layer of grass and organic-laden topsoil was encountered in borings B-1, B-8, B-9 and B-10 with
depths of approximately 3 inches.
Existing Fill
Soil interpreted as fill soil was encountered in eight borings (B-1, B-4, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-8, B-9 and B-10)
to depths ranging from 0 to 8 feet.No information regarding the past grading work has been provided to
BLE at the time of reporting. No compaction test data or field records of fill placement were available for
our review at the time this report was prepared. The fill generally consisted of a sandy silt. Borings B-5,
B-7, B-8 and B-9 encountered topsoil and trace organics intermixed with the fill. SPT blow counts in the
fill ranged from 7 to 34 blows per foot (bpf), indicating some degree of compaction was applied during
grading. It should be noted that the content and quality of man-made fills can vary significantly.
Residuum
Residual soil, or residuum, was encountered in all the borings below the surface materials and existing
fill, where encountered. Residuum is soil that has weathered in place from the underlying parent
bedrock. The residuum typically consisted of sandy silt and clayey sandy silt. SPT blow counts in the
residuum ranged from 6 to 27 bpf, indicating a firm to very stiff consistency for the sandy silts. All
ten borings were terminated in residuum at a depth of 20 feet below the ground surface.
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was encountered in two (2) borings (B-7 and B-8) at the time of drilling at depths
ranging from 17 to 18 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater elevations at about 24 hours after
drilling were 7.05 feet below the ground surface for boring B-7 and 7.8 feet below the ground surface for
BLEINC.
Geotechnical Exploration Report May 10, 2017
Long’s Chapel – Lake Junaluska, NC BLE Project No. J17-11341-01
6
boring B-8, or at approximate 24-hour elevations ranging from 2569 to 2574 feet. It should be noted that
groundwater levels may fluctuate several feet with seasonal and rainfall variations and with changes in
the water level in nearby drainage features. Normally, the highest groundwater levels occur in late
winter and spring and the lowest levels occur in late summer and fall. According to Mr. Torry Pinter, a
French drain had been constructed in the area of boring B-7 and B-8 in attempts to stabilize the parking
lot subgrade in this area.
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Assessment
Based on the boring data collected to date, the near surface soils generally consist of moderate
consistency fill and residual soils. Occasional topsoil was encountered in the fill within the depths of
interest. It is anticipated that site grading can generally be accomplished using conventional
construction approaches and standard building practices. Assuming building loads do not exceed that
described above, it is generally anticipated that the encountered conditions will generally be conducive
to the use of shallow foundations and slabs-on-grade, provided they are supported in firm or better
residual soils, evaluated and approved existing fill, or new well compacted fill, and that the settlement
estimates outlined below are acceptable. However, it is possible that these borings may not fully
represent the conditions across the entire site. Since the site was previously developed, unexpected
conditions, such as buried debris, loose/soft fill soils and abandoned utilities are likely present between
the boring locations. Some areas may be encountered during construction that will require
undercutting and replacement and/or subgrade stabilization due to presence of soft, wet, or otherwise
unsuitable soils near the surface.
Though not encountered during exploration, it is thought that the structural distress observed in the
east breezeway of the church may be the result of settlement of the backfill placed along the existing
basement wall. As such, some remediation may be required along the east side of church where the
new construction connects. Remediation required in these areas may include removal and replacement
of some of the existing basement wall backfill. Conditioning of soils, such as moisture modification,
may be required if the re-use of existing soils is planned. This can be more closely evaluated after
demolition in the area is completed.
Foundations
It is anticipated that the new structure could be supported on shallow foundations bearing in evaluated
and approved fill and/or residual soils, provided the maximum column loads do not exceed 50 kips
and that the provisions provided below are followed. Provided this is accomplished, the foundations
may be sized for a uniform allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, subject to the criteria and site
preparation recommendations in this report.
Foundation excavations will need to be observed and evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical
engineer during construction to help determine if unsuitable soils are present at or near the bottom of
the foundation excavations. This should include evaluating the bearing soils with a probe rod and by
BLEINC.
Geotechnical Exploration Report May 10, 2017
Long’s Chapel – Lake Junaluska, NC BLE Project No. J17-11341-01
7
dynamic cone penetrometer tests performed by an experienced engineering technician working under the
direction of the geotechnical engineer. If this final evaluation indicates the presence of soft soils, poorly
compacted fill, or otherwise unsuitable bearing conditions, then some additional undercutting and
replacement or other corrective measures will be required.
Foundations bearing in evaluated and approved residual soils or well-compacted structural fill may be
sized for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). We anticipate total and
differential settlements between similarly loaded foundations to be about 1 inch and 3/4 inch,
respectively. Satisfactory performance of the shallow foundations is subject to the criteria and site
preparation recommendations contained in this report.
We recommend that the minimum widths for individual column and continuous wall footings be 24 and
18 inches, respectively. The minimum widths will provide a margin of safety against a local or punching
shear failure of the foundation soils. Footings should bear at least 30 inches below final grade to provide
frost protection and protective embedment. We recommend that walls be provided with movement
joints to accommodate some possible differential settlement. We recommend that bearing elevations in
sloping areas be selected such that the footings have at least 10 feet of soil cover measured
horizontally to the slope face. This may result in the footings bearing deeper than the recommended
minimum frost embedment depth to provide 10 feet horizontally from a slope face.
Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the footing bearing level if the foundation
excavations remain open for long periods of time. Therefore, we recommend that once each footing
excavation is extended to final grade, the footing be constructed as soon as possible to minimize the
potential damage to bearing soils. The foundation bearing area should be level or benched and free of
loose soil, ponded water and debris. Foundation concrete should not be placed on soils that have been
disturbed by seepage. If the bearing soils are softened by surface water intrusion or exposure, the
softened soils must be removed from the foundation excavation bottom prior to placement of concrete.
If the excavation must remain open overnight or if rainfall becomes imminent while the bearing soils are
exposed, we recommend that a 2 to 4-inch thick "mud-mat" of "lean" (2,000 psi) concrete be placed on
the bearing soils for protection before the placement of reinforcing steel.
Adjacent Building Considerations
The proposed building is understood to be independent of the existing adjacent Long’s Chapel
building. If the proposed building is within the foundation influence zone, care must be taken not to
surcharge the existing foundation. The project structural engineer must be aware of the existing
Long’s Chapel foundation system and the effects the proposed building and any new fill soil will have
on the existing foundation. The excavation or fill for the proposed building must not undermine or
surcharge the existing footings and floor slabs or otherwise compromise existing support of the
existing buildings.
The foundations for the addition are recommended to extend to the same elevation as the existing
foundations otherwise, the structural engineer should evaluate the stresses to be imposed on the lower
BLEINC.
Geotechnical Exploration Report May 10, 2017
Long’s Chapel – Lake Junaluska, NC BLE Project No. J17-11341-01
8
foundation system to make sure that the structural integrity of the building is not affected. Any
parallel foundations should be placed at a minimum distance between the edges of the footings of at
least 1.5 footing widths (whichever is larger, either existing or new) to help reduce the additional
stress imposed on the lower foundations, unless it is found that the over-lapping structural load stress
imposed by the existing and new foundations are within acceptable limits for the existing soil. Where
parallel foundations are wider than 4 feet apart, their different elevations should not place them within
a 45-degree envelope extending upward and downward from the outside edges of the existing
foundations. An expansion joint is recommended to be placed at the juncture of the existing building
and the addition since some differential movement is expected to occur at this point.
It is expected additional load will not be added to the existing building foundations. Additional load
added to the existing footings will result in some additional settlement. This may be relatively minor,
if the final structural loads are within the allowable supporting soil bearing capacity, but may result in
cosmetic cracking of existing sensitive finishes.
When the actual existing and proposed building foundation systems and depths can be confirmed, we
should be contacted to evaluate whether the recommended system needs to be altered to accommodate
the existing system accordingly. It is also recommended that a representative of our firm be present
on-site during the foundation and floor slab construction so that proper foundation and floor slab
support is developed with limited effect to the existing structure.
Care must be taken so that excavations for the addition do not undermine existing footings and floor
slabs or otherwise compromise existing structure support. Shoring or temporary bracing may be
needed. If voids occur below existing footings or floor slabs, it is recommended that these voids be
immediately filled by a concrete dry pack or injection of a non-shrink expansive sand and cement
slurry under appropriate pressure to re-establish contact with the underlying soil/bedrock.
Subsurface Walls and Lateral Earth Pressure
Below grade walls must be capable of resisting the lateral earth pressures that will be imposed on them.
Walls which will be permitted to rotate at the top, such as retaining walls not part of the structure, may
be designed to resist the active earth pressure. The active earth pressure coefficient is designated as Ka.
Typically, a top rotation of about 1 inch per 10 feet height of wall is sufficient to develop active pressure
conditions in soils similar to those encountered at the site. Walls which will be prevented from rotating,
such as basement walls that will be brace against the floor framing should be designed to resist the at-rest
lateral earth pressure. The at-rest earth pressure coefficient is designated as Ko. The passive earth
pressure may be considered as the pressure exerted on the side of a foundation which aids in resisting
sliding of the foundation. The passive earth pressure coefficient is designated as Kp. Caution should be
exercised in relying on passive earth pressure, since any excavation made in front of the wall footing
could remove the soils providing the passive resistance. Friction resistance along the base of the
foundation is used to resist sliding. The coefficient of frictional resistance is designated as fs.
BLEINC.
Geotechnical Exploration Report May 10, 2017
Long’s Chapel – Lake Junaluska, NC BLE Project No. J17-11341-01
9
Table 1 provides a summary of the recommended earth pressure coefficients to be used in design. Also
included are the associated shear strengths for the soils and unit weights that may be used in the design.
These values are based on our experience and testing of reasonably similar soils on other projects. The
values presented in the following table assume the ground surface is level. Sloping backfill (or sloping
soil surfaces in front of a footing when considering passive resistance) will greatly influence the earth
pressure coefficients. BLE should be consulted concerning applicable earth pressure coefficients where
sloping soil surfaces may be present.
The compacted mass unit weight of the backfill soil presented in the previous table should be used with
the earth pressure coefficients to calculate lateral earth pressures. Lateral pressure arising from surcharge
loading, earthquake loading, and ground water should be added to the above soil earth pressures to
determine the total lateral pressures which the walls must resist. In addition, transient loads imposed on
the walls by construction equipment during backfilling should be taken into consideration during design
and construction. Excessively heavy grading equipment should not be allowed within about 5 feet
horizontally of the walls.
Table 1 –Lateral Earth Pressures
Backfill
Material
Description
Soil Parameters Earth Pressure Coefficients1
At Rest Active Passive2
Total Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion
c’
(psf)
Angle of
Internal
Friction,F’
(degrees)
Ko γ eq
(pcf)Ka γ eq
(pcf)Kp γ eq
(pcf)
On-site
silty sand /
sandy silt
125 0 30 0.50 63 0.33 41 3.0 188
Clean
Washed
Stone (#57)
115 0 40 0.40 46 0.25 30 4.6 265
Notes:1 provided values are for level backfill only. Sloping backfill with create much higher pressures.
2 we recommend a factor of safety of 2 be used with the passive earth pressure coefficients.
We recommend that positive, unblocked gravity drainage be provided for all basement walls and
retaining walls. A perforated, rigid conduit within free draining crushed stone backfill at the base of
the wall can be used to help provide the drainage required. A layer of nonwoven geotextile filter
fabric should wrap entirely around the crushed stone backfill to prevent migration of soil and clogging
of the drainage material. Perforated pipes with geotextile socks should not be used due to their
tendency to clog.
Friction factors for calculation of interface friction or sliding resistance between concrete structures and
soil or rock materials are shown in Table 2 below. The interface friction is sometimes characterized and
BLEINC.
Geotechnical Exploration Report May 10, 2017
Long’s Chapel – Lake Junaluska, NC BLE Project No. J17-11341-01
10
used in design in the form of an interface friction angle, δ, with the relationship between these given by f
= tan δ .
Table 2 – Soil-Structure Interface Ultimate Friction Factors
Soil Type at Structure
Structural Material
Concrete Cast in
Place against
material
Concrete cast in forms
or Precast
Washed crushed stone (#57) 0.6 0.5
Silty sand or sandy silt soil 0.3 0.25
Notes: after NAVFAC DM 7.2, Ch. 3, Table 1
Retaining walls with downward sloping toe slopes below them will likely be controlled by a global
stability analysis. BLE can perform site retaining wall design and/or global stability evaluation once
this design is refined, if needed.
Grade Slabs
Grade slabs may be soil supported assuming that the site is prepared in accordance with the
recommendations in this report. A minimum 6-inch thick layer of aggregate base course stone should
be placed immediately beneath the grade slab to provide a capillary barrier and to increase the load
distribution capabilities. We recommend that a modulus of subgrade reaction value of 110 psi/inch or
less be used for design of the grade slabs. Completed slabs should be protected from excessive surface
moisture prior to and during periods of prolonged below-freezing temperatures to prevent subgrade
freezing and resulting heave. An appropriate vapor barrier should be incorporated in the grade slab
design, as determined by others.
Pavement
A site specific pavement design requires detailed information about projected traffic frequency and
intensity, acceptable service limits, life expectancy and other factors which are not currently available. It
also requires site specific laboratory testing which was not part of the scope of this exploration.
However, presented below are recommended pavement sections based on our experience on similar
projects in this region. These pavement sections have demonstrated acceptable performance with
subsurface conditions similar to this site.Provided the site is prepared in accordance with the
recommendations of this report, the pavement sections presented below could be expected to provide
adequate performance considering a 15 to 20 year service life.
BLEINC.
Geotechnical Exploration Report May 10, 2017
Long’s Chapel – Lake Junaluska, NC BLE Project No. J17-11341-01
11
PAVEMENT
TYPE
LAYERS MATERIAL THICKNESS
(INCHES)
Light-Duty Medium
Duty
Flexible a. Asphaltic concrete surface course 2 ½ 3 ½
b. Aggregate base course 8 8
Rigid a. Concrete 6 6
Asphalt pavement materials and workmanship should conform to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT)Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures, 2012 edition. Surface
course asphaltic concrete should typically consist of Type S 9.5A or S 9.5B Superpave mixture.
Intermediate course asphaltic concrete should typically be Type I 19.0B Superpave mixture. The base
course material should be Aggregate Base Course conforming to NCDOT Standard Specifications,
Section 520, for Type B aggregate. The base course should be compacted to 100 percent of the modified
Proctor (ASTM D-1557) maximum dry density. A prime coat (NCDOT Standard Specification, Item
600) is recommended to be applied to the base course prior to construction of the asphalt surface course.
Rigid pavements should meet all requirements of Section 501 of the NCDOT specifications. The
concrete for rigid pavement should be air-entrained and have a minimum flexural strength (third point
loading) of 550 psi which could likely be achieved by a concrete mix having a compressive strength of at
least 4,000 psi at 28 days. In addition, we recommend a maximum slump of 4 inches. Recommended
air contents from the Portland Cement Association (PCA) are as follows:
Maximum Aggregate Size Percent Air
1½ inches 5 percent plus or minus 1½ percent
¾ to 1 inch 6 percent plus or minus 1½ percent
Joint spacing for this concrete thickness should be on the order of 12 to 15 feet. Control joints should be
sawed as soon as the cut can be made, without raveling (aggregate pulling out of the concrete matrix) or
cracks forming ahead of the saw blade. Joints should be sawed consecutively to ensure all commence
working together. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
suggests that transverse contraction joints should be one quarter of the slab thickness and longitudinal
joints should be one third of the slab thickness. All joints should be filled with flexible joint filler.
Concrete pavements should be underlain by a 4 to 6 inch thick layer of aggregate base course. The base
course material should be Aggregate Base Course conforming to NCDOT Standard Specifications, and
compacted to 100 percent of the modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557) maximum dry density.
Curing of the concrete slab should begin as soon as the slab has been finished and the joints sawed.
Moist curing by fog spray nozzles or wet burlap is the most dependable curing procedure. Other
methods of curing could consist of spray applied curing compounds or covering the slab with waterproof
BLEINC.
Geotechnical Exploration Report May 10, 2017
Long’s Chapel – Lake Junaluska, NC BLE Project No. J17-11341-01
12
paper or heavy plastic. If paper or plastic is used for curing, the edges of the cover should be anchored
and joints between sheets should be taped or sealed.
Related civil design factors such as subgrade drainage, shoulder support, cross-sectional configurations,
surface elevations, and environmental factors which will significantly affect the service life must be
included in the preparation of the construction drawings and specifications. Normal periodic
maintenance will be required.
Seismic Site Classification
Based on the definitions provided in the 2012 North Carolina Building Code which references the 2009
International Building Code, the soil boring data, our experience in this area and an assumed finished
floor elevation of 2570, we recommend a seismic classification of "D" be used during structural design
of the building.
Cut and Fill Slopes
Based on our understanding of the limited project information at the time of reporting and our site
reconnaissance, the following ratios (horizontal : vertical) are recommended for slopes without
surcharge at the top. Please note these are provided for slopes less than 15 feet in height.
Type of Material Temporary Slopes
(Horizontal : Vertical)
Permanent Slopes
(Horizontal : Vertical)
Engineered Fill 1.5:1 2.0:1 or flatter
Residual Soil (cut) 1:1 1.5:1 or flatter
Partially Weathered Rock (cut) 0.5:1 1.5:1
Permanent slopes of 3:1 or flatter would be desirable for mowing. Slope stability analyses and
evaluation should be performed on slopes higher than 15 feet. Such analyses are beyond the scope of
the services associated with preparation of this preliminary report.
We recommend that the edge of the top of compacted fill slopes extend horizontally beyond the
outside edge of the building foundation at least 10 feet or a distance equivalent to the height of fill,
whichever is greater, before sloping. The outer edge of structural fill should also extend at least 5 feet
beyond paved areas before sloping. Fill slopes should be adequately compacted in accordance with
the recommendations of this report. Fill material should be constructed in horizontal stages starting at
the base. Prior to each stage of fill placement, the sloped area should be benched into the existing
soils with a level pad. The level pad will allow for better compaction of the fill materials. The
resulting series of level benches will also serve to break the potential slip plane between the
compacted fill layers.
BLEINC.
Geotechnical Exploration Report May 10, 2017
Long’s Chapel – Lake Junaluska, NC BLE Project No. J17-11341-01
13
Secondary Design Considerations
The following items are presented for your consideration. These items are known to generally
enhance performance of structural and pavement systems.
Roof drainage should be collected by a system of gutters and downspouts and directed away from
all structures.
Sidewalks should be sloped so that water drains away from the structures.
Site grading and paving should result in positive drainage away from the structures. Water should
not be allowed to pond around the structures or in such locations that would lead to saturation of
pavement subgrade materials. A minimum slope of approximately ¼ to ½-inch per foot should
provide adequate drainage.
Backfill for utility lines should be placed at the same density as surrounding material to minimize
the potential for differential settlement.
CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Clearing, Grubbing, and Stripping
Existing topsoil and other plant growth, disturbed soils and surface soils containing organic matter or
other deleterious materials should be stripped from within the proposed building and paved areas as
well as areas to receive fill. Topsoil and organic soils may be stockpiled for later use in areas to be
landscaped. Stumps, debris, rubble and other deleterious material should be disposed of offsite or in
areas of the site that will not be developed. Demolition of the existing structures required for
construction of the subject project should include the removal of all asphalt paving, existing grade
slabs and shallow foundations. Any abandoned utilities should be removed or grouted full.
Excavation
Site grading will require excavation of predominantly moderate consistency fill and residual soils.
Based on the borings and our experience, this material should be excavatable using conventional
earthmoving equipment. Although we do not expect there will be extensive excavation difficulty
within the project footprint, dense residual soil and/or zones of partially weathered rock may exist
between the boring locations within the soil mantle. It should be noted these materials can vary
erratically across the site in regard to depth, consistency, and bedding.
Confined excavations such as for utility installation or below-grade wall construction should conform
to OSHA regulations. All excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state, and
federal regulations, including OSHA (29 CFR Part 1926) excavation trench safety standards. The
contractor is solely responsible for site safety.
Construction Groundwater Control
Groundwater was encountered in two (2) borings (B-7 and B-8) at the time of drilling at depths
ranging from 18 to 17 feet respectively below the ground surface and from 7.05 to 7.8 feet respectively
below the ground surface at 24 hours after drilling. Excavations for deep utilities (if any) may encounter
groundwater. As such, provisions will need to be made by the Contractor to collect and control the
BLEINC.
Geotechnical Exploration Report May 10, 2017
Long’s Chapel – Lake Junaluska, NC BLE Project No. J17-11341-01
14
groundwater, and maintain stable temporary slopes. Once the design grades and utility locations are set,
additional assessment of this potential can be provided.
Proofrolling
After stripping the site and excavating to the design subgrade levels, we recommend that areas providing
support for the foundations, grade slabs, pavements, or structural fill be carefully inspected for soft
surficial soils and proofrolled with a loaded tandem-axle dump truck or similar approved, rubber-tired
equipment. The proofroller should make at least four passes over each location, with the last two passes
perpendicular to the first two. Any areas which wave, rut, or deflect excessively and continue to do so
after several passes of the proofroller should be excavated to firmer soils. The excavated areas should
be backfilled in thin lifts with engineered fill as recommended in this report. The proofrolling and
subgrade improvement operations should be carefully monitored by an experienced engineering
technician working under the direction of the geotechnical engineer. Proofrolling should not be
performed during or immediately after periods of precipitation or when the ground is frozen.
Subgrade Stabilization
Foundation areas need to be prepared as specifically discussed in the Foundations section of this
report. The section below is for portions of the building area not previously addressed for the
foundations, as well as the pavement, embankment, and other areas outside of the building.
The subgrade in parts of the site may not be stable enough to provide adequate direct support of
pavements, slabs, or embankments, or to support compaction of new structural fill. Where the
subgrade is unstable, undercutting and replacement and/or subgrade stabilization measures will be
required. The actual stabilization measures will be dependent on the actual subgrade condition at the
time of construction, the amount of fill going over the unstable area, and whether it is in a building or
pavement area. Generally, unstable areas can be undercut to a sufficient depth to reach stable
materials that will support structural fill compaction, and then backfilled with structural fill.
If there are unstable areas where competent soils cannot be reached in a practical depth of excavation,
then the unstable materials should be partially undercut to depth of 12 to 24 inches, the excavation
bottom covered in a geotextile fabric or geogrid, and then 12 to 24 inches of crushed stone placed as
backfill to provide a stable subgrade. The thickness of the undercutting and stone will depend on the
area of the site (building area, pavement, etc.) and the depth of fill being placed over the area.
Structural fill
Fill used for raising site grades should be uniformly compacted in thin lifts to at least 95 percent of the
ASTM D-698 maximum dry density. In addition, the upper 18 inches of subgrade fill beneath the
floor slabs and parking areas should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the maximum dry density.
As a rule, the moisture content of the fill soils compacted to 95 percent of the standard maximum dry
density should be maintained within plus or minus 3 percent of the optimum moisture content as
determined from the standard compaction test. This provision may require the contractor to dry soils
BLEINC.
Geotechnical Exploration Report May 10, 2017
Long’s Chapel – Lake Junaluska, NC BLE Project No. J17-11341-01
15
during periods of wet weather or to wet soils during dry periods. The upper three feet of soil under
any proposed building should have a Plasticity Index (PI) of less than 30; this may require
modification of the existing soils. Fill soils should have a maximum dry density of no less than 90
pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Fill soils should contain no more than 3 percent organic matter by weight.
Subgrade surface soils can deteriorate and lose their support capabilities when exposed to
environmental changes. Deterioration can occur in the form of freezing, formation of erosion gullies,
extreme drying, exposure for a long period of time or rutting by vehicular traffic. We recommend that
the surface subgrades that have deteriorated or softened be recompacted and reassessed by BLE prior
to construction of the proposed structure. Additionally, any excavations through the subgrade soils
(such as utility trenches) should be properly backfilled in compacted lifts.
The soils excavated from onsite should generally be adaptable for reuse as well-compacted fill. Some
moisture adjustment may be needed. During winter and wet weather conditions, the moisture content
of some of the onsite soils may be too high to allow for proper compaction. Rock pieces over 6 inches
in size will need to be segregated from the other materials to allow for compaction of the material.
Soils containing organic materials, trash, or debris should not be reused as fill.
Before filling operations begin, representative samples of each proposed fill material should be
collected and tested to determine the compaction and classification characteristics, if not already
determined. The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content should be determined. Once
compaction begins, a sufficient number of density tests should be performed by an experienced
engineering technician working under the direction of the geotechnical engineer to measure the degree
of compaction being obtained.
Sediment Basin Hydrogeology
A soil rating map was obtained from the United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) NRCS
website, which provided regional information regarding water table elevations. The map designates
soil deposits (designated as “map units” across the site) and provides the depth to water for each
deposit. The deposit having the highest groundwater on this site, symbolized as FaC, is shown as
having a groundwater depth of > 200 cm over the time period from January through December (Figure
3). This correlates to the measurements made in the borings.
Borings B-7 and B-8 encountered standing groundwater conditions within 7.05 and 7.8 feet respectively
of the ground surface. It should be noted that ground water levels may fluctuate several feet with
seasonal and rainfall variations and with changes in the water level in adjacent drainage features.
Normally, the highest ground-water levels occur in late winter and spring and the lowest levels occur in
late summer and fall. This exploration was conducted in late March, when groundwater levels would be
expected to be higher.
BLEINC.
Geotechnical Exploration Report May 10, 2017
Long’s Chapel – Lake Junaluska, NC BLE Project No. J17-11341-01
16
SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW
It is recommended that BLE be provided the opportunity to make a general review of the foundation and
earthwork plans and specifications prepared from the recommendations presented in this report. We
would then suggest any modifications so that our recommendations are properly interpreted and
implemented. An additional modest fee would apply for review of plans and specifications.
LIMITATIONS
Our evaluation of foundation support conditions has been based on our understanding of the project
information and data obtained in our exploration as well as our experience on similar projects. The
general subsurface conditions utilized in our foundation evaluation have been based on interpolation of
the subsurface data between the widely spaced borings. Subsurface conditions between the borings may
differ. If the project information is incorrect or the structure location (horizontal or vertical) and/or
dimensions are changed, please contact us so that our recommendations can be reviewed. The discovery
of any site or subsurface conditions during construction which deviate from the data obtained in this
exploration should be reported to us for our evaluation. The assessment of site environmental conditions
for presence of pollutants in the soil, rock and ground water of the site was beyond the scope of this
exploration.
BLEINC.
Geotechnical Exploration Report May 10, 2017
Long’s Chapel – Lake Junaluska, NC BLE Project No. J17-11341-01
17
APPENDIX
Figure 1 – Photo of East Breezeway
Figure 2 - Boring Location Plan
Boring Logs (B-1 to B-10)
Field Exploration Procedures
Key to Soil Symbols and Classification
BLEINC.
Geotechnical Exploration Report May 10, 2017
Long’s Chapel – Lake Junaluska, NC BLE Project No. J17-11341-01
18
Figure 1:Looking toward the west at the East Side Breezeway (structural distress to south end of
breezeway).
3 inches TOPSOIL
Stiff, wet, reddish brown, slighty micaceous, sandy SILT (ML) - (fill)
Firm, wet, reddish yellow, slightly micaceous, sandy SILT (ML) - (fill)
Stiff, wet, reddish yellow, slightly micaceous, sandy SILT (ML) -
(residuum)
Stiff, wet, yellow, gray, brown, slightly micaceous, sandy SILT (ML)
Boring terminated at 20 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of
boring.
SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL
TYPE
SAMPLESLOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
CAVING>
BORING NO. B-1
Sheet 1 of 1
3-31-17
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
NA
PROJECT NO.:
END:Torry Pinter
Lake Junaluska, NC
METRO DRILL, Tim and Kevin
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
PROJECT:
CME, 2 1/4" Hollow Stem Auger
11341-01
AFTER 24 HOURS:
BORING NO. B-1
START: 3-31-17
2568ELEVATION:
P. King WilliamsLOGGED BY:
Longs Chapel Methodist Church
2565
2560
2555
2550
2545
GEOT_NOWELL 11341-01.GPJ 5/10/172 5 20 30 40 50 70 90
STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
BLOWS/FOOT
10
4
5
4
4
3
6
3
4
4
3
4
5
4
6
7
4
4
5
4" ASPHALT
3" ABC STONE
Firm, moist, gray and light red/white, slightly micaceous, sandy SILT
(ML) - (residuum)
Stiff, moist, grayish brown and yellow, slightly micaceous , sandy SILT
(ML)
Stiff, moist, gray, red and yellow, slightly micaceous, sandy SILT (ML)
Very stiff, wet, red and gray, micaceous, sandy SILT (ML)
Boring terminateD at 20 feet. No goundwater encountered at time of
boring.
SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL
TYPE
SAMPLESLOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
CAVING>
BORING NO. B-2
Sheet 1 of 1
3-31-17
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
NA
PROJECT NO.:
END:Torry Pinter
Lake Junaluska, NC
METRO DRILL, Tim and Kevin
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
PROJECT:
CME 45 2 1/4" Hollow Stem Auger
11341-01
AFTER 24 HOURS:
BORING NO. B-2
START: 3-31-17
2568ELEVATION:
P. King WilliamsLOGGED BY:
Longs Chapel Methodist Church
2565
2560
2555
2550
2545
GEOT_NOWELL 11341-01.GPJ 5/10/172 5 20 30 40 50 70 90
STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
BLOWS/FOOT
10
3
4
4
3
4
5
4
5
7
4
5
8
4
6
7
6
7
10
3" ASPHALT
3" ABC STONE
Stiff, moist, yellowish red, micaceous, sandy SILT (ML) - (residuum)
Stiff, moist, black and gray, very micaceous, sandy SILT (ML)
Stiff, moist, yellowish-red and light gray with white and black mottling,
micaceous, sandy SILT (ML)
Stiff, wet, yellowish red with black mottling, micaceous, sandy SILT (ML)
Stiff, wet, white and red with black mottling, micaceous, sandy SILT
(ML)
Boring terminated at 20 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of
boring.
SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL
TYPE
SAMPLESLOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
CAVING>
BORING NO. B-3
Sheet 1 of 1
3-31-17
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
NA
PROJECT NO.:
END:Torry Pinter
Lake Junaluska, NC
METRO DRILL, Tim and Kevin
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
PROJECT:
CME 45 2 1/4" Hollow Stem Auger
11341-01
AFTER 24 HOURS:
BORING NO. B-3
START: 3-31-17
2572ELEVATION:
P. King WilliamsLOGGED BY:
Longs Chapel Methodist Church
2570
2565
2560
2555
2550
GEOT_NOWELL 11341-01.GPJ 5/10/172 5 20 30 40 50 70 90
STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
BLOWS/FOOT
10
3
4
5
4
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
4
5
5
3
4
5
3 inches TOPSOIL
Stiff, wet, light red and brown, micaceous, sandy SILT (ML) with 3/4"
rock - (fill)
Hard, wet, brown, micaceous, sandy SILT (ML) with 3/4" rock - (fill)
Stiff, moist to wet, gray, black, red and white, slightly micaceous, sandy
SILT (ML) - (residuum)
Firm, wet, reddish yellow, white and gray, slightly micaceous, sandy
SILT (ML)
Stiff, wet, black, white and gray, micaceous, sandy SILT (ML) -
(residuum)
Boring terminated at 20 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of
boring.
SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL
TYPE
SAMPLESLOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
CAVING>
BORING NO. B-4
Sheet 1 of 1
3-31-17
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
NA
PROJECT NO.:
END:Torry Pinter
Lake Junaluska, NC
METRO DRILL, Tim and Kevin
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
PROJECT:
CME 45 2 1/4" Hollow Stem Auger
11341-01
AFTER 24 HOURS:
BORING NO. B-4
START: 3-31-17
2574ELEVATION:
P. King WilliamsLOGGED BY:
Longs Chapel Methodist Church
2570
2565
2560
2555
2550
GEOT_NOWELL 11341-01.GPJ 5/10/172 5 20 30 40 50 70 90
STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
BLOWS/FOOT
10
5
7
7
13
19
15
4
5
6
4
5
6
4
3
4
3
4
5
3 inches of ASPHALT
Stiff, moist, brown and light brown, sandy SILT (ML) with topsoil and
trace organics - (fill)
Firm, very moist, gray with white and red yellow mottling, sandy SILT
(ML) - (residuum)
Stiff, moist, yellowish red and dark gray, sandy SILT (ML)
Boring terminated at 20 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of
boring.
SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL
TYPE
SAMPLESLOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
CAVING>
BORING NO. B-5
Sheet 1 of 1
3-31-17
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
NA
PROJECT NO.:
END:Torry Pinter
Lake Junaluska, NC
METRO DRILL, Tim and Kevin
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
PROJECT:
CME 45 2 1/4" Hollow Stem Auger
11341-01
AFTER 24 HOURS:
BORING NO. B-5
START: 3-31-17
2574ELEVATION:
P. King WilliamsLOGGED BY:
Longs Chapel Methodist Church
2570
2565
2560
2555
2550
GEOT_NOWELL 11341-01.GPJ 5/10/172 5 20 30 40 50 70 90
STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
BLOWS/FOOT
10
3
5
4
3
5
6
2
3
5
3
3
5
4
4
5
4
5
6
3 inches of ASPHALT
2 inches of ABC STONE
Stiff, moist, light brown, sandy SILT (ML) with 1/2" diameter rock - (fill)
Stiff, moist, white, light gray, yellow, slightly micaceous, sandy SILT
(ML) - (residuum)
Firm, very moist, gray and reddish yellow, slightly micaceous, sandy
SILT (ML)
Firm, very moist, white and brownish gray, slightly micaceous, sandy
SILT (ML)
Firm, very moist, dark brown with black and white mottling, slightly
micaceous, sandy SILT (ML)
Boring terminated at 20 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of
boring.
SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL
TYPE
SAMPLESLOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
CAVING>
BORING NO. B-6
Sheet 1 of 1
3-31-17
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
NA
PROJECT NO.:
END:Torry Pinter
Lake Junaluska, NC
METRO DRILL, Tim and Kevin
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
PROJECT:
CME 45 2 1/4" Hollow Stem Auger
11341-01
AFTER 24 HOURS:
BORING NO. B-6
START: 3-31-17
2570ELEVATION:
P. King WilliamsLOGGED BY:
Longs Chapel Methodist Church
2565
2560
2555
2550
GEOT_NOWELL 11341-01.GPJ 5/10/172 5 20 30 40 50 70 90
STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
BLOWS/FOOT
10
5
6
6
6
7
6
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3 inches of ASPHALT
2 inches of ABC STONE
Firm, moist, gray, sandy SILT with trace organics - (fill)
Firm, very moist, yellowish red and gray, clayey sandy SILT (ML) -
(residuum)
Stiff, very moist, reddish-yellow with black mottling, sandy SILT (ML)
with small rock fragments
Stiff, moist, black and red yellow, sandy SILT (ML)
Boring terminated at 20 feet. Groundwater encountered at 18 feet at time
of drilling and 7.05 feet at 24 hours.
SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL
TYPE
SAMPLESLOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
CAVING>
BORING NO. B-7
Sheet 1 of 1
3-31-17
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
18
PROJECT NO.:
END:Torry Pinter
Lake Junaluska, NC
METRO DRILL, Tim and Kevin
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
PROJECT:
CME 45 2 1/4" Hollow Stem Auger
11341-01
AFTER 24 HOURS:7.05
BORING NO. B-7
START: 3-31-17
2576ELEVATION:
P. King WilliamsLOGGED BY:
Longs Chapel Methodist Church
2575
2570
2565
2560
2555
GEOT_NOWELL 11341-01.GPJ 5/10/172 5 20 30 40 50 70 90
STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
BLOWS/FOOT
10
4
4
4
2
3
3
4
5
6
5
6
7
4
6
7
5
6
7
3 inches of TOPSOIL
Firm, wet, brown, sandy SILT (ML) with topsoil - (fill)
Stiff, moist, gray with red mottling, slightly micaceous, sandy SILT (ML)
- (residuum)
Stiff, very moist, brownish red, micaceous, sandy SILT (ML)
Stiff, wet, brownish red, micaceous, sandy SILT (ML) with appreciable
amount of rock fragments
Stiff, wet, brown, black and white, micaceous, sandy SILT (ML)
Boring terminated at 20 feet. Groundwater encountered at 17 feet at time
of drilling and 7.8 feet at 24 hours.
SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL
TYPE
SAMPLESLOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
CAVING>
BORING NO. B-8
Sheet 1 of 1
3-31-17
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
17
PROJECT NO.:
END:Torry Pinter
Lake Junaluska, NC
METRO DRILL, Tim and Kevin
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
PROJECT:
CME 45 2 1/4" Hollow Stem Auger
11341-01
AFTER 24 HOURS:7.8
BORING NO. B-8
START: 3-31-17
2582ELEVATION:
P. King WilliamsLOGGED BY:
Longs Chapel Methodist Church
2580
2575
2570
2565
2560
GEOT_NOWELL 11341-01.GPJ 5/10/172 5 20 30 40 50 70 90
STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
BLOWS/FOOT
10
3
3
5
4
5
6
5
5
6
5
6
5
8
10
4
5
6
6
3 inches of TOPSOIL
Stiff, moist, light red, sandy SILT (ML) with trace organics - (fill)
Very stiff, moist, red and yellow, clayey, sandy SILT (ML) - (residuum)
Very stiff, moist, brownish, yellow, clayey, sandy SILT (ML) with black
mottling
Stiff, wet, yellowish brown., slightly micaceous , sandy SILT (ML)
Firm, very wet, gray, clayey, sandy SILT (ML)
Boring terminated at 20 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of
boring.
SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL
TYPE
SAMPLESLOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
CAVING>
BORING NO. B-9
Sheet 1 of 1
3-31-17
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
NA
PROJECT NO.:
END:Torry Pinter
Lake Junaluska, NC
METRO DRILL, Tim and Kevin
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
PROJECT:
CME 45 2 1/4" Hollow Stem Auger
11341-01
AFTER 24 HOURS:
BORING NO. B-9
START: 3-31-17
2582ELEVATION:
P. King WilliamsLOGGED BY:
Longs Chapel Methodist Church
2580
2575
2570
2565
2560
GEOT_NOWELL 11341-01.GPJ 5/10/172 5 20 30 40 50 70 90
STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
BLOWS/FOOT
10
4
5
5
5
6
7
8
12
14
8
9
9
5
6
6
2
3
3
3 inches of TOPSOIL
Stiff, moist, yellowish red, clayey sandy SILT (ML) with rock fragments -
(fill)
Stiff, moist, red and brown with black mottling, micaceous, sandy SILT
(ML) - (residuum)
Very stiff, moist, yellow, brown, gray, slightly micaceous, sandy SILT
(ML) with 3/4" diameter quartz fragments
Stiff, moist, yellow, brown, red, slightly micaceuous, sandy SILT (ML)
Stiff, very moist, light brown, slightly micaceous, sandy SILT (ML)
Very Stiff, very moist, red and yellow, slightly micaceous, sandy SILT
(ML)
Boring terminated at 20 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of
boring.
SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL
TYPE
SAMPLESLOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
CAVING>
BORING NO. B-10
Sheet 1 of 1
3-31-17
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
NA
PROJECT NO.:
END:Torry Pinter
Lake Junaluska, NC
METRO DRILL, Tim and Kevin
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
PROJECT:
CME 45 2 1/4" Hollow Stem Auger
11341-01
AFTER 24 HOURS:
BORING NO. B-10
START: 3-31-17
2572ELEVATION:
P. King WilliamsLOGGED BY:
Longs Chapel Methodist Church
2570
2565
2560
2555
2550
GEOT_NOWELL 11341-01.GPJ 5/10/172 5 20 30 40 50 70 90
STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
BLOWS/FOOT
10
5
6
5
5
6
7
7
17
10
6
6
7
5
7
7
7
8
10
Field Exploration Procedures
Soil Test Borings
The borings were made by mechanically twisting a continuous flight steel auger into the soil. Soil
sampling and penetration testing were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. At
assigned intervals, soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4-inch I. D., 2-inch O. D., split-tube
sampler. The sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings, and then driven an
additional 12 inches with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer
blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches was recorded and is designated the "standard
penetration resistance." The penetration resistance, when properly evaluated, is an index to the
strength of the soil and foundation supporting capability.
Representative portions of the soil samples, thus obtained, were placed in glass jars and transported
to the laboratory. In the laboratory, the samples were examined by a geotechnical engineer to verify
the field classifications of the driller. Test Boring Records are attached, showing the soil
descriptions and penetration resistance.
SANDS
Sandy Silt
Sand
Clayey Sand
Low Plasticity Clay
CL
CLS
BLDRCBBL
CH
SILTS and CLAYS
Groundwater Table 24 Hours after Completion of Drilling
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Very Hard
Silt
KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONSKEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONSKEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONSKEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
MH
MLS
SW
SC
KEY TO DRILLING SYMBOLSKEY TO DRILLING SYMBOLSKEY TO DRILLING SYMBOLSKEY TO DRILLING SYMBOLS
TOPSOIL
Relative
Density
*ASTM D 1586
Groundwater Table at Time of Drilling
Consistency
Particle Size Identification
Very Loose
Loose
Firm
Very Firm
Dense
Very Dense
Topsoil
CL-ML
ML
BEDROCK
Poorly-graded Gravel
Well-graded Gravel
GP
Concrete
A5
0 to 2
3 to 4
5 to 8
9 to 15
16 to 30
31 to 50
over 50
Clayey Silt Silty Sand
Partially Weathered Rock
High Plasticity Clay
GW
0 to 4
5 to 10
11 to 20
21 to 30
31 to 50
over 50
Penetration Resistance*
Blows per Foot
Boulder: Greater than 300 mm
Cobble: 75 to 300 mm
Gravel:
Coarse - 19 to 75 mm
Fine - 4.75 to 19 mm
Sand:
Coarse - 2 to 4.75 mm
Medium - 0.425 to 2 mm
Fine - 0.075 to 0.425 mm
Silt & Clay: Less than 0.075 mmPenetration Resistance*
Blows per Foot
KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS AND CONSISTENCY DESCRIPTIONSKEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS AND CONSISTENCY DESCRIPTIONSKEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS AND CONSISTENCY DESCRIPTIONSKEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS AND CONSISTENCY DESCRIPTIONS
Bedrock
SM
Sandy Clay
Silty Clay
Undistrurbed Sample
Split Spoon Sample
Grab Sample
BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA