20090576 Ver 1_More Info Received_20091006

Permit No. D9 - 051 Io
(to be provided by DWQ)
III. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Please indicate the page or plan sheet numbers where the supporting documentation can be found. An incomplete submittal package will
result in a request for additional information. This will delay final review and approval of the project. Initial in the space provided to
indicate the following design requirements have been met. If the applicant has designated an agent, the agent Lifial below. If
requirement has not been met, attach justification. D '?='fl ((V'?? 1L.?3
Pagel Plan O C T 6 2009
Initials Sheet No.
JFK' rL 1. Plans (1" - 50' or larger) of the entire site showing: DENR-WATEROiAL,'Ty
Design at ultimate build-out, WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
-
Off-site drainage (if applicable),
Delineated drainage basins (include Rational C coefficient per basin),
Basin dimensions,
Pretreatment system,
High flow bypass system,
Maintenance access,
Proposed drainage easement and public right of way (ROW),
- Overflow device, and
Boundaries of drainage easement.
•JF K 5 io 2. Partial plan (1" = 30' or larger) and details for the wet detention basin showing:
Outlet structure with trash rack or similar,
Maintenance access,
Permanent pool dimensions,
Forebay and main pond with hardened emergency spillway,
- Basin cross-section,
Vegetation specification for planting shelf, and
- Filter strip. C N? 1A)
J Plc S46 3. Section view of the wet detention basin 0 " = 20' or larger) showing:
Side slopes, 3:1 or lower,
- Pretreatment and treatment areas, and
Inlet and outlet structures.
JPK NIA 4. If the basin is used for sediment and erosion control during construction, clean out of the basin is specified
?M4C? on the plans prior to use as a wet detention basin.
-, Ply `L « 5. A table of elevations, areas, incremental volumes & accumulated volumes for overall pond and for forebay,
?p? Ll to verify volume provided.
C 6. A construction sequence that shows how the wet detention basin will be protected from sediment until the
entire drainage area is stabilized.
J py, 7. The supporting calculations.
8. A copy of the signed and notarized operation and maintenance (0&M) agreement.
N 9. A copy of the deed restrictions (if required).
10. A soils report that is based upon an actual field investigation, soil borings, and infiltration tests. County
soil maps are not an acceptable source of soils information.
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.8-9/17/09 Part III. Required Items Checklist, Page 1 of 1
Permit
HCDENR
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
WET DETENTION BASIN SUPPLEMENT
This form must be filled out, printed and submitted.
The Required Items Checklist (Part Ill) must be printed, filled out and submitted along with all of the required information.
(to be provided by DWQ)
?OF W A tF9QG
4jO
o
1. PROJECT IMFORUTION
Project name JCC-LIBRARY PROJECT
Contact person JASON KENNEDY, CLH DESIGN, P.A.
Phone number 919-319-6716
Date
Drainage area number
Site Characteristics
L L Drainage area
Impervious area, post-development

? % impervious
Y. Q Design rainfall depth
x Q' Storage Volume: Non-SA Waters
I _ Minimum volume required
I Volume provided
Storage Volume: SA Waters
A 1.5' runoff volume
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff
L Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff
L Minimum volume required
Volume provided
Peak Flow Calculations
Is the pre/post control of the 1yr 24hr storm peak flow required?
1-yr, 24-hr rainfall depth
Rational C, pre-development
Rational C, post-development
Rainfall intensity: 1-yr, 24-hr storm
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow
Pre/Post 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow control
Elevations
Temporary pool elevation
Permanent pool elevation
SHWT elevation (approx. at the perm. pool elevation)
Top of 1 Oft vegetated shelf elevation
Bottom of 1 Oft vegetated shelf elevation
Sediment cleanout, top elevation (bottom of pond)
Sediment cleanout, bottom elevation
Sediment storage provided
Is there additional volume stored above the state-required temp. pool?
Elevation of the top of the additional volume
10/4/2009
14,941,080 fe
5,976,432 ftz
40.00 %
1.0 in
510,487 ft3
510,487 ft3
ft3
ft3
ft3
ft3
to
OK
OK, volume provided is equal to or in excess of volume required.
N (Y or N)
3.0 in
0.42 (unitless) Assu?r?? o°rd lr'Af t "uwJ
FLIL DESMOL f{07o rNAPfX'JW`ei
0.52 (unitless) ...,?
4.80 in/hr OK
707.95 ft3/sec
872.59 ft3/sec
164.64 ft3/sec
136.47 fmsl
135.10 fmsl
130.00 fmsl
135.10 fmsl
133.43 fmsl
133.10 fmsl
132.10 fmsl
1.00 ft
N (Y or N)
fmsl
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.8-9/17/09 Parts I. & II. Design Summary, Page 1 of 2
Permit No
(to be provided by DWQ)
II. DESIGN INFORMATION &A • 1 wt
Surface Areas
Area, temporary pool 366,555 ftz
Area REQUIRED, permanent pool 236,069 ftz
SA/DA ratio 1.58 (unitless)
Area PROVIDED, permanent pool, APermyoo 356,100 ft' OK
Area, bottom of 1 Oft vegetated shelf, Abot shelf 338,528 ft2
Area, sediment cleanout, top elevation (bottom of pond), Abot_Pond 332,575 ft`
Volumes
Volume, temporary pool 510,487 ft3 OK
Volume, permanent pool, Vperm_pool 1,239,957 ft3
Volume, forebay (sum of forebays if more than one forebay) 65,204 ft3
Forebay % of permanent pool volume 5.3% % Insufficient forebay volume.
SAIDA Table Data
Design TSS removal 85 %
Coastal SAIDA Table Used? n (Y or N)
Mountain/Piedmont SA/DA Table Used? y (Y or N)
SA/DA ratio 1.58 (unitless)
Average depth (used in SA/DA table):
Calculation option 1 used? (See Figure 10-21b) 1 (Y or N)
Volume, permanent pool, Vperm_pool 1,239,957 It,
Area provided, permanent pool, Apefm_pool 356,100 ft`
Average depth calculated 3.48 ft OK
Average depth used in SA/DA, da,, (Round to nearest 0.5ft) 3.5 It OK
Calculation option 2 used? (See Figure 10-2b) N (Y or N)
Area provided, permanent pool, Apermiml 356,100 ft
Area, bottom of 1 Oft vegetated shelf, Abot shelf 338,528 ft`
Area, sediment cleanout, top elevation (bottom of pond), Abot_pond 332,575 ftz
"Depth" (distance blw bottom of 1Oft shelf and top of sediment) 0.33 ft
Average depth calculated 3.48 ft
Average depth used in SA/DA, day, (Round to nearest 0.5ft) 3.5 ft
Drawdown Calculations
Drawdown through orifice?
Diameter of orifice (if circular)
Area of orifice (if-non-circular)
Coefficient of discharge (Cc)
Driving head (Hn)
Drawdown through weir?
Weir type
Coefficient of discharge (C.)
Length of weir (L)
Driving head (H)
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow k"N?L >?Et1Ye1?
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow
Storage volume discharge rate (through discharge orifice or weir)
Storage volume drawdown time
Additional Information
Vegetated side slopes
Vegetated shelf slope
Vegetated shelf width
Length of flowpath to width ratio
Length to width ratio
Trash rack for overflow & orifice?
Freeboard provided
Vegetated filter provided?
Recorded drainage easement provided?
Capures all runoff at ultimate build-out?
Drain mechanism for maintenance or emergencies is:
Y (Y or N)
30.00 in
inz
0.60 (unitless)
1.37 ft
N (Y or N)
(unitless)
(unitless)
ft
ft
707.95 ft3/sec
872.59 ft3/sec
11.00 ft3/sec
4.11 days
OK
OK
-? Fro, D •? Doom Co-ie-s P? ct+ct?
OK, draws down in 2-5 days.
3 :1 OK
10 :1 OK
18.0 ft OK
5 :1 OK
1.6 :1 OK
n (Y or N) Trash rack or similar device recommended.
2.0 ft OK
n/a (Y or N) OK
nla (Y or N) OK
Y (Y or N) OK
N/A
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.8-9/17/09 Parts I. & It. Design Summary, Page 2 of 2
W
r
a
0
r ao
O
v o fS
< o
o g 3 3
3 0 OR
O o ?
O„ Q <
0
m 3 m
O p M
.T
m
d
0
7
O
v
v d
0, N Q
a m d m 0
Q O 7
0 0 0 0
3°=0ci
?
fD A W O N
W ?

N) W fb
La 00
W N N
C
O W W N
CO Cn PD W (n p V 4P W
v W
W
W
m O
(
N
n
O
0
C?
/
j
?
0
01
0
O

CD
a-
0
9
O
3
O_

0
7
CL
m
lD
!D
m0
3 m o
1 M -
0 M ; C
C
W CD N O
3 0 3
A?
O O0 o
in-
O m W C1 y <
O
(D :: '< c
3 o O o
O W W W ?
0 CA Cn fA ?
V M ul 1, -P,
AV O V 00
;p sl., -:P -T ;* Q,
T
O
1
w
Oo w
V w
p w
01 w
p w
A w
W w
N ?
w .?
w
to
N
N
N
0 0 0 8 0 0 0 " O W W V M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W
V W
V W
M W
Cn W
(n W
A W
W W
N N
co
U7
V O W OO P) P) N O W A A CA V CD
O) WO (O CO
A O N
V
O
0
O
0
O
V
Cn
O
0
CCil
00
00 -+ O N O O (n Cn
w
W W
m W C,
? CW w N
w
-
fo
= .?
8
:,
A
0 V "
" Co Oo Co O C8 O
-4 A ?
V W V V M W
-'
fr ? .A
AA N
co O N 0 4 0 En
N 0 "
0, N '
IQ W "I N
0 w 0 W O
N
w CO
?
O
O
V
V
Cn A Co
O A CO A O> N w ? A 8 O
W R ? i
C) 0 -'
N W
co Cn
co A N - 4m
V co CO V O
w w w w w w w w
00 ?J Q) Cn U7 A W N
o 0 0 -' 0 0 0 C
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w w w w
V V 0 07
V O w O
A w Co
'm (3 8 cn
co 0
w M N

w
00 P
-4 A
w C0 0 0 a 0

(VO
O
N Im
E
V w
v O ,
V B CD Cp 0 0 0 0

V V

mg
< 0
N CD
0
CD
00
0
D
CD
w
C)
CD
3
CD
7
N
O
C
3
CD
m cn < -1
O O O O
mr- r
< 0 0 3
O 0 s R (D
n O
7 d(Od 3
V C1 ?;
CD
0 O
Co. o
c
N o
2) 3
O C.
N !n
7
C?
CD
3
CD
7
SU
O
G
3
CD
J
Incremental Drawdown Time
Incremental Draw Down Calculation
Project Information
Project Name: JCC-Library
CLH Project #: 08-114
Designed by: JPK Date: 10/4/2009
Checked by: Date:
OBJECTIVE: To Provide 2-5 day drawdown of Temporary Pool (Water Quality Volume)
Outlet Pipe - Town of Smithfield Pond
* Maximum Drawdown Time for Stone Bed
(Source: Malcolm Orifice Equation)
I
Zone 3
Zone 2 U
Q3 = 0.0437 Co * D2 (Z-D/24-Ei)A0 2)
Q2 = 0.372 Co * D*(Z-Ei)A(3/2)
Orifice Diameter (D) = 30.0 in Outlet Pipe of Pond
Cd = 0.6
Ei = 135.1 (Orifice Inv.)
Zone 2 Range = 135.1 to 137.600 (ft)
Zone 3 Range = 137.600 to 142.00 (ft)
Incremental Drawdown Method

Countour Contour
Area Incremental
Volume
Stage, Z
Zone
Q Drawdown
Time
s ft cu ft ft cfs min
135.10 358,952 0 0.00 2.00 0.000 --
135.20 359,376 35,916 0.10 2.00 0.212 2,827
135.30 359,800 35,959 0.20 2.00 0.599 1,001
135.40 360.223 36,001 0.30 2.00 1.100 545
135.50 360,647 36,044 0.40 2.00 1.694 355
135.60 361,071 36,086 0.50 2.00 2.367 254
135.70 361,495 36,128 0.60 2.00 3.112 193
135.80 361,919 36,171 0.70 2.00 3.922 154
135.90 362,342 36,213 0.80 2.00 4.791 126
136.00 363,190 36,277 0.90 2.00 5.717 106
136.10 363,863 36,353 1.00 2.00 6.696 90
136.20 364,536 1.10 2.00 7.725 79
136.30 365,209 1.20 2.00 8.802 69
136.40 365 882 n 1.30 2.00 9.925 61
136.50 366 555 36,622 1.40 2.00 1
Total 5,915
Drawdown Time = Incremental Volume / Q / 60sec/min
Summary
Total Volume = 507,231 cf
Total Time = 5,915 min
Total Time = 4.11 days
Total Time = 98.59 hours
10/5/2009
08-114_Supplement_WetBasin_Rev.8_Per Design Plansxls.xls
1 of1

Permit No. _0 1- I>$ 7 ("
(to be provided by DWQ)
Ill. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
requirement has not been met, attach justification.
Pagel Plan
Initials Sheet No. Q C T 6 20

RK 09
1. Plans (1" - 50' or larger) of the entire site showing: ENR _
ER
4
Q?nY
Design at ultimate build-out, ftTtA
SANOSTI
?RAfM'
ATflq BRgtyCFf
- Off-site drainage (if applicable),
Delineated drainage basins (include Rational C coefficient per basin),
Basin dimensions,
Pretreatment system,
High flow bypass system,
- Maintenance access,
Proposed drainage easement and public right of way (ROW),
Overflow device, and
Boundaries of drainage easement.
JP K 2. Partial plan (1" = 30' or larger) and details for the wet detention basin showing:
Outlet structure with trash rack or similar,
Maintenance access,
- Permanent pool dimensions,
Forebay and main pond with hardened emergency spillway,
Basin cross-section,
Vegetation specification for planting shelf, and
Filter strip. ? 1,? 1 a)
J PI/_ S46 3. Section view of the wet detention basin (1" = 20' or larger) showing:
Side slopes, 3:1 or lower,
- Pretreatment and treatment areas, and

J P K N !A - Inlet and outlet structures.
4. If the basin is used for sediment and erosion control during construction, clean out of the basin is specified
on the plans prior to use as a wet detention basin.
Piz CALLS 5. A table of elevations, areas, incremental volumes & accumulated volumes for overall pond and for forebay,
to verify volume provided.
6. A construction sequence that shows how the wet detention basin will be protected from sediment until the
entire drainage area is stabilized.
J Py, 7. The supporting calculations.
Please indicate the page or plan sheet numbers where the supporting documentation can be found. An incomplete submittal package will
result in a request for additional information. This will delay final review and approval of the project. Initial in the space provided to
indicate the following design requirements have been met. If the applicant has designated an agent, the agent may initial below. If a
8. A copy of the signed and notarized operation and maintenance (0&M) agreement.
9. A copy of the deed restrictions (if required).
10. A soils report that is based upon an actual field investigation, soil borings, and infiltration tests. County
soil maps are not an acceptable source of soils information.
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.8-9/17/09
Part III. Required Items Checklist, Page 1 of 1
Permit
NCDENR
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
WET DETENTION BASIN SUPPLEMENT
This form must be filled out, printed and submitted.
The Required Items Checklist (Part III) must be printed, filled out and submitted along with all of the required information.
(to be provided by DWQ)
O?O? W ??T ?9QG
o
1. PROJECT INFORMATI0IV
Project name JCC-LIBRARY PROJECT
Contact person JASON KENNEDY, CLH DESIGN, P.A.
Phone number 919-319-6716
Date 10/4/2009
Drainage area number
` Site Characteristics -
Drainage area 14,941,080 fe
u Impervious area, post-development 5,976,432 ff2
m % impervious 40.00 %
SL Design rainfall depth 1.0 in
Z p- Storage Volume: Non-SA Waters
Minimum volume required 510,487 ff3 OK
Volume provided 510,487 ft3
? OK, volume provided is equal to or in excess of volume required.
Storage Volume: SA Waters

Q 1.5" runoff volume f3
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft3
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft3
Minimum volume required ft3
Volume provided ft3
Peak Flow Calculations
Is the pre/post control of the 1yr 24hr storm peak flow required? N (Y or N)
1-yr, 24-hr rainfall depth 3.0 in
Rational C, pre-development 0.42 (unitless) ASULMAV 7-076 trk'O9A Ut6-J
Rational C, post-development 0.52 (unitless) ?..? ?Pew pcs « Liu% %mkPtrVLo"-r'
Rainfall intensity: 1-yr, 24-hr storm 4.80 in/hr OK
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 707.95 ft3/sec
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 872.59 ft3/sec
Pre/Post 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow control 164.64 ft3/sec
Elevations
Temporary pool elevation 136.47 fmsl
Permanent pool elevation 135.10 fmsl
SHWT elevation (approx. at the perm. pool elevation) 130.00 fmsl
Top of 10ft vegetated shelf elevation 135.10 fmsl
Bottom of 1 Oft vegetated shelf elevation 133.43 fmsl
Sediment cleanout, top elevation (bottom of pond) 133.10 fmsl
Sediment cleanout, bottom elevation 132.10 fmsl
Sediment storage provided 1.00 It
Is there additional volume stored above the state-required temp. pool? N (Y or N)
Elevation of the top of the additional volume fmsl
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.8-9117/09 Parts I. & II. Design Summary, Page 1 of 2
Permit
(to be provided by DWQ)
1L DESIGN INFORMATION 'P :R- '? t??N '
Surface Areas
Area, temporary pool 366,555 ft2
Area REQUIRED, permanent pool 236,069 ft2
SAIDA ratio 1 58 (unitless)
Area PROVIDED, permanent pool, APerm 356,100 ft` OK
Area, bottom of 1 Oft vegetated shelf, Abot_ shelf 338,528 ft`
Area, sediment cleanout, top elevation (bottom of pond), Abot_pond 332,575 ft`
Volumes
Volume, temporary pool 510,487 ft3 OK
Volume, permanent pool, Vperm_pml 1,239,957 ft3
Volume, forebay (sum of forebays if more than one forebay) 65,204 ft3
Forebay % of permanent pool volume 5.30% % Insufficient forebay volume.
SA/DA Table Data
Design TSS removal 85 %
Coastal SAIDA Table Used? n (Y or N)
Mountain/Piedmont SAIDA Table Used? y (Y or N)
SAIDA ratio 1.58 (unitless)
Average depth (used in SAIDA table):
Calculation option 1 used? (See Figure 10-2b) 1 (Y or N)
Volume, permanent pool, VPerm-P-i 1,239,957 ft'
Area provided, permanent pool, Apermyool 356,100 ft`
Average depth calculated 3.48 ft OK
Average depth used in SAIDA, day, (Round to nearest 0.5ft) 3.5 ft OK
Calculation option 2 used? (See Figure 10-2b) N (Y or N)
Area provided, permanent pool, Apernnjml 356,100 ft`
Area, bottom of 1 Oft vegetated shelf, Abat Aef 338,528 ft`
Area, sediment cleanout, top elevation (bottom of pond), Amt-pond 332,575 ft2
"Depth" (distance b/w bottom of 1Oft shelf and top of sediment) 0.33 ft
Average depth calculated 3.48 ft OK
Average depth used in SAIDA, d.„ (Round to nearest 0.5ft) 3.5 ft OK
Drawdown Calculations
Drawdown through orifice?
Diameter of orifice (if circular)
Area of orifice (if-non-circular)
Coefficient of discharge (Cc)
Driving head (He)
Drawdown through weir?
Weir type
Coefficient of discharge (C.)
Length of weir (L)
Driving head (H)
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow RI? ???MI?1. l?Eltlon
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow
Storage volume discharge rate (through discharge orifice or weir)
Storage volume drawdown time
Additional Information
Vegetated side slopes
Vegetated shelf slope
Vegetated shelf width
Length of flowpath to width ratio
Length to width ratio
Trash rack for overflow & orifice?
Freeboard provided
Vegetated filter provided?
Recorded drainage easement provided?
Capures all runoff at ultimate build-out?
Drain mechanism for maintenance or emergencies is:
Y (Y or N)
30.00 in
in'
0.60 (unitless)
1.37 ft
N (Y or N)
(unitless)
(unitless)
ft
It
707.95 ft3/sec
872.59 ft3/sec
11.00ft3/sec -'? Frrw??¢k? Dowry Cr+Lc.s A--W ct -61'
4.11 days OK, draws down in 2-5 days.
3 :1 OK
10 :1 OK
18.0 ft OK
5 :1 OK
1.6 :1 OK
n (Y or N) Trash rack or similar device recommended.
2.0 ft OK
nla (Y or N) OK
nla (Y or N) OK
Y (Y or N) OK
N/A
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.8-9/17/09 Parts I. & II. Design Summary, Page 2 of 2
3
Y
m
t' r m
? e o
< ,. o
c g o ,30„
ID
0 Er
3 0 m
O p a
n 2
m
CD
0
7
0
v
v y
d d 6'Oi N o
: Q O 7
O 000
R A m m
? W

W W W
W
m
J)
C
CD N N W W N
CO Ch N W CJ7 O V A W
Cn V W A m V CO W CJ)
V CT CT W NOO -?O?
0 CD
1C
J
_
c 0
D)
m
O

(D
V
O
a
O
3
O_

O
a
3 d o
C) CD .0 Cep
v?O3
O
00_ 'm m o7i
CD
0 °
0_ o_
m m W
V W V O
m
N
0<1
0
=:E
R' m
?Q
1
O
< C
0 3
W O
m .
A A
V 4

O
CD
CT
0
l<
w
OO w
,4 w
p w
j w
m w
A w
W w
!
Q ?
W ?
W ?
N ?
N ?
N
N
0 a a 0 0 0 - - O (O m V m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W
V W
V W
m W
CT W
Cn W
A W
W W
N N ?
?
m
(n
V
W O
C W Cb ? m
N N
V O W
0 A
0 A
V m
0 V CO
A

W )
?
CD UI
N OD
O
O
m
m
0
0
0
(n
0 0 0
W

W W

0) W

A co

-
W
-
W
W
N
W
-?
m

O

CT
_..?
W

O

v

-4
(D V "
N) C
O
4 .
p
A OD O O W O
-4 A m m
V (7O V V i
O W
-'
m ? N
CO O N CO A CO Cn
W CO f
71 N N W ? ? m A W ?

O
(>t
w .
m
A
w
O
N
W
CO
Cn
m
0
V V

m CO
0 A CO ;p m N W A A D O
w )
O 8 T
C 0 ' W 0 A N V M N
V CO CO -4 C)
w w w ca w w w w
co V 9) p p A W N
0 0 0 ? o O O -
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W W W W
l j
pp 90
A W 8 CO
m O
0
O O N
Cl) m N -'

W
0 p
-4 -.-O,
CO -0 0 0 0 0

CVO
O
N 0)
m

O
O I
W
-4 w 0) -co 0 0 0 0
m

4
V CT
mD
o
? o
y CD
CD
J
7 CD
T
O
O
D
D
ll
7
D
3
D
7
J
DD
J

m 0 0 0
mr.c
<` -D03=
< 0 P ID 0
D =3 8 co)
?E3
0 c
ai = m
CEO a
N O
D N a
y
7
D
3
D
7
v
3
D
U
DD
Incremental Drawdown Time
Incremental Draw Down Calculation
Project Information
Project Name: JCC-Library
CLH Project #: 08-114
Designed by: JPK Date: 1014/2009
Checked by: Date:
OBJECTIVE: To Provide 2-5 day drawdown of Temporary Pool (Water Quality Volume)
Outlet Pipe - Town of Smithfield Pond
* Maximum Drawdown Time for Stone Bed
(Source: Malcolm Orifice Equation)
I
Zone 3
Zone 2 AA 0
Q3 = 0.0437 Cc * D2 (Z-D/24-Ei)A("2)
Q2 = 0.372 Co * D*(Z-Ei)AI3i21
Orifice Diameter (D) = 30.0 in Outlet Pipe of Pond
Cd = 0.6
El = 135.1 (Orifice Inv.)
Zone 2 Range = 135.1 to 137.600 (ft)
Zone 3 Range = 137.600 to 142.00 (ft)
Incremental Drawdown Method
Countour Contour
Area Incremental
Volume Stage, Z Zone Q Drawdown
Time
s ft cu ft ft cfs min
135.10 358,952 0 0.00 2.00 0.000 --
135.20 359,376 35,916 0.10 2.00 0.212 2,827
135.30 359,800 35,959 0.20 2.00 0.599 1,001
135.40 360,223 36,001 0.30 2.00 1.100 545
135.50 360,647 36,044 0.40 2.00 1.694 355
135.60 361,071 36,086 0.50 2.00 2.367 254
135.70 361,495 36,128 0.60 2.00 3.112 193
135.80 361,919 36,171 0.70 2.00 3.922 154
135.90 362,342 36,213 0.80 2.00 4.791 126
136.00 363190 36,277 0.90 2.00 5.717 106
136.10 363.863 36,353 1.00 2.00 6.696 90
136.20 364,536 36,420 1.10 2.00 7.725 79
136.30 365,209 36,487 1.20 2.00 8.802 69
136.40 365,882 36,555 1.30 2.00 9.925 61
136.50 366,555 36,622 1.40 2.00 11.092 55
Total 507,231 5,915
Drawdown Time = Incremental Volume / Q / 60sec/min
Summary
Total Volume = 507,231 cf
Total Time = 5,915 min
Total Time = 4.11 days
Total Time = 98.59 hours
10/5/2009 08-114_Supplement_WetBasin_Rev.8_Per Design Plansxls.xls 1 of l
0q-05'1(o

CLH design, p.a.
400 Regency Forest Drive, Suite 120
Cary North Carolina 27918
Phone: [phone] Fax.- [phone]
OCT ?
4 2009
RMCH
08/21/09
TO: DWQ
FROM: Jason P. Kennedy, RE - CLH Design, P.A.
RE: JOHNSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE - LIBRARY PROJECT
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
CC: File: 08-114
To whom it may concern:
Please find below information regarding the existing stormwater management plan for a portion of the
Johnston Community College Campus. The site of the proposed Library project is covered under an
existing stormwater management plan previously prepared by the Town of Smithfield.
The development plans for the Library does not include any new stormwater BMP's. Stormwater
runoff from the site is treated for 85% TSS removal and nutrient reduction by the existing Town of
Smithfield stormwater pond located north of College Drive. Please find attached the original design
summary of the existing stormwater pond. Also attached is a drainage area map for the existing
stormwater pond, showing that Library site is located inside the contributing drainage of the existing
pond.
I

1998 AWWA / W EA CONFERENCE
NORTH CAROLINA SECTION
STORMWATER RETENTION POND
SMITHFIELD, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by
MARTY STONE, P.E.
PROJECT ENGINEER
`l'I•iLt WO{)n"M COMPANY
November 9, 1998
THE WOOTEN COMPANY
Engineering + Architecture 6 Planning
120 North Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
STORMWATER. RETENTION POND
SMITHFIELD, NORTH CAROLINA
Marty Stone, P.E.
Project Engineer
The Wooten Company
INTRODUCTION
The Town of Smithfield, located in Johnston County, North Carolina, is bisected along a north/south
axis by the Neuse River. The Spring Branch watershed drains into the Neuse River from the east
(reference area map). The watershed consists of a developing residential and commercial area in the
upper reaches and a developed historic district and central business district in the lower reaches.
Many homes and businesses have been built within the floodplain. In some areas development has
encroached on the stream, restricting not only normal flow conditions, but also access for proper
maintenance. Heavy rainfall has resulted in fl'equent flooding of properties adjacent to the stream.
Intense development in the upper (eastern) region of the watershed along the I-95 corridor and the
Johnston Community College campus have compounded the flooding problem due to increased
runoff The Town needed a cost effective solution to the flooding problems. The solution had to be
aesthetically pleasing and provide for unproved stortwater quality consistent with the then proposed
Neuse River Rules.
The Wooten Company has worked with the Town of Smithfield to develop a plan to construct a sub-
regional retention pond in the upper reaches of the drainage basin. The retention pond was designed
to attenuate the discharge of stormwater to downstream structures to allow for the utilization of the
existing piping and channels. Furthermore, the pond was designed in accordance with best
management practices to provide stormwater quality improvements prior to discharge. Additionally,
the pond would serve as a focal point for a park in East Smithfield and a natural wildlife habitat for
the community college. Of the three alternatives considered in the original study, a sub-regional
retention pond to reduce stormwater peak flows was the most cost effective and aesthetically pleasing
solution. The retention pond further served to meet the Town's objective to be proactive in
protecting the water quality of the Neuse River.
INITIAL PL.ANIUNG
In 1996 there was a major emphasis placed on stormwater management as a result of Hurricanes
Bertha slid Fran and other major rainfall events during the yeas. During large rainfall events, existing
stormwater facilities were stressed which resulted in several flooding events along Spring Branch.
Furthermore, there was local pressure to solve the problem in East Smithfield by increasing the
cmTying capacities of the drainage system without further stressing the downstream structures. East
Smithfield is the area of Smithfield which lies to the east of the CSX Transportation railroad. The
area has a very flat topography and limited existing storm drainage.
_I -
i\N • ,

r
•i
r
ri
j
ti
SPRING BRANC
WATERSHED i
s
i .>
s?
0
k
I
,'F/rREAST
PINE E rRETENTION POND
,ti
SMITHFIELD, NORTH CAROLINA mpany
fngineenng
N TS Awning
Archifectere
EAST SMITHFIELD/PINE ACRES RETENTION POND Woolen
Initially, diversion of stormwater from the upper watershed to adjacent watersheds was considered.
Diversion of stormwater seemed to be the most probable solution because of the lack of availability
of land for a retention pond and the extreme costs to make improvements to Spring Branch.
Diversion was considered through the installation ofa 60-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe or
through the construction of an open ditch. In the early design stages, it was determined that neither
the pipe nor the ditch alternatives would be sufficient for the Town's needs and both had some design
drawbacks.
The pipe and ditch alternatives were dropped from consideration for the following reasons:
1. The ditch became very large and a potential liability for the Town while trying to carry the
desired flows at minimum grades.
2. The ditch was going to impact a red-cockaded woodpecker habitat and wetlands.
3. The pipe would only carry approximately 10% of the flow from the watershed and was
expensive. Thus, it had a very high cast-to-benefit ratio.
4. The pipe was a potential public hazard because portions of the pipe would have been
approximately 20' underground. Measures would have been needed to keep children from
entering the pipe.
5. Both alternatives were designed against grade and crossed watershed boundaries.
6. Both alternatives required tunneling under I-95.
7. Both alternatives would be high maintenance due to minimum grades.
8. Finally, neither the pipe nor the ditch would improve water quality. This was an important
issue because Smithfield is within the Neuse River Basin. The Town wanted to control its
flooding while considering the then proposed Neuse River Rules in order to get a head start
in protecting water quality in the Neuse River.
IIROPQS D N .tiS . RIVER Rili F-4
The Neuse River Rules were developed as a draft plan in mid-1996. Within the rules, guidelines were
provided for urban stornwater management for all municipalities greater than 5000 in population.
The guidelines stated that all projects within the Neuse River Basin that required a sedimentation and
erosion control plan would be required to meet stormwater provisions.
The provisions could be met by using either low density or high density development. Low density
development was limited to one acre lots or 120/a built-upon area and would not allow for stormwater
conveyance systems (must utilize natural drainage features). Agh density development was required
to have stormwater management systems in accordance with requirements stated in the North
Carolina Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2H.1000 - Stormwater Management, paragraph
.1006 - Stormwater Requirements: High Quality Waters. For Smithfield, the high density option was
chosen because of existing and proposed development and existing infrastructure within the basin.
In order to meet the requirements of the high density option for high quality waters, the design was
based on paragraphs .1008 (c) and (e) of the Stormwater Management section of the North Carolina
Administrative Code and "Stormwater Best Management Practices" as published by the North
Carolina Department ofLnvironment, Health and Natural Resources in 1995. The "Stormwater Best
Management Practices" document explains how to design BMP's to satisfy the requirements of the
code. Because water quantity was a concern, a retention pond was the best choice for improving
-3-
water quality *. Wiens bo& vsdw Voifty *rA tidy to n*t'the Towwa needs, the
N. S fit) sad'l a a Afi'tttW*W smvtge Vah" to
oft btu of Ow *04 Vok"M 40 rQF bhp 3t sr sw m t
DESIGN
Sizing the pond permanent pool surfhce area to allow for an expected *,3* "
removal efficiency was required as the initial phase of the design. The chart provided by the BMP's
gives the surface area to drainage area mtio!(AMi based on permanent pool depth and amount
of impervious area as a percentage ofthe total drainage area. For this pond, *.*t 34b* ant
# i MMt'MN `aM I'# iii4 r' t, A 6-oa *~sa l*VOqdk* Ibt
maw,voW Also, to ensure water quality, the pond had to minimize dead storage and short
circuiting by maintaining a length to width ratio A *e> The length to width ratio was met
by constructing a baffle of earthen material across the pond at a diagonal with the surface of the baffle
located at normal pool depth. This allowed for the length to width ratios from the two discharges,
one from the north side ofUS 70 and the other from Johnston Community College, to be 4:1 and 3:1,
respectively. The baffle also created an environment favorable for wetland plants which can help to
remove nutrients from the water. Furthermore, for wetland plants, an aquatic shelf at 6:1 was
designed to extend around the perimeter of the pond. This shelf would also serve as a safety feature
in case someone was to fail into the pond.
As part of the pond layout and permanent water quality pool, a forebay was incorporated into the
design. The forebay was designed to contain each of the two discharges coming into the pond and
to encourage early settling of sediments. Earthen material was used to construct the forebay such
that water coming in through the two inlets would be forced around the edge of the pond to a 65-foot
weir section set at normal pool before entering the main body of the pond. This would allow
sediments to fall out before entering the pond at a location which could be cleaned out from the batiks
using a trackhoe or small drag line without having to drain the pond. Also, the forebay was made 10
feet deep to allow longer periods between cleanouts. Refer to Exhibit 2 for important pond features.
Above the normal pool, a temporary water quality pool was designed to retain the first inch of runoff
Ibr I'le 5'4*s. The first inch volume was calculated using the Sanpie Method by Schueler (1987).
The required volume to retain wa.r(g
(design rainfall in inchesX0.05 + 0.049cle impervious)X 12)(drainage area in acres) where the design
flow equaled 1 inch and the drainage area was 343 acres. With the principle spillway, which will be
discussed later, the temporary pool could drain to 100/a volume remaining after 2 days and to less than
2% remaining in 5 days.
Once the pond's permanent pool depth, surface area, and required temporary pool volume were
determined for water quality issues, design considerations were addressed to reduce flooding. The
pond was designed to retain the l0 year storm and to release it at a rate such that the existing
downstream drainage system could be utilized. %Wom-dw to 40,
tom, A MOMMI .' This presented a problem because the elevation difference
between the two existing upstream culvert discharges and the existing downstream structure was less
than 5 feet which did not allow for enough storage given a 6-acre surface area. Therefore, the wet
surface area of the pond had to be enlarged to retain a larger volume of runoff while keeping in mind
the availability and cost of land.
-4-
H
In order to size the outlet structure and pond surface area combination that would meet the
as developed by the Army Corps of Engineers were used for routing. Through routing, the discharge
pipe was sized as a 304nch SDR 21 high density polyethylene (HOPE) pipe and the wet surface area
was increased to 7.2 acres. During a 10-year storm event, the peak inflow of 342 cfs was limited to
a maximum discharge of approximately 30 cfs (reference Exhibit 3). HDPE piping was chosen
because of its superior hydraulic properties and when butt-fused together, there are no joints to leak.
to the pipe to prevent seepage through the dam. Additionally, because of the low head conditions
and slight slope of the discharge pipe, no special piping was needed to drain the temporary pool in
the required range of2 to 5 days. To prevent dam overtopping during the 100-year storm, a 50-foot
wide emergency spillway was designed in the form of a broad-crested weir to discharge sheet flow
overland. The emergency spillway was lined with filter fabric'and NCDOT Class 2 rip rap. During
a I00-year storm event, the pond surface area would cover approximately 10 acres.
After all the engineering criteria for a functional pond was addressed, the client's criteria for an
aesthetically pleasing and natural looking pond were incorporated into the final layout and design of
the pond. The pond was laid out so it fit into the surroundings via the pond's geometry and
landscaping around its perimeter. The pond was located across from a community college and
adjacent to a residential community and ball fields. The location of the pond created other interesting
engineering problems which had to be dealt with in design.
First, after locating the pond, how to get the runofffrom the north side of US 70 had to be answered.
Because the existing piped drainage system was inadequate to carry the runoff being delivered to it
from the ditch draining the north side of US 70, a 950-foot bypass had to be constructed around a
church to the pond. An open ditch bypass was not possible because of the adjacent ball fields.
Therefore, a piped system had to be designed. Because of the limited head available, either 2 - 54-
inch reinforced concrete pipes or 1- 5-foot by 5-foot reinforced concrete box culvert had to be used.
The box culvert was chosen because it was the more economical solution.
Another obstacle which had to be dealt with was an existing 10-inch gravity sewer which ran
approximately across the center of the proposed pond location. The sewer drained to a pump station
on the west side of the pond location. There was not enough grade available to reroute the 10-inch
line around the southwest side of the pond because of the additional 700 feet of line needed.
Therefore, the line was up sized to a 12-inch gravity line and laid at the absolute minimum grade to
maintain 2 feet per second. Then, because the new invert was lower than the existing, an 8-foot
diameter wet well was installed to make up for lost volume in the existing wet well and the pump
station controls were reworked.
CONC USION
Since its construction was completed in December 1997, the pond has been tested by several major
rain events with no resulting flooding in the downstream reaches of the pond: The sub-regional
approach has resulted in a cost effective solution for the flooding problem along Spring Branch. The
design features of the pond will work to improve stormwater quality. Finally, with the landscaping
-6-
"a It .. -
(p) AOM MJAUg JQjNM
Nr v ? e?i .M. ? W 3
? Q
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
t
I o
? I
r
M 1 n o
I ?
o Ck j
# I
.? 1
i O
I
t
r
r
I
1
1 - tl'
1
1
ti
CI
(qaj olaagaqu
t?
W
around the pond, the facility fits into a natural setting allowing its use as a focal point for a proposed
park and wildlife habitat. In conclusion, the pond is an aesthetically pleasing and well performing
retention basin which meets (lie needs orthe'rown of Smithfield.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Ron Owens, Town of Smithfield
Vance Brooks, P.E., Project Manager, The Wooten Company
Dan Boone, P.E., Civil/Lnvironmental Department Head, The Wooten Company
-8-
n
F
(D
N
n
i
m
0
0
rn
rr
d
>y
rt
ID
0
N
I
?i
I
0
0
0
C')
9
c?
0
as -?
N d
0 n
o ?
? x
G
C?
0
O
CD
N
w
`t
N
0]
G'
(D
N

N
N
I?
0
0
(D
Ct
u
pi
tt
(D
0
N
I
I
0
e \
\ \
? J
Q
0
0
0
Ln
0
C*
CD
o ?
n
7

O
0
>v
N
'd
CD
CD
I
244311
",::? j:ar;h L'veiga, Lhn• p
ti!cJ lop ed strahon a.
© bI
ReRater of Deeds 0 19 in ft
Recorded in Soon tj
Page
N, p
g
Sr /I Re of
mtelae Tax I Pecordtng 71me, Book and Page
Tax Lot No ........................................................................................... Parcel Identifier No..................................... ...... ............................
:..•
Verified by ....................................................................... County on the ................ day of .............. .......................................... , 18............
by
Mail after recording to ....GRANTEE ...........................•.•.•.................................................................................................................................
...................... ...... -.1 .............. ......................................................... ... .........................................................................................................
This instrument was prepared by ..SPENCE...A..SPENCE.,...R..A..,-Post..Office..Sox..133.5.,...Smithfield.,...MC..... 2757"7...
Brief description for the Index
NORTH CAROLINA SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
October
THIS,DEED made this ..14th.... day of ....... SEPfEMBE{t................................. 19....87..., by and between
GRANTOR
I
. JOHNSTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

GRANTEE
TOWN OF SMITHFIELD, A NC MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
POST OFFICE BOX 761
SMITHFIELD, NC 27577
R I
Eater is syyreorlsie block for each party: same, addrtm sad, u appropriate, character of entby, e4 earperatien or psttamab1p,
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and
shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter an required by context.
WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, has and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, all that
certain lot or parcel of land situated in the City of .................. S14M- FIELD••••••......••••• ........... D"FIELO............. Township,
........... JOHNST.ON..................... County, North Carolina and more particularly described as follows:
BEING ALL OF TRACT C, 0.950 ACRES, ACCORDING TO A SURVEY ENTITLED, "RECOMBINATION SURVEY
AND PROPOSED EASEMENT FOR TOWN OF SMITHFIELD," PREPARED BY M. M. WEEKS LAND SURVEYING
SAID PLAT BEING RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 50, PAGE 319, JOHNSTON COUNTY REGISTRY.
N. C. Not Anon. Form No. 60 1977 - Jw,w won.- a
Mmd by av, "Ah "N N. C. ow A- - 1981
BOaK 6 4 3 PHE 13 7
;'00111 G 1) 3 PHE 3 3 0

The property hereinabove described was acquired by Grantor by instrument recorded in ..............................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A map showing the above described property is recorded in Plat Book ........................ page ......................... .
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the
Grantee in fee simple.
And the Grantor covenants with the Grantee, that Grantor has done nothing to impair such title as Grantor received, and
Grantor will warrant and defend the title against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, under or through Grantor,
except for the exceptions hereinafter stated. ,.
Title to the property hereinabove described is subject to the following exceptions:
RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has bereunto set his band and seat, or it corponter has eawod this teal 10A Lta
nrpente tome by its duty authorized officers and its seal to be hereunto affixed by authority a Its 1304 d e/ Dtre i1V %
•?ore carouse. A
-----------------
-- -- -- -- -- a» - 1?lsT0CRUM.OQ
----- . -(Corporate n
ey: ----- ---------•- ---- --- - -- ---- _-_.-.- 1 aiirt, ?• :_,r.:caq+t
................................President AIRMAN OF THE BO `' `+ '`: ,!•?/"
as n °?1
ATTEST: mss.. - .
............................................................... LLL??777 - SECRETARY TO THE
....... ................... Secretary (corporate seal) ----.(SEAL)
SRAL-STAMP 1. WORTH CAROLINA, ..................................county.
9
0 I. a Notary Public of the County and state aforeuld, certify that -------------------------------------------
M -------------•------------------------------------ Grantor,
personally appeared before me this day and aekaewledged the .x.@091481 of the tongoing lastreateat. Witness fay
O head and official stamp of seal, this day of ...............................11......
M
¦
0 My commission expires: ------------------------------- --.................................... Notary Pu?Ite
+til, ••:..
Sit" - STAMP NORTH CAROLINA. --------- aWKSTM............ county.
y a Notary Public of the County sad State aforesaid, cerWy that :e .....
.` :; seeY?t?tj)?.of
Personally came before me this day and acknowledged that .... he ......... .. .....
. ,1QHNSZON_i?SlNTIf__6AAf?0 OE. EQI?J!??SZN._ tenucs?InoolKxxtool 11.r t'A Aesi dt
siren and as the act of the 69ka, the foregoing 1 strameaewar signed In a by ?q i?4hi _ n
D ItlretrNK seated with Its corporate seal sad attested by _ .I
1 c lu'..l .. ?.?,1ty??llse crap.
S. ].. .1•?.• .
Witness my hand and official stamp or seat, this L Riley of III 9MOG All
41
My eemmisslon OKPIM: -4 l2es ---- ? -- - f:?))1t?er Pnblle
The foregoing Certlaeste(s) of ._...r_•-_?A.el e._...fai--__- ----- W..? -----_°-----------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--•--------------------------------------°_-..------°°-------_.-.._----------------------------------------------°------------------------
Is/stiff certlaed to be correct. This instrument and this certificate are duty registered at the date and time and in the Beek and Page shown on the -?Gy
Ant pa ere
COUNTY
... ? /fl .
-7 ----- C.,----:t0---------------------------------REOISTER OF DEEDS FOR ------- -
By ... ...................Deputy/Argoolpa}seelaler floods. •
-------------
Pro.
N. C. Ear Anoc. Form No. 6 O t977 -A,..wlsrrlr • a., I,s:.. s.. m, rwlw,en. N. e. 77016 Sim '
hlostl b, ArN -1% IM N. C. Y Anse. - 1901
I IF
SINCE F'ROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Engineering • Environmental • Geotechnical
310 Hubert Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-23021 USA
1881 ® T 919.828.34411 F 919.582.0304
September 29, 2008
Mr. Herman Kight
Johnston Community College
P.O. Box 2350
Smithfield, NC 27577
Re: Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation Report
New Library Building
Johnston Community College
Smithfield, North Carolina
F&R Project No. J66-091G
Dear Mr. Kight:
09 - O SlIp
OCT PD f2@[#flWR
s 2009
WETtAN SAS ORMWA ERBRANGi
Froehling and Robertson, Inc. (F&R) has completed the authorized Subsurface Exploration and
Geotechnical Evaluation for the referenced project site in Smithfield, North Carolina. This
report contains a description of the project information furnished to F&R, a discussion of
general subsurface conditions encountered during the exploration and geotechnical
engineering recommendations for the proposed construction.
We have enjoyed working with you and appreciate the opportunity to serve as your geotechnical
consultant on this project. If you need further information, or if we can provide additional
services, please contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
00
Michael S. Sabodish, Jr., Ph.D., P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
`CAR0'//
CL
0 S :hael J. Scarlett, P.E.
ic9 • Gt . • • ?` rRineering Services Manager
4111111110
HQ: 301S DUMBARTON ROAD RICHMOND, VA 23228 USA T 804.264.2701 F 804.264.1202 www.fandr.com
VIRGINIA • NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA • MARYLAND • DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA • EASTERN EUROPE
"A HUB Program Participant"
q f
SINCE
FAR
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL
EVALUATION
REPORT
NEW LIBRARY BUILDING
JOHNSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE
SMITHFIELD, NORTH CAROLINA
F&R PROJECT NO. J66-091G
Prepared For:
JOHNSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE
245 College Road
P.O. Box 235
Smithfield, NC 27577
Prepared By:
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
310 Hubert Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
September 29, 2008
9 4
SINC@
FAR
188.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 PURPOSE & SCOPE OF SERVICES ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose of Study .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Scope of Services .............................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................................................................. 1
2.1 Site and Proposed Grading Information ........................................................................................ 2
3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES ........................................................................................................................... 2
3.1 Field Exploration .............................................................................................................................. 2
3.2 Laboratory Testing ........................................................................................................................... 2
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................. 4
4.1 Regional Geology ............................................................................................................................. 4
4.2 Subsurface Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 4
4.2.1 Surficial Organic Soils ........................................................................................................ 5
4.2.2 Native Soils ........................................................................................................................ 5
4.3 Soil Moisture and Groundwater Conditions .................................................................................... 6
5.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 8
5.1 General Development Considertions ........................................................................................... .. 8
5.2 Site Preparation .............................................................................................................................. .. 9
5,3 PWR Excavation ............................................................................................................................. 10
5.4 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction .................................................................................. 11
5.5 Foundations ................................................................................................................................... 12
5.6 Seismic Design Criteria .................................................................................................................. 14
5.7 Floor Slabs ...................................................................................................................................... 14
5.8 Pavements ..................................................................................................................................... 15
5.9 Cut and Fill Slopes ......................................................................................................................... 16
5.10 Temporary Excavation Recommendations .................................................................................. 16
6.0 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY CONTROL ............................................................................................................ 17
7.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 18
APPENDIX A - FIGURES
APPENDIX B - BORING LOGS
APPENDIX C - LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX D- SEISMIC ANALYSIS RESULTS
l P
SINCE
IHH1
1.0 PURPOSE & SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation was to
explore the subsurface conditions and assess the feasibility of new library construction within
the specific area of development and to provide geotechnical design recommendations for
foundation, floor slab and pavement structure construction as well as recommendations
related to site preparation, earthwork and quality control measures. This work was performed
in general accordance with F&R's Proposal No. 0966-063G, dated July 18, 2008.
1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
F&R's scope of services included the following:
• Completion of 14 soil test borings (B-10 through B-23) to depths ranging from
approximately 15 to 25 feet below the existing ground surface;
• Description of the proposed construction and anticipated structural loads;
• Descriptions of the site subsurface conditions including the preparation of typed Boring
Logs and Subsurface Profiles;
• Description of the site groundwater conditions;
• Site preparation and earthwork construction recommendations; Foundation
recommendations including design parameters (e.g., frost penetration depths, bearing
capacity and bearing elevation), settlement estimates and construction procedures;
• A seismic site classification and preliminary liquefaction evaluation utilizing N-values
obtained from the soil test borings.
• Floor slab design, pavements and construction recommendations;
• Recommendations for quality control and materials testing.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
F&R understands the proposed development will consist of the construction of a new library
building to be located at the previously determined wetland location on the campus of the
Johnston Community College. The proposed construction will also include a parking area to the
John.slon Conummily College I,R/t Projecl No. J66-0916
A+ew Library Buildbig Seplemlmr 29, 2008
u7MC1
FAR
f 7181
west and storm water BMP to the northeast. Based on the information provided in the
Request for Proposal and review of the provided site plan, the proposed construction will
consist of a two-story, brick and metal stud building with an area of approximately 35,000 ft2.
Specific structural loading information is not available at this time, but maximum column loads
are anticipated to be on the order of 100 to 150 kips based on our past experience with similar
structures on the JCC campus. Based on the most recent conversations with the project
architect (Mr. Stephen Wilt, MBAJ), the Finished Floor Elevation (FFE) for the new library
building is set at Elevation (EL) 147.
2.1 SITE AND PROPOSED GRADING INFORMATION
The project site is located on the south side of College Road, just southwest of the intersection
of Highway 70 in Smithfield, Johnston County, North Carolina as (see Figure 1, Site Vicinity
Map). The project site is located in a previously identified wetlands area on the south side of
College Road and directly north of the existing Britt Building. Several drainage features and/or
swales drain the property to the west and northwest. The building site is relatively flat with
ground surface elevations in the area of proposed construction range from approximately EL
143 to 147. Based on information provided to us by MBAJ, it appears that the proposed building
area will require 2 to 4 feet of fill across the building pad, while parking and drive areas are
already at finished grade or will require approximately 3 feet of fill in the vicinity of boring B-11.
3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION
As requested, F&R advanced a total of 19 soil test borings at the locations depicted on the
Boring Location Plans provided in Appendix A of this report (see Figures 2 & 3). Of these 19
borings, borings B-5 through B-9 were advanced in our preliminary exploration, while borings B-
10 through B-23 were advanced in our final exploration. F&R understands that the soil test
boring locations were selected by others. Borings B-5 through B-9 and borings B-12 through B-
20 were advanced in the area of the proposed building. Borings B-10 and B-11 were advanced
Johnston C onntyunily College 2 1- R Project No. J66-0916
New Library Building September 29, 2008

sircr:
Iasi
in the area of future parking and drive areas, while borings B-21 and B-23 were advanced in the
area of the proposed storm water BMP. Boring B-23 was an exploratory boring and is not
located in area proposed to be developed at this time. The test borings were advanced to
termination depths ranging from approximately 15 to 25 feet below the existing ground
surface. The soil test borings were established in the field by representatives from F&R using
GPS locating techniques. The ground surface elevations presented in the boring logs were
obtained by GPS methods.
The test borings were advanced by ATV mounted drill rigs using 2-1/4" inside diameter (I.D.)
hollow stem augers for borehole stabilization. Representative soil samples were obtained using
a standard two-inch outside diameter (O.D.) split barrel sampler in general accordance with
ASTM D 1586, Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils (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 almost continuously to a depth of 10 feet and at a
nominal interval of approximately S feet thereafter.
A representative portion of the soil was obtained from each SPT sample, sealed in an eight-ounce
glass jar, labeled and transported to our laboratory for final classification and analysis by a
geotechnical engineer. The soil samples were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS), using visual-manual identification procedures (ASTM D 2488). A
Boring Log for each test boring is presented in Appendix B.
3.2 LABORATORY TESTING
F&R selected three (3) soil samples and subjected them to routine geotechnical index testing
consisting of Natural Moisture Content, Grain Size Distribution, and Atterberg Limits
determinations. The purpose of the index testing was to aid in our classification of the soil
samples and development of engineering recommendations. The laboratory testing was
Johnsion Conununify College 3 F&R Project No. J66-091G
New Library Building Seplember 29, 2008

S 131 CE
FAR
m
X881
performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards. The laboratory test results
are summarized in the following table and also presented in Appendix C of this report.
Grain Size
Sam
le Natural Atterberg Distribution
Sample p M
i
t Li
it USCS
# Depth o
s
ure m
s Percent Passing Soil
Content
(ft) Class.
M LL PI # 4 #200
B-11 6.5-8.0 25.2 53 32 9 91 CH
B-14 8.5-10.0 28.6 61 36 1.9 98.1 CH
B-23 3.5-5.0 14.4 30 14 42.4 57.6 CL
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The project site is geologically located along the western border of the Coastal Plain
physiographic province near the contact with the Piedmont. In this area, it appears that near
surface soils consist of relatively shallow marine sediments (Terrace and Upland deposits of
gravels, sands and sandy clays) of the Coastal Plain that overlie residual soils of the Piedmont
physiographic province. It is noted that the Coastal Plain soils are derived from marine
deposition and vary in thickness from only a few feet along the western border of the Coastal
Plain (in the area of this project) to over 10,000 feet in some areas along the coast.
4.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface Profiles have been prepared from the boring data (B-5 through B-9 and B-10 through
B-23) to graphically illustrate the subsurface conditions encountered at the site and are provided
in Appendix A as Figures 4 & 5. More detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions are
presented on the Boring Logs, which are provided in Appendix B of this report for your review.
Strata breaks designated on the Boring Logs and Subsurface Profiles, and discussed herein,
represent approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition from one soil type to
another may be gradual or occur between soil samples.
Johnston Community College
New l ibrag 13ufkling
1-&KP) oject No. J(b-091G
September 29, 2008
S,NCIi
F&R
4.2.1 SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS
The surficial organic soils (Organic Laden Soils) observed in a majority of the soil test borings
typically consisted of brown-gray to gray, silty/clayey sandy soils with root-mat and organic
material. These surficial soils generally extended in a majority of the test borings from the ground
surface to depths ranging from 2 to 6 inches. We note that these measurements were made by
the drillers from observations of the soil sample recovered in the split barrel sampler and should
be considered approximate. We also note that the transition from organic laden soils to
underlying materials may be gradual and therefore the observation and measurement of surficial
organic soils depths is subjective. Actual organic laden soil thicknesses/depths should be expected
to vary or be different at other locations of the project site. Roots were noted extending down
beneath the organic laden soil layer to depths of approximately 2.0 to 3.5 feet in some of the test
borings. Based on F&R's experience, stripping depths of 9 to 12 inches or greater are anticipated
during the site development.
4.2.2 NATIVE SOILS
Below the surficial organic soil, the native soils encountered in the test borings typically consisted
low plasticity silty clays, silty sands and/or clayey sands (USCS - CL, SM and SC soils). Underlying
the layers of silty clays and sands and clayey sands, layers of moderate to highly plastic silty clayey
soils (USCS - CL and CH soils) were encountered to depths of approximately 10 feet below existing
ground surface. The high plastic clays were encountered in 9 of the 14 soil test borings (B-10, B-
11, B-12, B-14, B-16, B-17, B-18, B-19 and B-20) typically in the lower 10 to 15 feet of the soil
profile. Underlying the moderate to highly plastic clays, silty sands (USCS - SM) and clean sands
(USCS -SP) extend to boring termination. The soils in the upper 5 feet of the soil profile are
typically dry to moist with the exception of borings B-14 through B-20 where wet and saturated
soils were encountered. The consistency of the soils in this area were loose and soft to hard.
Loose soils represented by SPT N-values of 10 blows per foot (bpf) or less were encountered in
4 soil test borings from ground surface to depths typically ranging from approximately 2 to 5
feet. Very soft to soft soils represented by SPT N-values of 4 blows per foot (bpf) or less were
encountered in 10 soil test borings from ground surface to depths typically ranging from
.Iohnaro» communils, College 5 MR Project No. J66-09I G
New Libraq Building September 29. 2008
51NC1
EAR
,9lI
approximately 2 to 5 feet. The consistency of silty and or clayey soils below a depth of 5 feet
typically ranged from firm to very stiff (SPT N-values typically ranging from 5 to 16); the relative
density of the silty sands and sandy soils below a depth of 10 feet typically ranged from very
loose to medium dense (SPT N-values typically ranging from 2 to 19 bpf).
Soils classified as Partially Weathered Rock (PWR) was encountered in one soil test the boring
(B-17) at a depth of approximately 19 feet below existing ground surface. PWR is defined, for
engineering purposes, as native undisturbed materials exhibiting Standard Penetration
Resistances in excess of 100 bpf. The SPT N-values at this location ranged from 50 blows per 1"
of penetration to 50 blows per 3" of penetration and was typically sampled as very hard fine
sandy silt (ML).
4.3 SOIL MOISTURE AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
In general, soils recovered from soil test borings were typically dry to moist. However, as
reported in the above section, wet and saturated soils were noted in several of the test borings,
typically in the upper 3.5 feet of the soil profile (B-13, B-14, B-15, B-16, B-17, B-18, B-19 and 13-
20). Deeper wet soils extending to depths ranging from 10 to 15 feet below the ground surface
were also noted in the above borings as well as borings B-12, B-21, B-22 and B-23.
Groundwater levels were recorded in all of the test borings upon the completion of drilling and
after 24-hours following drilling operations. Additionally, temporary PVC piezometers were
installed in 6 of the test borings to obtain stabilized water levels. The following table provides a
summary of observed groundwater readings:
Johnston comurrority College _ 6 I-"& R Project No. J66-t)91G
New 1_ibrnry Building September 29, 2008
$InCE.
FAR

Boring Groundwater depth (ft) below
the existing ground surface
# IAD** After 24 hours
B-10 10.0 7.6/cave @ 10.0
B-11 Dry 11.0/cave @ 11.5
B-12* 11.0 6.4
B-13* Dry Dry
B-14 4.0 0.0
B-15 6.5 0.0
B-16 2.0 0.0
B-17 0.0 0.0
B-18 0.0 0.0
B-19 13.0 0.0
B-20* N/A 10.2
B-21* 12.0 9.0
B-22* 9.5 8.4
B-23* 12.0 5.3
**IAD - immediately after drilling; NIA - information not available; *temporary Piezometers were installed
As indicated in the above table, groundwater was observed at the existing ground surface in
several of the borings (B-14, B-15, B-16, B-17, B-18 and B-19) either immediately after drilling or
after a stabilization period of 24 hours had elapsed.
Due to the presence of the wetlands and drainage swales in the vicinity or the proposed
construction, high water conditions may be anticipated during periods of inclement weather
and during seasonally wet periods. It should also be noted that the groundwater levels
fluctuate depending upon seasonal factors such as precipitation and temperature. As such,
groundwater conditions at other times may vary or be different from those described in this
report.
Johnston Comunmi{y College 7 FP? Project No. J66-09IG
New Librai-v Building September 29, 2008
SIMCF
FAR
m
5.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations contained in this section of the report are based upon the
results of the 19 soil test borings (5 in the preliminary exploration and 14 in the final exploration)
performed at the site, and information provided regarding the proposed development. It is our
opinion that the subsurface conditions encountered on the project site are suitable for the
proposed development provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed
throughout the design and construction phases of this project.
The most recent boring data indicates that the upper 4 to 5 feet of subsurface soils within the
building location are very soft and loose and wet to saturated in most areas. We expect that
some improvement in the stiffness or consistency of these soils would be required for support
of buildings and pavements. In general, it will likely be necessary to undercut the upper 4 to 5
feet of the silty clay and clayey sand surface soils in the building area if these soils are relatively
soft (3 to 5 bpf or less) and unstable at the time of construction. The undercut materials
would need to be replaced with adequately compacted structural fill. Additionally, it remains
advisable to raise grades 4 to 5 feet above existing grades in building areas in order to reduce
the foundation loading on the moderate consistency native soils below the undercut levels and
to elevate subgrades to a few feet above possible shallow groundwater levels. Stabilization of
the subgrades below undercut levels in the building area can likely be accomplished with
placement of an initial 1.5 to 2 foot thick lift of clean sand. Installation of a stabilizing geotextile
such as Mirafi 500X or equivalent over the exposed subgrade, prior to placement of the sand
bridge lift, should be considered to effectively improve stabilization procedures.
Due to high groundwater levels, it is recommended that French drains be installed at a
minimum of 3 feet below the existing site grades during undercut activities. The French drains
should be installed in a grid pattern throughout the building area and drain to the storm water
sewer. The depth of the French drains will be a function of the invert elevations of existing or
planned storm water lines.
Johnston Community College 8 F&R Project No. .166-091 Cr
New Libraq 13rtNriing Seplember 19, 2008
61 NCI'
F&R_
G)
1681
In pavement areas, subgrade repair may be necessary depending on finished grades in these
areas. Subgrade repairs may consist of the installation of a stabilizing geotextile such as Mirafi
50OX or Geogrid such as a Tensar BX1100 or equivalent over the exposed subgrade and
thickening of the ABC stone in these areas. Subgrade repairs may be less extensive than
indicated above depending on the stability of subgrade conditions at the time of grading
operations.
As previously discussed, installation of temporary drainage ditches to lower groundwater levels
will likely be required in undercut areas. The ditches should extend a minimum of four feet
below anticipated existing subgrade elevation. Sump pumping out of the ditches may be
required if positive gravity discharge from the ditches is not available. After the undercut areas
are repaired, the ditches may be made permanent or converted into subsurface drains (No. 57
washed stone wrapped in a commercial drainage fabric, Mirafi 180N or equivalent) depending
on grading requirements and outlet elevations.
The proposed library building can be supported on conventional shallow spread foundations
bearing on properly compacted structural fill overlying approved native soils. Foundations can be
designed using a net allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,000 psf.
5.2 SITE PREPARATION
Initial site preparation should include stripping of surficial vegetation, surficial organic soils and
other deleterious materials from within the proposed development areas. The stripping should
extend a distance of at least 5 feet beyond the proposed construction limits. Following
stripping we recommend that all areas at or below final subgrade elevations be proofrolled
with a loaded (20 ton minimum) tandem axle dump truck, scraper, or other similar heavy
construction equipment to confirm the stability of the subgrade soils and detect the presence
of soft or unstable areas. A geotechnical engineer or his representative should observe the
exposed subgrades for all structural areas as well as the proofrolling operations. Soft, unstable
conditions, noted during subgrade evaluations and/or proofrolling, should be repaired as
Johnston c01711nnnUv eb,lege 9 1'&R Proiecl No. J66-091 G
New Many Building September 29, 2008
SINCE
F&R
directed by the project geotechnical engineer. Such repairs may include, but are not
necessarily limited to aeration and re-compaction or undercut and replacement of soft soils.
Based on the results of the test borings, F&R anticipates that some undercut/repair work will be
required to establish stable subgrades over the entire portion of the proposed building area
due to the presence of very soft or loose consistency (WOH to 8 bpf) surface soils encountered
in all of the borings within the building footprint to depths of typically 4 to 5 feet. Although
some of these very soft/loose/saturated soils will be removed during site stripping activities,
some will likely be present following stripping and may require undercutting and/or other
repair activities (e.g., drying and re-compaction) along with utilization of select granular fill and
stabilization fabric or Geogrid in order to establish stable subgrades that are suitable to support
the proposed building and pavements.
5.3 PWR EXCAVATION
As previously noted, PWR was only encountered in one boring (B-17) at a depth of
approximately 19 feet below existing ground surface. Due to the depth of PWR encountered, it
is not anticipated that PWR excavation will be required during grading and foundation
installation activities. However, depending on the invert elevations of site utilities PWR may be
encountered in the vicinity of boring B-17. Site utility plans were not available at the time of
reporting, therefore an estimate of PWR excavation cannot be determined.
If PWR is encountered at the site, heavy excavating equipment with ripping tools (e.g., D-8
dozer with single shank ripper) is typically effective in removing softer PWR (i.e., PWR with N-
values of 50/4" to 50/6") during mass grading activities. However, removal of harder PWR (i.e.,
PWR with N-values of 50/0" to 50/2") and hard rock during mass grading in open areas will not
likely be possible with ripping equipment and may require hammering, chipping or blasting.
Removal of softer PWR (50/4" to 50/6") from confined excavations (e.g., utility excavations)
may be able to be accomplished using a large track hoe (e.g., CAT 330 with rock teeth);
however, excavation will likely be slow and light blasting is typically performed to pre-loosen
the PWR. Removal of harder PWR (50/0" to 50/3") and hard rock in confined excavations will
Johnston Conwwni{v College 10 Felt Projec! No. J66-09IG
New Obiwy Building Seplemlvr 29. 2008
sIMCI:
FAR
not likely be possible with conventional equipment and typically requires blasting. The speed
and ease of PWR and rock excavation will depend upon the equipment utilized, experience of
the equipment operators and geologic structure of the PWR.
5.4 STRUCTURAL FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION
It is expected that the low to moderately plastic on-site undercut soils cannot be used as
structural fill material due to their moisture condition being wet or saturated. Low to
moderately plastic soils are generally considered fair to good materials for use as structural earth
fill provided they are at a moisture content suitable to proper placement and compaction. A
majority of the soils encountered in the test borings were moist to saturated. Depending upon
site conditions at the time of construction, some soils may require moisture conditioning (drying of
wet soils or wetting of dry soils) prior to use as fill. As such, it is recommended that earthwork be
performed during the summer months (mid May through October) when weather conditions are
more conducive to moisture conditioning of fill materials.
All structural earth fill should be compacted at a moisture content within + 3 percent of the
optimum moisture content. All structural earth fill (i.e., fill placed in load bearing areas or slopes)
should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches and be compacted to at least 95 percent of
its Standard Proctor maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-698. The only exception to
this is that the top 12 inches of subgrades should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the
Standard Proctor maximum. All areas requiring grade increases that are steeper than a slope of 4
Horizontal to 1 Vertical (4H:1V) should be plowed, stepped and leveled to assure that fill is placed
on near level surfaces. All structural fill material should be placed and compacted under the full-
time observation of a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering technician working under the
direction of a geotechnical engineer. The placement and compaction of all fill material should be
tested in order to confirm that the recommended degree of compaction is achieved.
As previously stated, the on-site soils have sufficient silt/clay content to render them moisture
sensitive. The on-site soils will become unstable (i.e., pump and rut) during normal construction
activities when in the presence of excess moisture. Soils with a moisture content greater than 3
Johnston Community College I F&R Proieci No. J66.091 G
New Libraq Building Septrmlxr 29. 2008
SINCE
r
198.
percent above the optimum moisture content are generally considered to have excessive
moisture. During earthwork and construction activities, surface water runoff must be drained
away from the construction areas to prevent water from ponding on or saturating the soils within
excavations or on subgrades.
Excavated, ripped or blasted PWR and rock, if encountered may be used as structural fill
material. Special placement and compaction procedures for the PWR and other rock materials
should be provided by the project geotechnical engineer prior to earthwork. All structural fill
(soil/PWR/rock) placement and compaction activities should be monitored on a full-time basis
by a geotechnical engineer or qualified engineering technician working under the supervision of
a geotechnical engineer.
5.5 FOUNDATIONS
As previously indicated, the proposed library building can be supported on conventional
shallow spread foundations bearing on properly compacted structural earth fill placed over
approved native soils. Spread foundations constructed in accordance with the
recommendations presented in this report can be proportioned for a net allowable soil bearing
capacity of 2,000 psf.
All exterior foundations should bear at least 2 feet below the adjacent finished grade for
bearing capacity and frost protection considerations. Interior foundations should bear at a
nominal depth of at least 1-foot. Wail and column foundations should have minimum widths of
24 and 30 inches, respectively. Final foundation sizes should be determined by the project
structural engineer based on the actual design loads, building code requirements and other
structural considerations.
F&R recommends that the footing excavations and bearing grades be observed by a qualified
geotechnical engineer or his representative prior to placement of reinforcing steel and
concrete. The purpose of the engineering observation would be to confirm that the
foundations bear in suitable soils at the proper embedment depths, and that unsuitable soft or
loose materials are undercut and backfilled with approved structural fill material. Hand auger
Johnston Conumufifv College 12 F&R Project No..166-191G
New Library Building September 29, 2008
SINCE
leas
borings with Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing may be recommended for selected
foundations to verify the consistency of the bearing soils. If soft or otherwise unsuitable soils,
such as highly plastic soils, are encountered at the footing bearing level, undercutting and
repair of footing bearing grades will likely be required and should be performed as directed by
the project geotechnical engineer.
If undercut excavations are backfilled with NCDOT No. 57 washed stone, the stone should be
placed up to the planned bearing grade; the washed stone should be placed in lifts no greater
than 2 feet thick and compacted with a heavy vibratory plate compactor. We also recommend
that footing concrete be placed the same day to seal the washed stone layer or that a "mud
seal" of lean concrete be poured over the surface of the washed stone to prevent entry of
rainfall and runoff water.
For foundations constructed in accordance with the previous recommendations, we have
estimated that maximum settlements will be on the order of 1 inches or less. Maximum
differential settlements are anticipated to be approximately 50 percent of the estimated total
settlements. We anticipate that such settlements would be structurally acceptable; however,
this should be determined by the Project Structural Engineer. Based on the soil profile
encountered at the site, it is our opinion that a seismic design Site Class "D" (as presented in
Section 1615 of the 2006 International Building Code) should be used for structural design
purposes.
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 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 footings are over-
excavated and a 2 to 4 inch thick "mud mat" of lean concrete (1,500 psi) be placed on the
Johnston Conununi(v College 13 F&R Project No. J66-09l G
New Librmy Building September 29, 2008
51XC1
FAR
IXeI
bearing soils before placing the reinforcing steel. In addition, F&R stresses the need for positive
perimeter surface drainage around the building area to direct all runoff water away from the
building and foundations.
5.6 SE1smic DESIGN CRITERIA
Our experience indicates that the existing soils and subsurface conditions at this site are
susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction is deformation caused by repeated disturbance of a
saturated cohesionless soil (sand). Under cyclic loading, similar to loading that would occur
during a seismic event, soils (typically sands) tend to loose shear strength and temporarily
attain a semi-fluid like state. A study of earthquakes in the last century presented a range of
liquefaction-induced damage, including failure of slopes, foundation failures and even flotation
of buried structures. As a result of liquefaction, densification of relatively low-density soils can
result in significant amounts of settlement under constructed facilities and subsequent
structural damage.
A liquefaction analysis was performed based on the information obtained during the subsurface
exploration. Seed's simplified procedure correlating liquefaction potential to the standard
penetration test resistance N-value (based on the actual performance of soil deposits during
earthquakes) was used to estimate potentially liquefiable zones of sand. The results of this
analysis showed that, using a maximum ground acceleration of approximately 0.22g, and an
earthquake magnitude of 5, potentially liquefiable layers of sand are not present below the
existing ground surface.
5.7 FLOOR SLABS
The building ground floor may be designed as a slab-on-grade. We recommend that a modulus
of subgrade reaction (k) of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci) be used for slab design. The
subgrade 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 should be backfilled in accordance with previously referenced structural fill criteria to
Johnslon Communrly College 14 F&R Project No. J66-09IG
New l ibrao,13nilding Seplember 19, 1008
SIMCIi
l'1
aid in providing uniform floor support. The floor slab should be supported on at least 4 inches
of ABC stone to provide a uniform well-compacted material immediately beneath the slab. The
floor slab should be underlain by a vapor barrier to minimize the potential for floor slab
dampness. Vapor barrier construction should be performed in 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.
5.8 PAVEMENTS
Subgrade preparation in paved areas should be performed as outlined in previous sections of
this report, including proofrolling of subgrade and base course materials. Exposed pavement
subgrades should be re-compacted to at least 100 percent of the standard Proctor maximum
dry density just prior to base stone placement.
As reported earlier in this report, the typical on-site soils consisted of low to medium plasticity
silty clays and loose silty sands (USCS - CI-/SM soils). However, moderate to highly plastic,
sandy silty clays (CH) were also encountered in some areas of the project site. Highly plastic
clayey soils with a PI greater than 35 are prone to swelling and are not considered to be good
pavement subgrade material and should be undercut and backfilled with properly compacted
suitable earth fill material or ABC stone if encountered at or within 2 feet of the proposed soil
subgrade.
We recommend that rigid concrete pavement be utilized in dumpster areas or other area
subjected to concentrated loading. The concrete pavement should consist of at least 6 inches
of 4,000 psi air-entrained concrete overlying a 6 inch thick base course of compacted ABC
stone.
We emphasize that good base course drainage is essential for successful pavement
performance. The ABC stone should be maintained in a drained condition at all times. Water
build-up in the base course could result in premature failures. Proper drainage may be aided by
grading the site such that surface water is directed away from pavements and construction of
Johnstau Community College 15 FRR Project No. J66-0916
Ncw Libray Building September 29. 2008
S INC1:
F&R
1661
swales adjacent to pavements. All pavements should be graded such that surface water is
directed towards the outer limits of the paved area or to catch basins located such that surface
water does not remain on the pavement.
Flexible asphalt pavements, concrete pavements, and bases should be constructed in
accordance with the guidelines of the latest applicable North Carolina Department of
Transportation Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. Materials, weather
limitations, placement and compaction are specified under appropriate sections of this
publication. Concrete pavement construction should be in accordance with applicable
American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines.
5.9 CUT AND FILL SLOPES
F&R recommends designing the permanent project slopes at 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:1V)
or flatter. The top and base of the slope should be located a minimum of 10 feet from
structural limits. If steeper slopes are planned, F&R should be contacted to perform slope
stability analysis. It is F&R's opinion that 3H:1V slopes will normally be stable from a slope
stability standpoint provided the fill slopes are constructed of properly compacted structural
fill. However, seepage and surface runoff may cause the slopes to slough and erode resulting in
shallow surface failures. The slopes should be vegetated as soon as possible to prevent surface
sloughing and erosion. If sloughing or erosion occurs, the use of a vegetation/erosion control
mat, turf reinforcement material or geotextile and large stone may be required to stabilize the
slopes. A Swale or shallow ditch should be constructed near the top of slopes to prevent
surface water from flowing onto the slopes. We recommend that all cut and fill slopes be
observed by a geotechnical engineer or his representative during construction. Additional
slope drainage and protection measures may be required in certain areas depending upon
conditions observed at the time of slope construction.
5.10 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
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
Johnston CommuniIV College 16 1---&R Project No. J06-091G
New 1_ibraq Building September 29. 2008
£INC1:
F&R
1181
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
a "competent person" for evidence of situations that could result in cave-ins, indications of failure
of a protective system, or other hazardous conditions. All excavated soils, equipment, building
supplies, etc., should be placed away from the edges of the excavation at a distance equaling or
exceeding the depth of the excavation.
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 also stress the importance of performing hand
auger and DCP testing in the footing excavations in order to confirm the anticipated subsurface
conditions and define footings that should be undercut and repaired as outlined 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 in a satisfactory
manner. Our continued involvement on 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 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;
• Observe the subgrade conditions before placing structural fill including proofroll observations;
• Observe the placement and compaction of any structural fill and backfill, and perform
laboratory and field compaction testing of the fill;
• Observe all foundation excavations and footing bearing grades for compliance with the
recommended design soil bearing capacity.
Jobnston Community College 17 FUR Projeel No. J66-091(1
New 1 ibimy Building Seplenlmr 29, 2008
siar,e
119o
7.0 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Johnston Community College for the specific
application to the referenced property in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation
engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. These conclusions and
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 conclusions and 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 conclusions of this report are modified or
verified in writing. As previously stated, a final geotechnical engineering evaluation should be
performed once the project design progresses.
Johnston Connnnnily College 18 1. c4 R Project No. J06-09I G
New Libraq Building September 29, 2008
r
Geotedroical Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Prejecu
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the spe-
cific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study con-
ducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construc-
tion contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geot-
echnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical eng-
neering report Is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one
except you should rely on your geotechnlcal engineering report
without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who pre-
pared It And no one--not even you-should apply the report for
any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.
Read the HM Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a
geotechnical engineering report did not read It all. Do not rely
on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only.
A Geoteehnical Engineering Report Is Based on
A Unique Set of project-Specific factors
Geotechnlcal engineers consider a number of unique, project-spe-
cific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors
include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management pref-
erences; the general nature of the structure involved, Its size, and
configuration; 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 geotechnical
engineer who conducted the study specifically Indicates other-
wise, do not rely on a geotechnical engneefing report that was:
e not prepared for you,
e not prepared for your project,
• not prepared for the speck site explored, or
e completed before Important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing
geotechnical engineering report 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,
a composition of the design team, or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnlcal engineer
of project changes--even minor ones--and request an
assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot
accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur
because their reports do not consider developments of which
they were not informed.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that
existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a
geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have
been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events,
such as construction on or adjacent to the stte; or by natural
events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-
tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before apply-
Ing the report to determine if It is still reliable. A minor amount
of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnicai Findings Are
Protessional Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those
points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are
taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data
and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion
about subsurface conditons throughout the site. Actual sub-
surface conditions may differ-sometimes sign Ificantly-4rom
those Indicated In your report. Retaining the geotechnical engi-
neer who developed your report to provide construction obser-
vation is the most effective method of managing the risks asso-
ciated with unanticipated conditions.
?- Geolechoical Engineering Report
A ROOM Recommendations Are ht Hinal
Do not overrely on the oonstructlon recommendations Included
in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because
geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment
and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recom-
mendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions
revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who
developed your report cannot assume responslbillty or 110110 for
the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform
construction observation.
A Geotechnkal Englneeri11119 Report IS Subject
To Misinterpretation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical
engineering reports has resulted In costly problems. Lower
that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with
appropriate members of the design team after submitting the
report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review per&
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications.
Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering
report. Reduce that risk by having your geoteohnical engineer
participate In prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by
providing construction observation.
go Not Redraw the engineer's togs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs
based upon their Interpretation of field logs and laboratory
data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs Included in a
geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for
Inclusion In architectural or other design drawings. Only photo-
graphic or electrdriic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Contractors a Complete
Report end Gtddamce
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they
can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface condi-
tions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help
prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotech-
nical engineering report, but preface It with a clearly written let-
ter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report
was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the
report's accuracy Is limited; encourage them to confer with the
geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee
may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain
the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebld
conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sum
cleat time to perform additional study. Only then might you be In
a position to give contractors the best Information available to
you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial
responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not
recognize that geotechnical engineering Is far less exact than
other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has
created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappoint-
ments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce such risks, geot-
echnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory
provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations",
many of these provisions Indicate where geotechnical engl-
neers responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize
their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions
closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should
respond fully and frankly.
GeoenvIronmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a
geoenvfronmental study differ significantly from those used to
perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical
engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmen-
tal findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the
likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regu-
lated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have
fed to numerous pro}ect fallures. If you have not yet obtained
your own geoenvironmental Information, ask your geotechnical
consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on an
environmental report prepared for someone else.
Rely on Your Geotechnical Engineer for
AddMonai Assistance
Membership in ASFE exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide
array of risk management techniques that can be of genulne ben-
efit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with
your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
erw •r
r
iru I
?
8811 Colesvllle Road Suite G106 Silver Spring, Mp 20910
Telephone: [phone] Faesimlle: 301-559-2017
ema0: W®asfe.org www.cisfe.org
copyright 2000 by ASIT, Inc. Unless ASFE grants written permission to do so, duplication of this document by any means whatsoever is expressly proiNw.
Reuse of the wording In this document, In whole or In part, also Is expressly prohibited, and may be done only with the express permission of ASFE or for purposes
of review or scholarly research.
ItGER1000.10M
SIM CF.
F&R
less
APPENDIX A
Figure 1- SITE VICINITY MAP
Figure 2 - BORING LOCATION PLAN (preliminary borings)
Figure 3 - BORING LOCATION PLAN (final borings)
Figures 4 & 5 - SUBSURFACE PROFILES
( SITE VICINITY MAP North * 1
SINCE FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. CLIENT: Johnston Community Cokae
Engineering. Environmental. Geotechnical PROJECT: New Libra Site
310 Hubert Street LOCATION: Smithfield Johnston Count North Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-23021 USA F&R PROJECT No: J66-091G
7919.828.3441 I F 919.828.5751 DRAWN BY: D. acey
Iaal® www.fandr.cwm Sentpm r 9(W I creI c• e? k-.- cl/N for u... 4

I LEGEND I
I? Approximate F&R Boring Location

(?'- #WFj"
7
---,( I

SINCE FROEMLINO & ROBERTSON, INC. PRELIMINARY BORING LOCATION PLAN
Engineering • Environmental • Geotechnical CLIENT: Johnston Community College
PROJECT: New Library Site
go 310 Hubert Street LOCATION: Smithfield, Johnston County, North Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-23021 USA F&R PROJECT No.: J66-0916
T 919.828.3441 IF 919.828.5751 - FIGURE
8 A 7 www.fandr.com DRAWN BY. D. Racey CHECKED BY. M. Sabodish
DATE: September 2008 SCALE: NTS "' NO.:
NN e
1
.r? \ 1-1
-12 y\\?\ ?\\`\\\? `\
NNN
9-10
f I / l •B-14 t \ N- IN.
B-43 N"NN N"
/ ?s• !
B-17 'R
ESIEL) N%
'N GS to
Nli ?UIN CA 71
* Y/
•13,,22
F,
a
/?%//? ? ?? ?/?..\? ???`,l ! jf / ?..._??? X7',;9 l
NN IN,
LEGEND
Approximate F&R Boring Location
lY
SCALE (FEET)
0 SO' 100'
1"=100
SINCE FROEF-ILING & ROBERTSON, INC. BORING LOCATION PLAN
Engineering • Environmental • Geotechnical CLIENT: Johnston Community College
._...._.._._ ..__...._..__.__W.__...... _._ .__....__........... ._._.._.-....-.-----------------.
F?n PROJECT: New Library Site
K 310 Hubert Street LOCA __.__. T__._.._ION _ : __ Smith fieid .---.- , Jon .
lohnsto n _ County, . North .-•------._..-- ---_
Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-2302 USA ---___..__..__._.._.._._..._..._
T 919.828.3441 F 919.828.5751 f&R PROJECT No. J66 091G
_...-__Aw._N ..
DR
Joel © BY D Racey CHECKED BY - : M. Sabodish . FIGURE www.fandr.com .. DATE . ..
..... ?......_. _--
-
_: No.:
: September 2008 j SCALE_
1? N N oo h ? ? G
.. _.._ .. .. . . • • . • • r • • : :'. iii • • . . . • . • • . • • • .
v
.?a N
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •1_•_
cF
O
O
c%
w
w
O
Q
w
U
4
ts.
O
M_
U
7
u,

o
U c
.? o d
,
? ,? c pp
cpv

o a c?
N ? ? y
n
F cn
V)
z
F O
w ., Q
? U w
F
V a o A

J
Q
U
Z
v ?
x w
w' F
O
? w
O ?
C03 J

z
w
m w
2
O
z
W O
*is j
w
x,

7C z
W CC
Ow
W
C7
z
w

i w
N

?2
O (?1 •S 00 O N <Y
u
z _ n? m
N N O
N ..................
PHI
x T:
O O:

..... .. N ..........
CA
N
n
..... ... .?
RE
M ......... .................
A
oi l
? M: IA n h
.... .?
........... .............. ...
MERE
N n1 IA oo o r
° .........
W 1 '
o °
? h N N P h
r-. ....
oil
w
N N• ?C DD CK

oil :C *

.........

h
d
z
w
U
u.
w
a
u.
O
V
w
a:
5
Qa
7
an
c
O 0
U °
G' c
o a'
4) h °o
C Cl
z
0 w
0 A U E
f
u E
7 ?n w
[- O
w
? O
U ems. ..1 A
J
4
U
Z
v Z
z?
O
z
a `.'
CO)
1-a
on Z on W Co 2
Z
cc p
ca z
w
Z Z
RY Fr
O w
OC Z
N.
Z
w
F.
w
b _ ?Y) m
• a0 M N r r ?p pp
N
.........- .................

..... ........ ...... OR ... . .... ... .. .... .............

i
? ?
r ?° r oo r
o
......... ..... ........ .......... ...
..............

A 7
?A o
M M
10^'J 'NO13.VA ITA
N O h
SINCE
F&R
feel
APPENDIX B
BORING LOGS
¦rC-Net
?NF11,
KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Correlation of Penetration Resistance with
Relative Density and Consistency
Sands and Gravels Silts and Clays
No. of Relative No. of
Blows, N Density Blows, N Consistency
0- 4 Very loose 0- 2 Very soft
4-10 Loose 2- 4 Soft
10 - 30 Medium dense 4- 8 Firm
30 - 50 Dense 8-15 Stiff
Over 50 Very dense 15 - 30 Very stiff
30 - 50 Hard
Over 50 Very hard
Particle Size Identification
(Unified Classification System)
Boulders: Diameter exceeds 8 inches
Cobbles: 3 to 8 inches diameter
Gravel: Coarse - 3/4 to 3 inches diameter
Fine - 4.76 nun to 3/4 inch diameter
Sand: Coarse - 2.0 mm to 4.76 mm diameter
Medium - 0.42 mm to 2.0 mm diameter
Fine - 0.074 mm to 0.42 mm diameter
Silt and Clay: Less than 0.07 rnm (particles cannot be seen with naked eye)
Modifiers
The modifiers provide our estimate of the amount of silt, clay or sand size particles in the soil
sample.
Approximate
Content Modifiers
< 5%: Trace
5% to 12%: Slightly silty, slightly clayey,
slightly sandy
12% to 30%: Silty, clayey, sandy
30% to 50%: Very silty, very clayey, very
Field Moisture
Description
Saturated: Usually liquid; very wet, usually
from below the groundwater table
Wet: Semisolid; requires drying to attain
optimum moisture
Moist: Solid; at or near optimum moisture
Dry: Requires additional water to attain
optimum moisture
SINCE
FAR
UN IF I ED SO IL CLASS IF ICAT ION SYSTEM (USCS)
MAJOR D IV IS ION TYP ICAL NAMES
GW Well graded gravels
GRAVELS
CLEAN GRAVEL
More than 50% (little or no fines) • GP Poorly graded gravels
of coarse

fraction larder GM Silty gravels
than No. 4 sieve GRAVELS f
with fines GC Clayey gravels

SW Well graded sands
SANDS CLEAN SAND

More than 507 (little or no fines)
SP
Poorly graded sands

of coarse
fraction smaller
SM Silty sands,
than No. 4 sieve SAND sand/silt mixtures
with fines Clayey sands,
RIO, SC sand/clay mixtures
Inorganic silts, sandy
ML and clayey silts with
slightly plasticity
SILTS AND CLAYS Sandy or silty clays
Liquid Limit is less than 50 CL of low to medium
plasticity
J OL Organic silts of low
plasticity
Inorganic silts,
MH sandy micaceous or
clayey elastic silts
SILTS AND CLAYS Inorganic clays of
Liquid Limit is greater than 50 CH high plasticity,
fat clays
Organic clays of
OH medium to high
Plasticity
Peat and other highly
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT organic soils
PWR (Partially
Weathered Rock)
Rock
M ISCELLANEOUS Asphalt
MATERIALS
.
ABC Stone
y
Concrete

?
+ Surficial Organic Soil
r
.u•
BORING LOG
ReportNo.: J66-091
SINCE
0 ?Q FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECMNICAL
v
} e e I Date: Auu. 07/Sept. 08
Client: Johnston Community College
Project: New Library Site, Sinithrield, Johnston County, NC

tal
Boring No.: B-5 (I of I) Dep
h 23.6'

Elm Existing Ground Surface

Location:
Type ofBoring: 2.25" ID HSA Started: 8/13/07 Completed: 8/13/07 Driller. D. Tignor
Elevation Depth DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
(Classification) * Sample
Blows aln l
fcct N Value
(blows/ ft) REMARKS
NATIVE SOILS: Loose, dry to moist, dark gray, silty
fine SAND (SM). 2-3-2
15
5 GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hrs
: 8
0' inside HSA
0
0 2
0 .
.
'
.
0
0 .
3
5 Firm, wet, dark gray, fine sandy CLAY (CL). 2.2-5 2.0 7 24 His.: 6.5
inside PVC
. . Medium dense, wet, gray, silty fine SAND (SM). 6-11-5 3 5 16

0
0
6
5 5.0
. . Stiff, moist, gray-orange mottled, silty CLAY (CH). 3-4-5 6.5 9
8.2
2.3-6 9

0
0
13
5 10,0
. .
Loose, saturated, tan, slightly silty fine to medium
SAND (SP). 3-2-5 13.5
7

0
0
18
5 15.0
. . PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: sampled as 50/3° 18.5 50/3"

0
0
23
6 brown/gray, fine sandy SILT.
. . Boring Terminated at 23.6 feet 5010.5" 50/0.5"
.
.................w..w ,v4,...,,a, --& - w "t-Imam n"niuics uiuppmg w w arrve L- V.V., I.J /a,- r.u. sprat-spoon sampler rn successive 6• InCreltleltts. The
sutra of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the Standard Penetration Tcsi value, "N".
BORING LOG
Report No.: J66-091
SINCE
?Q FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Qc ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL - GEOTECHNICAL
Iasi Date: AUt?. 07/Sent. ON
Client: Johnston Community College
Project: New Library Site, Smithfield, Johnston County, NC
-Boring No.: B-6 (1 of 1) Total
23.7'
Elev: Existing Ground Surface
Location:
Type of Boring: 2.25" Ill HSA Started: 8/13/07 Completed: 8/13/07 Driller: D. Tignor

Elevation
Depth DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS

(Classification) Sample

Blows Sample

Dfcepelh N Value

(blows/ Q)
REMARKS

: NATIVE SOILS: Medium dense, dry, gray-brown
mottled, silty fine SAND (SM), with roots & fine 9-11-10 O.U
21 GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Jim
: 21
5' inside 11SA
0.0 2.0 gravel. 5
1:0 .
.
24 Hrs.: 8.0'/cave @ 13.5'
Loose, wet, gray, clayey fine SAND (SC), with
rootlets 1-2-3 5
.
2-1-4 3.5
5

0
0
6
5 5.0
. . Stiff, moist, gray-orange mottled, silty CLAY (CFI)_ 3A-5 6.5 9
- 4-5-7 8'S
0 12
10.
- 5-7-7 13.5 14

0
0
18
5 15.0
18
. .
:- Very loose, saturated, yellow-orange, slightly silty fine
to medium SAND (SP). 2-2-2 .5
0 4

5
1-
2 2
.0
0.0
0
0 3.5
7
3 PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: sampled as dark 50/3°
. 2
. brown, silty medium SAND, with fine gravel.
Boring Terminated at 23.7 feet.
"Nuiriber of blows required lot, a 140 lb automatic hammer dropping 3U" to drive 2" U.U., 1,373" I.D. split-spoon sampler in successive G" increments. ' he
sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the Standard Penetration Test value, "N".
BORING LOG
Report No.: J66-091
SINCE
?p FROEHL.ING & ROBERTSON, INC.
a ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL
t a e t Date: Aug. 07/Sent. 08
Client: Johnston Community College
Project: New Library Site, Smithfield, Johnston County, NC
Boring No.: B-7 (I of 1) Tot th 23.8' Elev: Existing Ground Surface Location:
Type ofBoring: 2.25" ID HSA Started: 8/13/07 Completed: 8/13/07 Driller: D. Tignor
Elevation Depth DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS * Sample Sample N Value REMARKS
(Classification) Blows ?j (blows/ It )
NATIVE SOILS: Finn, moist, bray, fine sandy, silty 34-2 GROUNDWATER DATA:
CLAY (CL). 1 b 0 I-Irs
: 19
0' inside HSA
0
0 2
0 .5 .
.
'
. . Very soft, saturated, bray, silty CLAY (CL), with OFI-WO11 - 2.0
1 24 Hrs.: 7.0
inside PVC
U
U 3
5 rootlets.
. .
Stiff, moist, bray-orange mottled, silty CLAY (CFI), 3?_6 3.5
10
with rootlets.
5.0
0
0 6
5
. . Medium dense, moist, orange, clayey fine SAND 6-7-10 6'S 17
(SC).

O
U
8 5 8.0
. 8.5
Stiff, moist, gray, fine sandy, silty CLAY (CH). 3-4-7 11

10.0
0
0 13
5
. .
Loose, saturated, tan-gray, fine SAND (SP). 5-3-4 13.5
7

15.0
0
0 18
5
. . Medium dense, saturated, gray, fine SAND (SP). 4-3-12 18.5 15

20.0
U
U 23
5
. . PARTI
LLY 5 23.5
0.0 23.8 A
WEATHERED ROCK: sampled as
gray-green, silty fine SAND.
Boring Terminated at 23.8 feet.
*-A _7 to A r__ AA
._-FT • ..• .....••.....y ............ .. ." ? au ma' uauauv1 VILII)P,II1,' JV W VrIVC 4 V.L., i.JlJ w. spilt-spoon sampler to successive G" increlents. The
sum ole second and third increments of penetration is termed the Standard Penetration Test value, "N".
SINCE
BORING LOG FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
p ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL
R
Renort No.: J66-091
ua,ti. nug. v inJCNI, vo
Client. Johnston Community College
Project: New Library Site, Smithfield, Johnston County, NC
Boring No.: 0-8 (1 of 1) 'th 23.9' Llev: Existing Ground Surface Location:
Type of Boring: 2.25" ID HSA Started: 8/13/07 Completed: 8/13/07 Driller: D. Tignor
Elevation Depth DESCRIPTION On MATERIALS * Sample Sam le
p
De
h
Value
b

REMARKS
(Classification) Blows t
ep (
of )
NATIVE SOILS: Soft, moist, gray, fine sandy CLAY WO"-2 GROUNDWATER DATA

(CL), with roots.
3 :
0 Has
: 11
0' i
id
HSA
0
0 2
0 5
1 .
.
ns
e
. .
Medium dense, moist, gray-brown mottled silty fine
10-12-8 :b 24 I-Irs.: 5.07cave @ 6.0`

0
0
3
S
SAND (SM), with fine gravel. 20
. .
Medium dense, moist, light gray, silty fine SAND
4'77 3.5
14
(SM),
5.0
0
0 6
5
. .
Medium dense, saturated, gray-brown mottled, clayey
7-10-11 6.5
21
fine to medium SAND (SC).

0
0
8
5 8.0
. . • Loose, saturated, gray, fine to coarse SAND (SW). 6-4-4 8.5 8

10.0

4-3-5 13.5 8
0
0 15
0
. .
Medium dense, saturated, bray, fine to coarse SAND 15.0
& GRAVEL (SW-GW).

9-11-13 18-5 24

20.0

0
0- 23
5
. .
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
l
d 50/5" 23.5
0.0 23.9 : samp
e
as
blue-green, silty fine SAND.

,A,-------
mot.- - - _
•.. Boring Terminated at 23.9 feet.
.,. ..,.,.
..-.-.-_- _..........._.,...._.... - . .-... ................ ..................t,,,,.s r., --'- < --, ,.o i? 1.1i- aa)ni-s]nwn >uii l]Rer m successive o-- increments. Ine
stun of the second and third increments of penetration is tetmcd the Standard Penetration Test value, "N".
BORING LOG
Report No.: J66-091
SINCE
?Q p FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
pcn ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL
/ -•tr
teat Date. Aup. 071Sent. 09
Client: Johnston Community College
Project: New Library Site, Smithfield, Johnston County, NC
Boring No.: B-9 (1 of 1) net th 23.6' Ftev: Existing Ground Surface Location:
Type of Boring: 2.25" ID HSA Started: 8/13/07 Completed: 8/13/07 Ddllcr: D. Tignor
Elevation Depth DESCRIPTION Or MATERIALS * Sample al"Pl N Value REMARKS
(Classification) Blows feet (blows/ 11)
NATIVE SOILS: Firm, moist, gray, fine sandy, clayey 2 4-3 GROUNDWATER DATA:
SILT (MH), with rootlets. 7 0 I•Irs
: 18
0' inside HSA
0
0 2
0 5 .
.
'
. . Very stiff, moist, gray, fine sandy SILT (ML). 12-12-10
22 24 Hrs.: 5.5
inside PVC
0
0 3
5
. . Medium dense, wet, tan, fine SAND (SP). 13-11-9 3.5
20

5.0
0.0 6,5 Medium dense, saturated, tan-orange, clayey fine to 6-6-5 6'S 11
medium SAND (SQ.

0
0
8 5 g0
. $'S
Loose, saturated, gray, medium SAND (SP). 6 4 4 8

10.0
0
0 12
0
. . • Loose, saturated, gray, fine to coarse SAND (SW).

2.2_3 13.5 5

15.0
0
0 18
5
. .
•
Medium dense, saturated, gray, fine to coarse SAND 5.3_7 18.5
l0
(SW).
20.0
0
0 5
.
0
0 23. PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: sampled as 50/1" 50/1
. gray-green, silty fine SAND.
Boring Terminated at 23.6 feet.
*U.....L.... ,. fl.t ....... ........ :..... r -_ ..n ? .....'-"'.e_ .._._ a ....... . . .... ,..
y...., ?..va ..v w awwmau? IRllllllwI UivpPwg JU N Ur1ve L V.U., I .J /J" 1.U. splll-spoon sampler In successive 6" increments. The
sum of the second and third increments of penetration is lenned the Standard Penetrntion Test value. "N".
BORING LOG
Report No.: J66-091
SINCE
FRO
EHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL
04?
1881 hate- Oo/17/200k
Client: Johnston Community College
Project: New Library Site, Smithfield, Johnston County, NC
Boring No.: I3-10 (1 of 1) qe iii 15.0' I:lev: 147.2ft j: Location:
Type of Boring: 2.25" ID HSA Started: 9/8/08 Completed: 9/8/08 i)riller: J. Gilchrist
L-'levation Depth
1 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
(Classification) * Sample
Blows Sample
Depth h N Value
(blows/ ft)
REMARKS
14 _
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOIL 3-6-8 ' _ GROUNDWATER DATA:
NATIVE SOILS: Stiff
dry
gray
fine sand
SILT 14 0 Hrs
: Dr
inside HSA
145
2 2
0 ,
,
,
y
ML
i
h
l I. .
y
'
. . (
), w
t
root
ets. 4-4-3 0
2. 0 Hrs.: 10.0
upon HSA

143
7
3
5 Firm, moist, tan/gray mottled fine sandy CLAY 7 removal
24 Hrs
: 7
67cave @ 10
0'
. . (CL) 3-3-3 3.5 .
.
.

Loose, moist, or, m!c/gray mottled, clayey fine to 6

140
7

6
5
medium SAND (SC). 0
. .
Loose, moist, orange, clayey fine to medium SAND
(SC). 2-3-4
G.5
7

1
8
7
8
5 8.0
-
. . Loose, moist, tan, clayey fine to coarse SAND (SQ. 2-3-5 8.5 8

133
7
13
5 10.0
.
132.2 .
-
15,0- OF, Firm, moist, tan-gray, silty CLAY (CH), with trace
medium sand.
Boring Tenninated at 15.0 feet. 2-3-4 I3.5
15A 7
------
*Number of blows required fir a 140 Ib automatic hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. split-spoon sampler in successive 6" increments. The sum
of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the Standard Penetration 'test value, "N"
BORING LOG
Report No.: J66-091
SINCE
?Q FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
pc ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL
i e a t Date: 09/17/2008
Client: Johnston Community College_ --
Project: New Library Site, Smithfield, Johnston County, NC _-
Goring No.: B-11 (1 of 1) l?gtIj 15.0' l:ilev: 143.9ft f location:
Type of Goring: 2.25" ID HSA Starled: 9/8/08 Completed: 9/8/08 Driller. J. Gilchrist -
Elevation Depth DESCRIPTION OF MA1'ERIAI,S • Sample Sample
1' N Value
ItI MNZKS
(Classification) Glows f?1 (blows/ ft)
13.6 6.3 . _
. SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOIL, - 2.3-6 - - -- •-.._.- ....._..?
GROUNDWATER DATA:
NATIVE SOILS: Loose
moist
ra
/oran
e mottled 9 0 Hrs
: Dry inside HSA
141
9 2
0 ,
, g
y
g
, 1.5 .
'
. . clayey fine to medium SAND (SC). 4.2 2 2.0 0 Hrs.: Dry/cave @ 13.4
Loose, moist, gray, slightly clayey fine to medium 4 24 Hrs.: 11.07cave @ 11.5'
SAND (SC), with rootlets. WOH-1-4 3.5
5

5.0
137
4 6
5
. . Stiff to very stiff, moist, gray, silty CLAY (CH). 2-4-5 6.5 9

8.0

J 4-5-7 8 12

10.0

5-7-9 13.5 16
125.9 15.0 60. __-? - --15,0 - --- ---- ---- - -
?ai.,..?.,, ,. n.?,. E3oring 'I erlninated at 15.0 feet.
"Laws- 0. ?nvwa icyuucu 7V1 a , 9V W autof I lilt it; nanimer dropping fv- it) drive z- 0-u., I..i /..)" I.U. split-spoon sampler In successive 6" increments, The slim
ofthe second and third increments of"penetration is leaned the Standard Peneiralion Test value, "N"
BORING LOG
Report No.: J66-091
SINCE
?Q FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Qc ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL
tae , Date: 09/17/2008
client: Johnston Community College
Project: New Library Site, Smithfield, Johnston County, NC
Boring No.: B-1.2 (1 of 1) pct th 20.0' Llev: 145.6ft f Location:
Type oCliorinJ: 2.25" ID HSA Started: 9/8/08 Completed: 9/8/08 Driller: J. Gilchrist
Elevation Depth DECRIFTION OF MATERIALS
(Classification) ' Sample
_ _Blows Sample
Depth _{feel N Value
{Ulows/ R} RE-'MARKS
145.3 .3 SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOIL 2-3-5
GROUNDWATER DATA:
NATIVE SOILS: Loose
moist
ra
/oran
e mottled 8 0 Hrs
0' inside HSA
: 7
143
6 2
0 , g
,
y
g
, 0 .
.
H
i
'
. . clayey fine to medium SAND (SC). 1.2.1 2. rs.: I
inside PVC
0
.0
Soft to very soft, moist, orange/gray/brown mottled, 3 24 Dirs.: G.4' inside PVC
fine to medium sandy CLAY (CL). 1.1.1 3.5
2

139
1
6
5 5.0
. .
Firm, moist, orange/gray mottled, fine to medium
sandy CLAY (CL).
3-3-4 G.5

8
0
7
2-2-5 .
8.5 7

3 10.0
]
2.] 13.5
Firm, moist to wet, gray, silty CLAY (CH).
2-2-4 13.5
G
15.0
127.1 18.5 .: Loose, saturated, orange, fine to coarse SAND (SP). 3-3-5 18.5 8
125.6 20.0
Boring Terminated at 20.0 feet.
°Nunther of blows required for a 140 IU automatic hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375' I.D. split-spoon sampler in successive 6" increments. 1-he sum
of the second and third increments o1 penetration is tenned the Standard Penetration 'l'est value, "N".
BORING LOG
Report No.: J66-091
SINCE
?Q FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Qc ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL
r se, Datc: 09/17/2008
Client: Johnston Community College ? -- - --------_____.._.-_
Project: New Library Site, Sinithfield, Johnston County, NC
Boring No.: B-13 (1 of 1) Depth 15.0' Wev: 144.9ft ? Location:
Type of Boring: 2.25" ID HSA Started: 9/8/08 Completed: 9/8/0 8 Driller: J. Gilchrist

I-"Ievation
Depth DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS Sample Sample
Depth N Value
REMARKS
(Classification) Blows (feet) (blows/ A)
NATIVE SOILS: Very loose, moist, dark brown, fine WOH-1-1 - GROUNDWATER DATA:
sandy SILT (ML), with rootlets. 2 0 Hrs
: Dry inside HSA
142
9 2
0 1 5 .
. .
Soft, moist to wet, gray, fine to medium sandy CLAY
7-2-2 2.0
4 0 I-Irs.: Dry inside PVC
24 Hrs.: Dry inside PVC
141
4 (CL)'
. 3.5 3.5
Firm, moist, orange/gray mottled, fine sandy CLAY 2.3.4 7
(Cl,).
5.0
138
4 6
5
. . Stiff, dry to moist, gray, silty CLAY (CL). 3-6-10 6.5 16

4-6-7 8.5
13

10.0
131
4 13
5
. . Stiff, moist, orange-tan, fine sandy silty CLAY (CL). 3-6-7 13.5 13
129
9 15
0
. . Boring Terminated at 15.0 feet. 15.0
*N h f -
R
P
I'^
Q
04
v_
V?
z
0
M
tun er o blows r?ginred for a 140 Ib automatic hammer dropping 30 to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" 1.1.x. split-spoon sampler in successive 0" increments The sum
of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the Standard Penclration Test value, "N"
BORING LOG
Report No.: J66-091
SINCE
? EROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
& ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL - GEOT£CHNiCAL
.b
1 8 8 1 Date: 09/17/2008
Client: Johnston Community College
Project: New Library Site, Smithfield, Johnston County, NC _ ?-
Boring No.: 13-14 (1 of I) 'De'' h 11
15.0'
Elev: 143.3ft f
Location:
Type of Boring: 2.25" Ill HSA Started: 9/11/08 Completed: 9/11/0 8 Driller: J. Gilchrist

l levation
Depth DIiscizi riON OF MAIIRIAI S
(Classification)
...
.
..
_
. * Sample
Blows Sample
1lcl)i) N Value
(blows/ ft)
REMARKS

143.0
0.3 .
..
.
_
.......
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOIL
1'1'1 _
GROUNDWATER DATA:
Ver
soft
moist to wet
ra
fine sand
CLAY (CL) 2 0 Hrs
: 12
0' inside HSA
,
y
, g
y,
y
, 1.5 .
.
0
0'

139
8

3 with rootlets.

--
-- 1-1-1 2.0
2 Hrs.: 4.
upon HSA
removal
24 Hrs
: 0
0'
. .5 -
-
Soft to firm, moist to wet, gray/orange mottled, silty
CLAY (CL). 2-2-2 3.5 4 .
.
5.0
2-3-3 6.5 6
0
134.8 8.5 Firm to stiff, moist, tan-gray, silty CLAY (CH). 2-3-5 .5 8
10.0
3-4-5 13.5
I
A 9
128.3 15.0 Boring Terminated at 15.0 feet. .
-P V
*Number of blows required for a 140 11) automatic hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" 11). split-spoon sampler in successive G' increments. The sum
of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the Standard Penetration Test value, "N"
BORING LOG
Report No.: J66-091
SINCE
?Q FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Qc ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL
0.•
t 8 s , Date: 09/17/2008
Client: Johnston Coziiinuiiity College
Project: New Library Site, Smithfield, Johnston County, NC
Boring No.: 8-15 (1 of 1)
1
jet b 20.0'
Elev: 143.2ft
Location:
Type of Boring: 2.25" ID HSA Started: 9/9/08 Completed: 9/9/08 Driller: C. Price
Elevation

1 Depth

3
0 DI:SCRIPT10N OF MATERIALS

(Classification) " Sample

_ Blows
_ Sample

Depth
?re11? N Value

(blows/ ft)
REMARKS
. SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOIL 2-3-3 GROUNDWATER DA'T'A:
NATIVE SOILS: Loose
moist
ra
silt
fine SAND 6 0 Hrs
: 12
0' inside HSA
141
2 2
0 ,
, g
y,
y
SM
i
h 1.5 .
.
'
. . (
), w
t
trace clay. 1.2.2 2.0 0 firs.: 6.5
upon HSA

139
7
3
5 Soft, wet, dark gray, fine sandy silty CLAY (CL), 4 removal
24 fi
0
0
. . with rootlets. 5-9-11 35 rs.:
.
Medium dense, saturated, gray, silty fine to medium 20
SAND (SM), with trace mica. 5.0
5-10-11 6.5 21

134
7
8 5 0
. :` Loose, saturated, gray, fine to coarse SAND (SP). 6-5-4 '5 9

129
7
13
5 10.0
. .
Firm, wet, gray, fine sandy silty CLAY (CL). 2-2-3 13.5
5

124
7
18
5 15.0
.

123
2 .

20
0
Medium dense, saturated, orange, slightly silly fine to
medium SAND (SM). 12
5-7-
18.5
19
.
*N t .
fbl Boring Terminated at 20.0 feet.
f
um ??r o om, req I a oI a 140 lb automatic hammer dropping 30 to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. split-spoon sampler in successive 6" increments. The still)
of the second and third increments of penetration is tented the Standard Penetration Test value, "N".
BORING LOG
Report No.: 366-091
SINCE
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTL-CHNICAL
011?
1881 1 Date: 09/17/2008
Client: Johnston Community College
Project: New Library Site, Smithfield, Johnston County, NC
Boring No.: B-16 (1 of 1) De1 tl 15.0' E'Jev: 143.1ft Location:
Type of Boring: 2.25" 1D HSA Started: 9/9/08 Completed: 9/9/08 Driller: J. Gilehrist

Llevatiat
Depth UESCRIvrm OF MATERIALS • Sample Sample
1 N Value
RI MARKS
(Classilication) Blows P c j (blows/ ft)
142.6 0.5 _
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOIL WOH-1-1 GROUNDWATER DATA:
NATIVE SOILS: Ver
soft
wet
ra
fine to 2 0 Hrs
: 8
5' inside HSA
,
, g
y
y,
medium sandy CLAY (CL). OH-WOI-I 1.5
2.0 .
.
0 Hrs.: 2.0' upon HSA
2 removal
139
6 3
5 24 Hrs
: 0
0'
. . ?.5 .
.
Firm, moist, orange/brown/gray mottled, fine to 1-2 3 5
medium sandy silty CLAY (CL).
5.0
-
136.6 6.5
-
Firm to stiff, moist, gray, CLAY (CI-I).
2-3-5 6.5
8

8.0
_ 3-4-G 8 10

10.0

129.6 13.5
Medium dense, saturated, tan-orange, silty fine to 3-6-11 13.5
17
X. medium SAND (SM).
128.1 15.0 15,0
Boring Terminated at 15.0 feet.
4Number ol'blows required for a 140 lb automatic hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. splil-spoon sampler in successive 6" increments. The stun
ofthe second and third increments of penetration is termed the Standard Penetration Test value; "N".
BORING LOG
Report No.: J66-091
SINCE
?Q FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Qc ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL - GEOTECHNICAL
s a e ti Date: 09/17/2008
Client: Johnston Community College
Project: New Library Site, Smithfield, Johnston County, NC
13oring No.: B-17 (1 of 1) Fetal
25.0
Elev: 143.5ft
l.,ocatimt:
't'ype of 13oring: 2.25" Ill HSA Started: 9/11/08 Completed: 9/11/08 Driller: J. Gilchrist

1_`levation
Depth DESCRIPTION OP MATERIALS

(Classification) * Sample

Blows Sample
i)epth
list) N Value
biolvs/ ft
( ) ^-
12GMARKS
-143.2 ?.3_. ._. ._ __...._.__.__......._..___.._.
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOIL
1-WOI-I-1
.0 --- -__- _._.._._-.._
GROUNDWATER DKI'A:
NATIVE SOILS: Ver
soft to soft
fine
wet
ra 1 0 Hrs
: 4
0' inside HSA
y
,
, g
y, 1.5
2
0 .
.
0 H
0
0'
HSA

140
0
3 sandy CLAY (CL). 1.1.2 . 3 rs.:
.
upon
removal
241-It•s
:O
U'
. .5 ---
Loose, moist, gray, slightly clayey fine SAND (SC). 2-2-3 3,5 5 .
.

137
0
6
5 5.0
. . Firm, moist, gray/orange mottled, silty CLAY (CH). 2-3-3 ?'S 6
8.0
2-3-4 8.5 7

130
0
13
5 10.0
. .
Loose, saturated, gray, fine to coarse SAND (SP). 6.4 13.5
8
15.0
124
5 19
0 50/3" 18.5 50/3"
. . PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: sampled as
gray, fine sandy SILT.
5011 23.5
23 50/1
118
5 25
0
. . goring Terminated by Auger Refusal at 25.0 feet.
-rvunuler 01 mows required fora 140 rn automatic hammer dropping SQ" to drive 2" 0.0, 1.375" LIB split-spoon sampler in successive b" increments. The sum
of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the Standard Penetration Test value, "N".
BORING LOG
Report No.: J66-091
SINCE
? FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
& ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL
Ise) Date: 09/17/2008
Client: Johnston Community College
Project: New Library Site, Smithfield, Johnston County, NC
Boring No.: B-18 (1 Of 1) Dep h 15.0' Elev; 143.4ft f Location:
Type of Boring: 2.25" ID BSA Started: 9/11/08 Completed: 9/11/08 Driller: J. Gilchrist

filevation

Depth
SCR1PTION OF MATFRIALS
Df (Classification)
* Sample
Blows
Sample
(1'cDeptet h
N Value
(blows/ Q) _

REMARKS
143.1 0.3 SUIZFICIAL ORGANIC SOIL OI-I-WOH I GROUNDWATER DATA:
NATIVE SOILS: Ver
soft to soft
wet
ra
silt 1 0 Hrs
: 0
0'
y
,
, g
y,
y 1.5 .
.
'

139
9
3
5 CLAY (CL), with rootlets. 1-1-2 2.0 3 24 Hrs.: 0.0
. .
Medium dense, dry, tan-pink, silty fine SAND (SM). 2 9-6 3.5
15

136
9-
6
5 5.0
. .
Firm, 11101St to Wet, gray/orange mottled, silty CLAY
(CH)' 2-2-3 6.5
5
8.0
2-3-4 8.5 7

129
9
13
5 10.0
.
125
4 .
1
0 Firm, moist, blue-green, fine sandy CLAY (CL),
micaceous. 2-3-5 13.5 8
. 5. Boring Terminated at 15,0 feet.
'Number of blows required I'or a 140 1b automalic hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1375' I.D. split-spoon sampler in successive 6" increments. The sum
of the second and third increments of penetration is tenned the Standard Penetration 'test value, "N"
BORING LOG
[tenon No.: J66-091
SINCE
Q FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Qc ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL
s,
I as I Date: 09/17/2008
Client: Johnston Community College
Project: New Library Site, Smithfield, Johnston County, NC
Boring No.: B-19 (1 of 1) jet th 15.0' Elev: 143-Oft ? Location:
Type of Boring: 2.25" ID HSA Started: 9/11/08 Completed: 9/11/08 Driller: J. Gilchrist
t;levation Dcptlr DESCRIPTION OF MATF.,RIAL.S
(Classification) * Sample
Blows La"?ple
(feel) N Value
(blows/ ft) RE"MARKS
_.....14.7 0.3
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOIL OH-WOH 1
GROUNDWATER DATA:
wet
NATIVE SOILS: Ver
ra
silt
CLAY
soft 1 0 Hrs.: 13.0' inside HSA
, g
y,
y
y
,
(CL-CH), with rootlets. 01,1-WOH 1.5
1 2.0
3 1 24 Hrs.: 0.0'
139.5 3.5 Very stiff, moist, gray, silty CLAY (CL). 4-7-11 .5
18
5.0
136.5 6.5
Stiff, moist, orange/gray molded, silty CLAY (CH), 3-5-6 6.5
11
_
? 8.0
8
134.5 8.5 Medium dense, moist, gray-tan, clayey fine to
medium SAND (SC), with fine quartz gravel' 5-12-IO 'S 22

9
13
5 10.0
12
.5 .

'
Loose, saturated, orange, slightly silty fine to coarse
SAND (SM), with fine gravel.
7-4-3 13.5
7
128.0 15.0 Boring Terminated at 15.0 feet.
*Number of blows required for a 140 Ib automatic hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. split-spoon sampler in successive 6" increments. The sum
of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the Standard Penetration Test value, "N".
BORING LOG
Report No.. J66-091
SINCE
0 ?Q FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Qc ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL
a a ?} gate: 09/17/2008
Client: Johnston Community College
Project: New Library Site, Smithfield, Johnston County, NC
Boring No.: B-20 (1 of 1) pot th 20.0' t3lov: 143.4ft f Location:

Typc of Boring: 2.25" Ill HSA
Stancd: 9/11/08 Completed: 9/11/08 ___
Driller. J. Gilchrist

Elevation
Depih DESCRIPTION OF MAT RIAE.S * Sample Sample
Depth N Value
REMARKS
(Classilication) 1310+vs ?fcct) (blows/ 11)
?
l
1 .1 0.3 SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOIL W I [-WOH-\ H
• GROUNDWATER DA'T'A:
NATIVE SOILS: Ver
soft
saturated
dark brown WOH 24 T-Irs
: 10
2' inside PVC
,
,
,
y
silty CLAY (CL), with toots. W 1-I-W -I- 1.5
}l 2.0 .
.
W OH
139
9 3
5
. . -
Medium dense
moist
gray
silty fine SAND (SM). 1-7-12 3.5
,
,
, 19

5.0
136
9 6
5
. .
Stiff, moist, orange/gray mottled, silty CLAY (C}•1). 3-5-5 6.5
10

4
9 - 8 8.
13
. .5
Stiff, moist, gray, silty CLAY (CH). -4-6 5
10

_ 10.0

129.9 13.5 .: Loose, saturated, gray, fine to coarse SAND (SP). 3-3-3 13.5 6

15.0
124.9 18.5 Medium dense, saturated, gray, fine to coarse SAND 5-8-5 18.5 13
123
4 20
0 (SP), with fine to coarse gravel.
. . Boring Terminated at 20.0 feet.
*Number of blo+4;s required fora 140 lb automatic hammer dropping. 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1 375" 11). split-spoon sampler in successive 6" increments. The sum
of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the Standard Penetration 'l'est value, "N".
BORING LOG
Report No.: J66-091
SINCE
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
ENGINEERING - ENVIRONMENTAL - GEOTECHNICAL
0i!0
1881 . Date: 09/17/2008
Client: Jollnston Coinmunity College
Project: New Library Site, Smithfield, Johnston County, NC _ u
Boring No.: B-21 (1 of 1)
1
pct th 200
taco; 146.Oft
Location:
'T'ype of Boring: 2.25" ID HSA Started: 9/12/08 Completed: 9/12/08 Driller: J. Gilchrist

Elevation
Depth DESCRIP'f10N OF MATERIALS • Sample Sample
Depth N Value
/
REMARKS
-u (Classification)

?
.
' ? Blows It'Cl (hlo\YS/ I1)

SURFIC
IAL ORGANIC SOIL, 0 ---
GROUNDWATER DATA:
NATIVE SOILS: Stiff
dr
ra
/oran
e mottled
fine 11 0 I-Irs
: 13
0' inside HSA
144
0 2
0 - ,
y, g
y
g
, 1.5 .
.
'
. . sandy silty CLAY (CL). 2-2-4 2.0 0 Hrs.: 12.0
inside PVC
Firm to stiff, dry, gray, fine sandy SILT (ML), with 6 24 Hrs.: 9.0' inside PVC
rootlets. 6-5-7 3.5
12

5.0
139
5 6
5
. . Stiff, dry, gray/orange mottled, silty CLAY (CL). 3-5-7 6.5 12

137
5 8
5 8.5
. .
- Loose, moist, tan/orange/gray mottled, slightly clayey 3-5-5 10
fine to medium SAND (SC).
10.0
132
5 13
5
. . 13.5
Very loose, saturated, orange, fine to coarse SAND 1-1-1 2
.; (SP).
15.0
127
5 18
5
. . .. Loose, saturated, tan, fine to coarse SAND (SP). 1-3-4 18.5 7
126.0 20.0 20.
Boring Terminated at 20.0 feet.
is filml v? ?nvw5 mquileu nn it ivU 10 ilulumanc nanimer dropping 30 to drive 1- V.1)., I..il?" !.I). split-spoon sampler to successive 6" increments. The sum
of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the Standard Penetration Test value, "N".
BORING LOG
Report No.: J66-091
SINCE
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL
od?
1881 Date: 09/1712009
Ct;cnl: Johnston (:atnanunity College ?? _-----------??? --_--_?.___ --
Project. New Library Site, Smithfield, Johnston County, NC
Boring No.: B-22
_(1 of 1) I ep q
)t 15.0' Elcv: 143.4ft f Location:
Type of Boring: 2.25" Ill 1-1 SA Started: 9/12/08 Completed: 9/12/08 Driller: J. Gilchrist

Elevation
Depth DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS * Sample Sample
Depth N Value
R1:MARl\S
(Classification) Blows CecQ (blo,,vs/ fl)
143.1 0.3 SURFIC1AL ORGANIC SOIL 1"2"' 0.0
GROUNDWATER DATA:
NATIVE SOILS: Firm to hard
dr
to moist
fine 5 0 Hrs
: 10
5' inside HSA
,
y
, 1.5 .
.
'
sandy silty CLAY (CL). 4-7-35 2.0 0 I-lrs.: 9.5
inside PVC
42 24 Hrs.: 8.4' inside PVC
139
9 3
5
. .
_ .: Dense, moist, tan-orange
silty fine to medium SAND 45-23-12 3.5
,
(SM). 35
5.0
136
9 6
5
. . y
Medium dense to loose, saturated, slightly silty Fine 4-6-7 6.5
] 3
to coarse SAND (SM), with fine gravel.
8.0
4-5-5 8'S 10

10.0

3-4-5 13.5 9
128.4 15.0 5
Boring Terminated at 15.0 feet.
*Number of blows required for a 140 Ib automatic hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D , 1.375" LD. split-spoon sampler in successive 6" increments. The sum
of the second and third increments ol'penetration is tensed the Standard Penetration 'l'est value, "N".
BORING LOG
Report No.: J66-091
SINCE
FQ FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Qc ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL
01881 Date: 09/17/2008
Client: Johnston Community College
-?? - ??
11rojecc New Library Site, Smithfield, Johnston County, NC M
Boring No.: 8-23 {1 of 1) 1,11 15.0' E,Iev: 144.1ft t Location:
'T'ype of Boring: 2.25" 1D HSA Starte& 9/12/08 Completed: 9/12/08 Driller: J. Gilchrist
rle?lauon Depth DESCRIPTION OF MATE-RIALS * San,Ple Sample
Depth N Value
IZI MARKS

143
8 (Classification) Blows (blows/ 11)
. 0.3 SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOIL 1-1-1 0. GROUNDWATER DATA
NATIVE SOILS: Very soft
moist
ra
fine sand 2 01-lrs
: 5
2' inside HSA
142
1 2
0 ,
, g
y,
y
il
CL
Y 1.5 .
.
'
. . s
ty
A
(CL). 4-8-17 2.0 0 ]its.: 12.0
inside PVC
Very stiff
moist
brown
fine sandy silty CLAY (CL) 25 24 Hrs.: 53inside PVC

140
6
3
5 ,
,
,
.
. . 3.5
Medium dense, moist, gray/brown mottled, clayey 4-5-12

fine to medium SAND (SC). 17
5.0
137
6- 6
5
. . 6.5
Loose, moist to wet, blue-gray, clayey fine to 5-3-7 10
medium SAND (SC).

135.6
8.5-
-5
--- 8.0
8
5
Loose to medium dense, saturated, gray, fine to 3-4-5 . 9
coarse SAND (SP), with fine to coarse gravel.
10.0

4-6-8 13.5 14
129.1 1 S.0 5.
Boring Terminated at 15.0 feet.
CMh-n r kln.,,c rn,.. :rn. 1 Y....- 1All 11 . .............._....._-____.. ?__. ,n... ., .. .. .? ?__... -_ . . -
.......,.,,. ,.. •..,1..,,....v, c. +v ill auwinatu 11F171I1IMI UrPP1111% 30 to drive C- U.U., 1 .3 !J" LU. split-spoon samplcr 111 successive 6" increments. The sum
of the second and third increments ot'penetration is temicd the Standard Penetration l"cst value, "N".
SINCE
F&R
1881
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER
6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1123/8 3 6 610 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100140200
100

x
w

>
m
a
W
z
tL
z
z
w
W
a.

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.0 01
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

Sample No. Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu
B-11 at 6.5-8.0 Light Grey, FAT CLAY (CH) 53 21 32
m B-14 at 8.5 - 10.0 Light Grey, FAT CLAY (CH) 61 25 36
B-23 at 3.5-5.0 Grey-Light Grey, SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) 30 16 14

L L
Sample No. Depth D100 D60 D30 1310 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %
Clay
Q 0 B-11 at 6.5 - 8.0 2 0.0 9.0 91.0
M B-14 at 8.5 - 10.0 4.75 0.0 1
9 98
1
. .
u
C4 & B-23 at 3.5-5.0 4.75 0.089 0.0 42.4 57.6
J,
a
V

A

S
INCE

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION
FROEHLING $c ROBERTSON
INC Report No.: J66-091
,
.
ENGINEERING - ENVIRONMENTAL - GEOTECHNICAL Client: Johnston Community College
< Project: New Library Site
Location: Smithfield
Johnston County
NC
I ,
,
Date: 09/17/2008

95
90
85
SO
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
COBBLES GRAVEL SAND

coarse fine
coarse medium fine SILT OR CLAY

60 00,
CL CH
50

P
L
A
40
S
T
I
C
T 30

Y
1
N
D 20
E
X

10

CL-ML ML MH
0
0 20 4 0 60 8 0 10 0
LIQUID LIMIT
Sample No. Depth LL PL PI Fines Classification % Natural Moisture Content
• B-11 6.5-8.0 53 21 32 91.0 Light Grey, FAT CLAY (CH) 25.2
m B-14 8.5-10.0 61 25 36 98.1 Light Grey, FAT CLAY (CH) 28.6
A
i B-23 3.5-5.0 30 16 14 57.6 Grey-Light Grey, SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) 14.4
s'"°E ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS

I FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.

NGINEERING - ENVIRONMENTAL - GEOTECHNICAL Report No.: J
-091
Client: Johnsto
ohnston Community College
Project: New Library Site
Location: Smithfield, Johnston County, NC
ieei -I Date: 09/17/2008
SINCE
FAR
1881
APPENDIX D
LIQUIFACTION ANALYSIS RESULTS
1 11
LIQUGAC
-- Idquefaction Potent.i.al. Analysis --
by NAVFAC/l DI/PEI
Project: Title: JCC Library
Project Site: Smithfield
Proposed Structure: Library
Date: 1./0/0
Computed By: Scarlett.
----------- .-:: Factor of Safety
No SP'1' Soil Elev. Cyclic Stress Ratio FS
Req'd
------------- --------------------- Against
N i?(60) NI(60) (ft) Fines Ri.(Des:i.gn) Rf(L,.iquef:) Liquef
1..0
1. 100.0
1 6 9.0 14.4 98.5
1 .i 6.0 9.6 96.6
1 32.00 SM 15.0 0.140.279 1.929
i`
2 96.5
2 20 30.0 48.0 95.0
2 21 1.5 50.4 93.6
2 49.20 St•'1 15.0 0..1.85 12.419 66.980
4.22
3 91.. 5
3 9 13.5 21.6 91A
2.1..60 SE? .0 0.230 0.37'1 1.640
3
86 5
Ele v. of Ground Water Level. .. 96 .5 ft.
Ene rgy del i.ver.ed by Sampler -- 90 .0 ..
:::.:::::::: :..::::.:::.:::,:-::::::_:::>.::->:::::::::: -<::::-::: Dynamic Properties
Layer Unit Ve.rt.ical. Stress S}1F_a Wave
No. Weight Total Effective Velocity
Modul us
(pcf) (psf) (p; f:) (fps)
(ksf)
1. 115.0 201.3 201.3 526.9
991.36
2 11.5.0 690.0 539.0 804.5
2311.54
3 100.0 1227.5 759.5 628.5
1.226.5£3
N
I:.,
Shear
Max. Surf. Ac-:c., a(max) .- 0.22 y Earthquake Maq., M == 5.0

_ Settlement
Layer G/Gmax PI Cyclic Volumetric
Settlement:
No. Shear Strain
M (.%f.fain
(<. )
1 0.8495 10.0 0 . 0053 N/A
N/A
2 0.761.3 5.0 0.0087 1\1 /A
N/A
3 0.396V 2.0 0.0552 N/A
N/A
(in)

Conterminous 48 States
2003 NEHRP Seismic Design Provisions
Zip Code = 27577
Spectral Response Accelerations Ss and S1
Ss and S1 = Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values
Site Class B - Fa = 1.0 Fv = 1.0
Data are based on a 0.05 deg grid spacing
Period Centroid Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 0.209 (Ss, Site Class B)
1.0 0.080 (S1, Site Class B)
Period Maximum Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 0.217 (Ss, Site Class B)
1.0 0.082 (S1, Site Class B)
Period Minimum Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 0.202 (Ss, Site Class B)
1.0 0.078 (S1, Site Class B)
Conterminous 48 States
2003 NEHRP Seismic Design Provisions
Zip Code = 27577
Spectral Response Accelerations SMs and SM1
SMs = FaSs and SM1 = FvS1
Site Class D - Fa = 1.6 Fv = 2.4
Period Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 0.334 (SMs, Site Class D)
1.0 0.192 (SM1, Site Class D)
Conterminous 48 States
2003 NEHRP Seismic Design Provisions
Zip Code = 27577
SDs = 2/3 x SMs and SD1 =2/3xSM1
. (sec) (g)
0.2 0.223 (SDs, Site Class D)
1.0 0.128 (SD1, Site Class D)
Conterminous 48 States
2003 NEHRP Seismic Design Provisions
Zip Code = 27577
MCE Response Spectra for Site Class B
Ss and S1 = Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values
Site Class B - Fa = 1.0 , Fv = 1.0
Period Sa Sd
(sec) (g) (inches)
0.000 0.084 0.000
0.077 0.209 0.012
0.200 0.209 0.082
0.383 0.209 0.299
0.400 0.200 0.313
0.500 0.160 0.391
0.600 0.133 0.469
0.700 0.114 0.547
0.800 0.100 0.625
0.900 0.089 0.704
1.000 0.080 0.782
1.100 0.073 0.860
1.200 0.067 0.938
1.300 0.062 1.016
1.400 0.057 1.094
1.500 0.053 1.173
1.600 0.050 1.251
1.700 0.047 1.329
1.800 0.044 1.407
1.900 0.042 1.485
2.000 0.040 1.563
Conterminous 48 States
2003 NEHRP Seismic Design Provisions
Zip Code = 27577
Site Modified Response Spectra for Site Class Site Class D
SMs = FaSs and SM1 = FvS1
Site Class D - Fa = 1.6,Fv = 2.4
(sec) (g) (inches)
0.000 0.134 0.000
0.115 0.334 0.043
0.200 0.334 0.131
0.574 0.334 1.078
0.600 0.320 1.126
0,700 0.274 1.313
0.800 0.240 1.501
0.900 0.213 1.689
1.000 0,192 1.876
1.100 0.175 2.064
1.200 0.160 2.251
1.300 0,148 2.439
1.400 0.137 2.627
1.500 0.128 2.814
1.600 0.120 3.002
1.700 0.113 3.189
1.800 0.107 3.377
1.900 0.101 3.565
2,000 0.096 3.752
Conterminous 48 States
2003 NEHRP Seismic Design Provisions
Zip Code = 27577
Design Response Spectra for Site Class Site Class D
SDs = 2/3 x SMs and SD1 = 2/3 x SM1
Site Class D - Fa = 1.6 Fv = 2.4
Period Sa Sd
(sec) (g) (inches)
0.000 0.089 0.000
0.115 0.223 0.029
0.200 0.223 0.087
0.574 0.223 0.718
0.600 0.213 0.750
0.700 0.183 0.876
0.800 0.160 1.001
0.900 0.142 1.126
1.000 0.128 1.251
1.100 0.116 1.376
1.200 0.107 1.501
S eMas sMDOTa =1:5B$Fv = 2.4
.. i t
1.600 0.080 2.001
1.700 0.075 2.126
1.800 0.071 2.251
1.900 0.067 2.376
2.000 0.064 2.502
Conterminous 48 States
2003 NEHRP Seismic Design Provisions
Zip Code = 27577
Spectral Response Accelerations Ss and S1
Ss and S1 = Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values
Site Class B - Fa = 1.0 Fv = 1.0
Data are based on a 0.05 deg grid spacing
Period Centroid Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 0.209 (Ss, Site Class B)
1.0 0.080 (S1, Site Class B)
Period Maximum Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 0.217 (Ss, Site Class B)
1.0 0.082 (S1, Site Class B)
Period Minimum Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 0.202 (Ss, Site Class B)
1.0 0.078 (S1, Site Class B)
Conterminous 48 States
2003 NEHRP Seismic Design Provisions
Zip Code = 27577
Spectral Response Accelerations SMs and SM1
SMs = FaSs and SM1 = FvS1
Site Class D - Fa = 1.6 Fv = 2.4
Period Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 0.334 (SMs, Site Class D)
1.0 0.192 (SM1, Site Class D)
1.400 0.091 1.751
Zip Code = 27577
SDs=2/3xSMsand SD1 =2/3xSM1
Site Class D - Fa = 1.6 Fv = 2.4
Period Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 0.223 (SDs, Site Class D)
Conterminous 48 States