Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSW4170502_HISTORICAL FILE_20170614STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS PERMIT NO. SW �f DOC TYPE ❑ CURRENT PERMIT ❑ APPROVED PLANS I HISTORICAL FILE El COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION DOC DATE 1�1 YYYYMMDD UG SYNERGETIC AMMOF Date: 05/10/2017 Revision: Client: Duke Energy— Carolina West UC SYNERGETIC, LLC. Project: Holt Retail Substation 123 N. White street Fort Mill, SC 29715 (803)835-7929 Specification No.: N/A Calculation Title: HOLT RETAIL SUBSTATION PROJECT REPORT NC Department of i Environmental quality Received JUN 14 2017 Winston-Salem t, Regional Office LEVEL SPREADER/VEGETATIVE FILTER STRIP CALCULATIONS v ' POS r A = 1.84 AC v c=0.85 BYPASS = 1.02 AC tol o j .� f lj �: vl �I� ❑ C 'I I� I� I' � � �� E+ o i—_ Ili I' I I, Ij � �,,. ��. � �/� ti /' ' L �� 'I� I` N� �J a❑� ICI �p/� ��� ��r�' o o ------ Y(, INSET SCALE: r 30 �.� I POST B — 0.78 AC� t/ \ I C-058,— I r� 1, V �• � ,���� :;��� � �'' I �:I oxAaHc scue MATCHLINC I '.I J \ \\ (SEE INSET ABOVE) DRAINAGE AREAS POST g - r / ngpNn iHOLT RET Ic`'3 JI I !I" C Q'i�si. Zn NC -SC 3933 2709680GRA 0 non �°`.,x.Eq L NCDENR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM LEVEL SPREADER - VEGETATED FILTER STRIP (LS-VFS) SUPPLEMENT This form must be completely filled out, printed, initialed, and submitted. Project name Contact name Phone number Date Drainage area number Holt Retail Substation Joe Ervin, P.E. 803 835 6154 May 8,2017 1 II .11DESIGN11N F,ORMAT_I.ON The purpose of the LS-VFS Other. Explained below Stormwater enters LS-VFS from The drainage area Type of VFS Engineered filter strip (graded 8 sodded, slope < 8%) Explanation of any 'Other" responses above control runoff from the site in lieu of stone water pond Within 5 miles of airport If Stornwater Enters the LS-VFS from the Drainage Area Drainage area Impervious surface area Percent impervious Rational C coefficient Peak flow from the 1 ini storm Time of concentration Rainfall intensity, 10-yr stone Peak Bow from the 10-yr storm Design storm Maximum amount of flow directed to the LS-VFS Is a flow bypass system going to be used? Explanation of any 'Other" responses above If Stormwater Enters the LS-VFS from a BMP Type of BMP Peak discharge from the BMP during the design storm Peak discharge from the BMP during the 10-year storm Maximum capacity of a 100-foot long LS-VFS Peak Bow directed to the LS-VFS Is a flow bypass system going to be used? Explanation of any 'Other' responses above 114,041 %' 75,870 F12 66,53 % 0.77 2.02 cfs 5.00 min 7.08 ini 14.27 cfs Pick one n (Y or N) A Bow bypass system is required. Do not complete this section of the form. cfs cfs Do not complete this section of the form. 10 cfs cfs Do not complete this section of the form. (Y or N) Form SW401 - LS-VFS - 291 - Rev.10 page 1 of 3 LS-VFS Design Forebay surface area Depth of forebay at stonnwater entry point Depth of forebay at stonnwater exit point Feet of level lip needed per eta Computed minimum length of the level lip needed Length of level lip provided Width of VFS Elevation at downslope base of level lip Elevation at the end of the VFS that is farthest from the LS Slope (from level lip to the end of the VFS) Are any draws present in the VFS? Is there a collector swale at the end of the VFS? Bypass System Design (if applicable) Is a bypass system provided? Is there an engineered flow splitting device? Dimensions of the channel (see diagram below): M B W y (flow depth for 10-year storm) freeboard (during the 10-year storm) Peak velocity in the channel dunng the 10-yr storm Channel lining material Does the bypass discharge through a wetland? Does the channel enter the stream at an angle? Explanation of any "Other' responses above 300 sgft Forebay is adequately sized. 12 in 6 in Depth is appropriate. 10 ft/cfs 20 ft 25 It 30 It 501.75 fmsl 500.50 fmsl 4.17 in (Y or N) ON in (Y or N) y (Y or N) y (Y or N) Please provide plan details of flow splifter& supporting talcs. NIA It NIA If NIA fl NIA It NIA It NIA ftlsec Other. Explained below n (Y or N) pipe bypass 1 B 1 Form SW401 - LS-VFS - 29June2012 - Rev.10 page 2 of 3 EDIT 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 requirement has not been met, attach justification. Requried Item: 1. Plans (1' - 50' or larger) of the entire site showing: - Design at ultimate build -out, -Off-site drainage (if applicable), - Delineated drainage basins (include Rational C coefficient per basin), - Forebay (if applicable), - High flow bypass system, - Maintenance access, - Proposed drainage easement and public right of way (ROW), and - Boundanes of drainage easement. 2. Plan details (1 " = 30'ar larger) for the level spreader showing: - Faraday (if applicahle), - High flow bypass system, One foot topic lines between the level lip and top of stream bank, - Proposed drainage easement, and - Design at ultimate buildout. 3. Section view of the level spreader (1' = 20' or larger) showing: - Underdrain system (if applicable), -Level lip, - Upslcpe channel, and - Downslope filter fabric. 4. Plan details of the flow splitting device and supporting calculations (if applicable). 5, A construction sequence that shows how the level spreader will be protected from sediment until the entire drainage area is stabilized. 6. If a non -engineered VFS is being used, then provide a photograph of the VFS showing that no draws are present. 7. The supporting calculations. 8. A copy of the signed and notarized operation and maintenance (0&M) agreement. Initials Page or plan sheet number and any notes: SEE ATTACHED DRAINAGE MAP AND SHEET GRA 1 OF 4...NO EASEMENT REO'D OF SHEET 4 OF 4 20F4 STRUCTURE MH 42 IN PROFILE ERC SHEET 3 OF 4 ATTACHED Form SW401 - LS-VFS - 29June2012 - Rev.10 page 3 of 3 UC SYNERGETIC® Innovative Thinking. Engineered Solutions. , L 1 1 1 -;V T LI-j- --!-i -17 A 7— - -C--I -T71 I L 1 I - FF- ' L L- - - - - - T-7IJ Ll www.ucseng.com Project: Date: Precipitation Frequency Data Server Page I of 4 NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 2, Version 3 GRAHAM 2 ENE Station ID: 31-3555 Location name: Graham North Carolina USA' 0 Latitude: 38.0503°, Longitude:-79.3728° �`v„�, l�J Elevation: Elevation (station metadata): 660 ft'• 'source: ESRI Maps "source: USGS POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES G.M. Bonnin. D. Mal B. Lin, T. Parzybok, MYokla, and D. Riley kill National Weather service, sever Spring, Maryland PF tabular i PF graphical i Maps & aerials PF tabular PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)' Average recurrence Interval (years) DurationO 2 O 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000 5-min 0.393 0.468 0.541 0.590 0.643 0.675 0.703, 0.723 0.743 0.754 0.358-0.430) (0.426-0.511 (0.494-0.593) (0.538-0.646) (0.583-0.702) (0.610-0736) (0633-0]68) (0.646.0.792) (0.658.0.813 0.664-0.825) 10-min 0.572.0886 0.62-0817 0.791---094B 2El.l..03 0.9291.12 0.972-11.18 1.01.122 1.03-1L26 1.04429 1.054930 15-min 11-1 0.715-0858 0.85]403 1,00-120 1.08131 1.1183A2 1.231A9 1.27454 1.W-158 (1.314862 1314.63 30-mm 108 1.29 1.56 1.-Z 2.05 241(0980.1.i B) 1.18-1.42) 1.42-1.]1 1.58-1.88 8-1. 1.75-2.10 1.862.24 2.09-2.58) 9-2. (2.12-2.64) 60-min 1 34 1.62 (1.49-1 ]B) 2.00 (1.82-219) 2.25 (2. 46) 2.56 (2.32-180) 2.78 (2.51-3.04) ffl[M] 316 (283-3.46) 3.38 (3.00-3.69) 352(1.22-147) (3.10385) 2-hr 1. 72-11 71 t.45-1872 1.]52'09 2.172b9 2.472094 2.833.39 3. 94372 3.33-00d 3.55134 3. 244]1 4.00590 3-hr 1 55-61984 1.89 223) 2.34 2.76) 2.66 3,15 3.06 3863 (3. 539.99) 1 (3.61-0.4) 11 (3.87-4468) 1 (4.175311 4.39-5.43) 6-hr (1.902.23) 2.29-2.69) 2,84-334 124-182 3. 5-14.44) (4.144.93 (4.515?42) (4.B7S?90 5.326b5) (5.64-7?05) � 5.02 (d.56-543) 5.62 (5.086.0]) � 6.P6 (5.59-6.]3) 6.26 6.91 (6.10.7.42) 6.91 7.80 7.80 (6.]5-8.38) 8.502-3.21)(3.384.00)(3.89461) (7.24-9.13)3.46 g2t[M]ffir-l2.953.674.26 4.97 586 6.56 9.75.233.71)(4.02482) (4.635.32) (5.436.28) (6.06-7.04) (6.70-7.82) (].34-882) (8.21-9.71) (8.87-10.6) .]]4.31 485-5.32 5.316809 -31 6.176.12 6.847?93 (7. 0.8.74 8,169.59 (9: 5-10.] 9.73-11.6) 3.53 4.24 5.22 5.97 6.98 7.76 8.55 9.36 10,5 11.3 3-da y 3.313J8 198-4.54) 4.09-559 5.54fl 6.50-7.48 .20.8.33 Q.91.9.21 (B.62-10A) 1 (9.57-11.3) 10.3-12.3) 3.72 4.46 5.48 6.27 7.32 8.15 8.99 9.85 1t.0 11.9 4-day (3.49-388) 4.19-0.77) (5.13-585 (5.86-6.70) 6.82-7.Bd (7.56.8.]4) (8.31-9 fi]) (9.07-10.6 t0.t-11.9) (10.9-130) 7-tlay 4 4,27 (.03-0.54) 5.08 (4.79-1.41) fi.16 (5.80-6.56) 7.00 (6.59-7.4G) 8.14 Q.646.69) 9.05 (l).4G-9.fi7) 9.96 (92]-10.7) 10.9 (10.1-i 1.7) 12.2 (1L2-73.1 13.1 12.0-14.2 (13.11- 10-0ay 11 11 4.5]5.14 5.43'6.11 6. 0-09.33 .34�8.29 lA5A59 9.30--110.6 102-191.7 1L0-12] 122-14.2) 5.4) 20-tla 6.45 7.67 8.99 10.1 71.6 12.8 14.0 15.2 16.9 18.2 y 6.11-8.83 .216.05 (8.50-9.51) 1 (9s5 10.7) 1 (10.9-12.3 12.0.13.E 13.1-14.9 14.1-16.3 15.E-18.1 16.7-19.6) 8-00 9.41 10.9 12.1 13.6 14.8 16.0 17.2 18.8 20.0 30-da y (].616.43 8.94-9.90) (10.4-11.5) (11.5-12.7) (12.9.14.4) (14.0-15.6) (15.1-18.9) (16.1-18.2) (7.5-20.0) 08.6-21.3) 45-day 1 0-1-1 9.67-10.6) 11.9 11.3-124) 13.6 (12.9-14.2) 74.9 (14.2-15.7) 16.7 (153-17.5) 18.1 (17.1-19.0) 19.4 (18.3-20.4) 20.7 (19.5-21.9) 21.5 (21.0.23.8) 11 23.8 (22.2-253) 60-day 11]--12J 136d4.e 153-i6J 16'618.2 18�3-20.1 19Z521.5 207�229 2123ii)2 233-6 243527.3 t Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates In this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration sodas (PDS). Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 0% confidence Interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given tlumtion and average recurrence Interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not chocked against probable maximum precipitatlon (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values. Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information. Beck to ToD http://dipper.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?st=nc&sta=31-3555&data=dept... 3/27/2017 UC SYNEZGETIC 123 North White Street, Fort Mill, SC 28279 DATE: May 23, 2017 TO: Mike Randall Storm Water Permitting Program NCDEMLR 1612 Mail Service Ctr Raleigh, NC 27699 �r NC Department of RECEIVED Environmental Quality ,. Received MAY 2 6 1017 k> JUN 14 2017 s f' Winston-Salem LAND QUALITy SECTION Regional Office Distribution: Richard Geer PROJECT NAME: Holt Retail Substation The Following is Transmitted: [ X ] Attached [ ] Under Separate Cover [ ] For Bid [ ] For Review and comments [ ] For Correction and Resubmittal [X] Normal Procedure [ ] Your Letter [ ] Your Telegram or Fax [ ] Telephone Request REMARKS: Initial Submittal for State Storm Water pennit for Flolt Retail Substation, Alamance County, NC If you have any questions, please contact Joe Ervin at 803-835-61543 or jervin@ucseng.com. PREPARED BY: JEE September 23, 2016 Mr. Mayur Patel Duke Energy 526 S. Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Subject: Report of Geotechnical Subsurface Investigation 47 NC Department of Environmental Quality Holt Retail Substation V Received 3523 Bellemont-Mt Hermon Road Burlington, North Carolina zz JUN 14 2017 Shield Project No. 1160154-01 Winston-Salem i Dear Mr. Patel: i _ Regional Of ,ce Shield Engineering, Inc., (Shield) has completed the geotechnical exploration for the Holt Retail Substation project in Burlington, North Carolina. Authorization to proceed with this study was provided by Mr. Mayor Patel of Duke Energy. This report contains a brief description of the project information provided to us and general subsurface soil conditions revealed during our geotechnical study. Seven (7) borings (B-01 through B-07) were performed near the staked location of the proposed structure selected by Duke Energy personnel. The borings were extended to depths ranging from 7.5 to 30 feet below the ground surface. Generally, dense to very dense Clayey SAND, Silty SAND and SAND were encountered in the borings. Auger refusal was encountered in B-02 through B-07 at depths ranging from 7.5 to 25 feet below the existing ground surface due very dense sands. Please refer to Section 6.0 for geotechnical recommendations. We are available to review with you the subsurface observation we have presented herein and answer any questions you may have. We have enjoyed working with youjtailiforward to our \O hIr continued association as your geotechnical consultant on the remain Jgik, t and any future projects you may have. J�A�. •' e e 1 _ /9c Sincerely, X ` a SEAL SHIELD ENGINEERING, INC. — _— Sean M. Brickner, E.I. mstt K. budu, P.E. Project Manager Principal Engineer I I:NmJ=oVOI at 160194-01 Hall R uil Goo Imh EnluuionOutt- Hop Raall - gootwh doc V141/ 4301 Taggart Creek Road Telephone 704.394.6913 Charlotte, NC 2820E www.shieldengineenng.wrn Fox 704.394.6968 a Report of Geotechnical Exploration Holt Retail Substation Burlington, North Carolina Prepared_ for: Duke Energy Corporation 526 S. Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Prepared hy: HI�LD ENGINEERING, INC. INOVATION-INTECRI TY-EXPERIENCE Providing Common Sense and Cost -Effective Solutions 4301 Taggart Creek Road Charlotte, NC 28208 September 23, 2016 (704) 394-6913 main www.shieldengincering.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................3 1.1 Purpose of Study.................................................................................................3 1.2 Project Location..................................................................................................3 1.3 Proposed Construction........................................................................................3 1.4 Scope of Work....................................................................................................3 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND..........................................................................4 2.1 Site Description and Topography.......................................................................4 2.2 Regional Geology .............................................. :................................................ 4 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION...............................................................................................5 3.1 Subsurface Exploration Procedures....................................................................5 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS....................................................................................5 4.1 Soil Profile..........................................................................................................5 4.2 Groundwater Observations.................................................................................6 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM....................................................................7 5.1 Summary of Laboratory Testing Program..........................................................7 5.2 Results of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing.......................................................7 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................8 6.1 General................................................................................................................8 6.2 Discussion...........................................................................................................8 6.3 Site Preparation...................................................................................................8 6.4 Subgrade Preparation..........................................................................................9 6.5 Cut/I'ill Recommendations .................................................................................9 6.6 Excavation Recommendations.......................................................................... 10 6.7 Fill Material and Placement Recommendations............................................... 10 6.8 Surface Drainage............................................................................................... 11 6.9 Groundwater Control........................................................................................ 11 6.10 Utility Installation............................................................................................. 12 6.11 Foundation Recommendations.......................................................................... 12 6.12 Retaining Wall Design Recommendations....................................................... 13 7.0 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE..........................................................14 7.1 Recommendations for Construction Monitoring .............................................. 14 8.0 LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................15 A"rTACHMENTS Appendix A Figure I: Site Vicinity Map Figure 2: Boring Location Plan Figure 3: Duke Map 10 1264-202412 Appendix B Key to Soil Classification Soil Classification Chart Geotechnical Boeing Logs (B-01 through B-07) Appendix C Laboratory Results Holt Retail Substation September 23, 2016 Shield Project No. 1 160154-01 Page 3 of 15 1.0 1.1 Purpose of Study The purpose of this study was to obtain information regarding the subsurface conditions within the vicinity of the proposed substation pad and transmission to be constructed within an undeveloped 7.35 acre parcel of land on Bellemont-Mt Hermon Road. Additionally, this study was undertaken to conduct pertinent field tests to assess the engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials. This report contains the following items: • Boring Logs; • A review of the encountered existing subsurface conditions with comments on the aerial geology; • Description of subsurface soils; and • Recommended soil parameters. 1.2 Project Location The site is located immediately northwest of the intersection of Southern high School Road and Bellemont-Mt Hermon Road in Burlington, North Carolina. Please refer to attached Figure I, Site Vicinity Map for a general location of the project limits. Additionally, the project vicinity is reference on Duke Energy Map No. I01264-202412. 1.3 Proposed Construction The proposed project includes construction of a new 200000 foot substation pad, transmission lines and distribution circuit. The boring locations were directed by Duke personnel and the structures were staked by surveyors prior to Shield's arrival on site. Boring locations are shown in Figure 2, Boring Location Plan and Figure 3, Duke Energy Map No. 10 1264-202412. 1.4 Scope of Work The scope of service included field testing, as well as evaluating the existing subsurface conditions with regard to the proposed construction. This report contains a brief description of the field testing procedures performed for this study and a discussion of the soil conditions encountered at the project site. Our approved scope of service did not include an environmental site assessment of the property. Consequently, this report does not contain information regarding the presence or absence of toxic or hazardous wastes or the presence of pollutants in the soils, rock or groundwater of the site. Holt Retail Substation September 23, 2016 Shield Project No. 1 160154-01 Page 4 of 15 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND 2.1 Site Description and Topographv Based on our site reconnaissance, the site is an undeveloped 7.35 acre parcel of land, heavily wooded in areas with slightly rolling topography. 2.2 Regional Geology Approxinmle site Location The referenced site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont j Physiographic Province. Ground elevations within the Piedmont Province vary from approximately 400 O Blue anBeBell Qi lialeigh Belt ® cneneaaBelt B feet above sea level in the Coaem Plan Q Conlin. state Belt ❑ [Inq Bnerteln Belt east to 2,000 feet In the ® nnei Pledmont ® Liaain Bean Q Moon, Belt west. The topography of the E EatemBlaeBelt ❑ Milt. Belt Piedmont Plateau consists of well-rounded hills and long rolling ridges with a northeast -southwest trend. This rolling topography is the result of streams flowing across and acting on rocks of unequal hardness. The Piedmont Plateau region is underlain by older crystalline (metamorphic and igneous) rock formations that trend northeast -southwest and vary greatly in their resistance to weathering and erosion. The major streams generally flow across these rock structures without regard to their northeast -southwest tending structures. The typical residual soil profile consists of fine-grained soils (clays/silts) near the surface, where soil weathering is more advanced, underlain by more coarse -grained soils (sandy silts/silty sands). The boundary between soil and rock is not sharply defined. This traditional zone, termed weathered rock, is normally found overlying the parent bedrock. The degree of weathering is facilitated by fractures, joints and by the presence of less resistant rock types. Therefore, the profile of the weathered rock and hard rock is quite irregular and erratic, even over short horizontal distances. Lenses and boulders or hard rock and zones of weathered rock are often encountered within the soil mantle, well above the general bedrock level. According to the Geologic Map of North Carolina by The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Land Resources, NC Geological Survey (1998), the site is underlain by Mafic Metavolcanic rock (CZmv), described as metamorphosed Bolt Retail Substation September 23, 2016 Shield ['reject No. 1160154-01 Page 5 of 15 basaltic flows and tuffs, dark green to black, interbedded with felsic and intermediate metavolcanic rock and metamudstone. 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION 3.1 Subsurface Exuloratimt Procedures On September 8, 2016, seven (7) soil test borings (B-01 through B-07) were performed within the proposed construction area. An ATV -mounted CME-550X drill rig was used by Shield's subcontractor, IIPC Land Services, to advance the boring into the ground and obtain samples for an engineering evaluation. The soil test boring was performed using hollow -stem, continuous flight auger drilling techniques in general accordance with ASTM Practice D-6151. Soil samples were obtained at the soil test boring during our field exploration in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D- 1586. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at designated intervals in the soil test boring as the augers were advanced. The SPT (N-value) represents the number of blows required to drive a split -barrel sampler 12 inches with a 140-pound automatic trip hammer falling from a height of 30 inches. The N-value provides a general indication of in -situ soil conditions and has been correlated with certain publishedengineering properties of soils. The results of the subsurface exploration arc depicted graphically on the "Geotechnical Boring Log" at the respective test depths. A "Key to Soil Classification" and "Soil Classification Chart" is also included at the end of this report. The split -spoon soil samples collected during the field testing were visually examined and classified in the field by a member of our gcotcchnical staff in general accordance with ASTM Practice D-2488 using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The "Soil Classification Chart" illustrates the USCS classification symbols depicted on the "Geotechnical Boring Logs". 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 Soil Profile General subsurface conditions encountered during our subsurface exploration are described herein. For more detailed soil descriptions and stratifications at a particular boring location, the respective "Geotechnical Boring Log" should be reviewed. The geotechnical boring log represents our interpretation of the field log based on engineering observations of the sampled soils. The horizontal stratification lines designating the interface between various strata represent approximate boundaries. Transitions between different strata in the field may be gradual in both the horizontal and vertical directions. Holt Retail Substation September 23, 2016 Shield Project No. 1 160154-01 Page 6 of 15 Boring Summary Boring Location Boring Depth (feet) Auger Refusal (feet) Water Encountered' (feet) B-01 NW Corner — Pact 30 No No B-02 W Side / Center - Pad 14 Yes No B-03 SW Corner — Pad 21 Yes No B-04 SE Corner — Pad 23 Yes No B-05 E Side / Center — Pad 17 Yes No B-06 NE Corner — Pad 25 Yes No B-07 Center - Pad 7.5 Yes No 'Water level below existing ground surface during drilling operations Possible Fill: Possible fill soils were encountered in B-03 through B-06 to depths ranging from 3%2 to 6 feet below the existing ground surface. The possible fill soil generally consisted of Sandy CLAY, Clayey SAND and Silty SAND. Standard Penetration Resistances (N-values) in the fill soil ranged from 12 to 24 blows per foot (bpf) with the majority ranging from 12 to 15 bpf, indicating medium dense relative densities. Residuum: Residual soils were encountered just below the topsoil in borings B-01, 13-02, B-07 and at depths ranging from 3 to 6 feet below the existing ground surface in B-03 through B-06. The residual soils generally consisted of Clayey SAND, Silty SAND, Sandy SILT and SAND. Standard Penetration Resistances (N-values) in the residuum ranged Prom 13 bpf to 50 blows per 0 inch with the majority ranging from 35 bpf to 50 blows per 3 inches, indicating dcnse to very dense relative densities. Auger Refusal: Auger refusal was encountered in borings B-02 through B-07 ranging in depths from 7.5 to 25 feet below the existing ground surface. Auger refusal is defined as material that could not be penetrated with the drill rig and auger equipment used on the project. Auger refusal material may consist of very dense soils, large boulders, rock ledges, lenses, seams or the top of parent bedrock, and is indicative of materials which will likely require rock excavation techniques for their removal. 4.2 Groundwater Observations Groundwater readings were performed for the test boring during drilling operations. Due to safety concerns, the borings were backfilled after the completion of coring operations, making subsequent water level readings unobtainable. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling operations. It should be noted that water levels tend to fluctuate with seasonal and climatic variations, as well as with some types of construction operations. Therefore, water may be encountered during construction at depths not indicated during this study. Holt Retail Substation September 23, 2016 Shield Project No. 1160154-01 Page 7 of 15 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM 5.1 Summary of Laboratory Testint Proeram The purpose of the laboratory testing program was to evaluate the mechanical and index properties of the subsurface soils encountered, and to assist in the soil classification and relative strength evaluations. Representative soil samples were obtained, at various depth intervals, within each of the test borings for laboratory testing and analysis. These samples were divided into groups of similar samples according to color and visual classification. The laboratory testing program was performed in general accordance with applicable American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) test procedures. The laboratory test program included the following tests: Geotechnical Laboratory Testing • Moisture Content of Soils ASTM D-2216 • Atterberg Limits (Liquid Limit, ASTM D-4318 Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index) • Grain Size Analysis ASTM D-422 5.2 Results of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing For additional information regarding results of the laboratory testing, refer to the appropriate geotechnical boring log in Appendix B, and the detailed laboratory test results in Appendix C. Moisture content testing was performed on 20 samples collected at various depths throughout the borings. Testing indicated moistures ranging from 6.4 to 27.3 percent, indicating relative moisture contents ranging from dry to damp. Please refer to the attached boring log for specific moisture content results including depths and borings. Atterberg Limits testing was performed to assist in the classification and characterization of the .encountered soils. Atterberg Limits testing on five (5) soil samples collected from B-01, I3-03, B-04 and B-06 at depths ranging from 1'h to 10 feet below existing ground surface indicated Liquid Limits (LL) ranging from 17 to 53 and Plasticity Indices (PI) ranging from non -plastic "NP" to 25. Grain Size testing was performed on five (5) soil samples collected from B-01, 13-03, B-04 and B-06 at depths ranging from 1'/z to 10 feet below existing ground surface. The results indicated varying amounts of Sand in samples, ranging from 22.2 to 56.3 percent, indicating Sandy CLAY/SILT to SAND. For additional information regarding results of the laboratory testing, refer to the appropriate geotechnical boring log in Appendix B, or the laboratory data included in Appendix C. Holt Retail Substation September 23, 2016 Shield Project No. 1160154-01 Page 8 of 15 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMNIENDATIONS 6.1 General Our evaluations and recommendations are based on the project information previously outlined and from the data obtained from the field testing program. If the structural loading, geometry or the proposed structure locations are known or differ from those outlined herein, or if conditions are encountered during construction that differ from those encountered at the soil test borings, Shicld requests the opportunity to review our recommendations based on the new information and the necessary changes. 6.2 Discussion Based on our subsurface investigation, it is Shield's professional opinion that the site is suitable for the construction of the proposed project from a geotechnical standpoint. However, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should be incorporated in the design and construction of the project to minimize possible geotechnical problems. MFAD Parameters: We understand that lateral load capacity for drilled shafts or direct embedment will be analyzed using the MFAD 5.0 program at each transmission pole/tower structure foundation location. The soil parameters'used in the analysis is the moist unit weight (y,,,), cohesion (c), angle of internal friction (�) and the deformation modulus (ED). It should be noted that the recommended soil strength parameters are not factored. Therefore, appropriate safety factors should be applied to the foundation design. Additionally, lateral pile capacity analysis programs typically require input of moist unit weight above the groundwater table and submerged or effective unit weight below the groundwater table. Pressuremeter testing was not performed as part of this project, and the elastic modulus values were obtained from correlations presented in the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) manual [EPRI, 1990]. Estimates of the required parameters were developed based on the results of our site reconnaissance, field exploration program, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, literature research, and our professional judgment. Based on our findings, we recommend the following values for the soils encountered at this site: Moist Angle of Depth Below Ground Unit Ln Internal Cohesion, c Surface Material Weight, (ksi) Friction (list) (feco 9 (degrees) c 3.5 — 13.5 Stiff to very stiff 130 1-2 30 1000 Sandy SILT (ML 0-3.5 Stiff 120 1 28 I800 Sandy CLAY (CL) Low Plasticity 0-3.5 Stiff 120 1 19 2150 Sandy CLAY (CI I) Ili gh Plasticity 0 — 23.5 Medium Dense to Very Dense Silty 130 1 35 1050 SAND (SM) 3.5 — 13.5 Medium Dense to Very Dense Clayey 130 1 30 1550 SAND (SC) 3.5 — 23.5 Dense to Very Dense Poorly Graded 135 2 38 0 SAND SP I lolt Retail Substation September 23, 2016 Shield Project No. 1160154-01 Page 9 of 15 6.3 Site Preparation The proposed structure and/or fill areas should be stripped of any construction debris, organic laden materials, trash, and other organic materials to a minimum of 10 feet outside the structural limits. Depressions or low areas resulting from stripping should be backfilled with approved soil and compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. During grading operations, hidden features in the substratum, such as organic laden materials, existing utilities or other deleterious materials may be encountered within the proposed construction area. Generally, such features will require removal. Details regarding removal of deleterious material must be determined on a case -by -case basis and, therefore, contract documents should include a contingency cost for the removal of subsurface features. Excavated areas should be backfilled in general accordance with the compacted fill recommendations presented herein. 6.4 Subzrade Preparation Site preparation monitoring by Shield personnel is recommended. Upon completion of the stripping operations, we recommend that areas to provide support for the proposed structures or structural fill be proof rolled under the supervision of a geotechnical staff professional prior to fill placement and/or at -grade construction. Proof rolling should be performed with a loaded tandem axle dump truck or similar piece of rubber -tired equipment (minimum loaded weight of 20 tons). The purpose of the proof rolling is to detect the existence of marginal or loose near -surface materials or unsuitable soils that may require undercutting. Areas which deflect, rut or pump excessively during proof rolling, and which cannot be densified in -place, should be undercut to suitable soils and backfilled as directed by the geotechnical engineer. Where these soils appear to be shallow in nature, they can either be removed in their entirety or be scarified, dried and re - compacted. These areas can be addressed during the earthwork preparation phase of construction. Proof rolling should not be performed on saturated or frozen subgrades, or daring wet weather conditions. 6.5 Cut/Fill Slope Recommendations Slope Stabilitv: Permanent project slopes that have grass placed on them should be designed at a 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:IV) or flatter. The tops and bases of all slopes should be located a minimum of 10 feet from structural limits and a minimum of five (5) feet from pavement limits. Fill slopes should be benched into existing slopes, where applicable, and compacted in accordance with the compacted fill recommendations contained in this report. Project slopes Should be seeded and maintained immediately after construction. If excavations are anticipated at the site, shoring and bracing or flattening (laying back) of the slopes may be required to obtain a safe working environment. Excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state and federal regulations, including OSHA (CFR Part 1926) excavation trench safety standards. We recommend that all excavated soils be placed away from Holt Retail Substation September 23, 2016 Shield Project No. 1160154-01 Page 10 of 15 the edges of the excavation, at a distance equaling or exceeding the depth of the excavation, In addition, surface runoff should be diverted away from the crest of the excavated slopes to prevent erosion and sloughing. Slope Protection: Un-braced excavations may experience some minor, localized instability (i.e., sloughing). To reduce potential sloughing, excavated slopes should be covered with polyethylene for protection from rainfall and moisture changes. It should be emphasized that continuous observations by personnel from our office are important during trenching or excavation operations at the site. It is also not uncommon for groundwater seepage to occur in the sides of an excavation after periods of heavy rainfall. Usually, such seepage is minimal and can be effectively handled by conventional pumping and dewatering techniques. 6.6 Excavation Recommendations Based on the results of the soil test borings, we anticipate stiff and medium dense to very dense soils will be encountered during general site excavation. We anticipate that the soils can be excavated using pans, scrapers, backhoes and front end loaders. Final design grades are not known at this time. Auger refusal due to very dense sand was encountered within every boring except B-01. Although bedrock, boulders and rocks were not encountered the depth to and thickness of rocks, boulders, rock lenses or seams, can vary dramatically in short distances and between boring locations. Therefore, bedrock, rock seams and/or boulders may be encountered during construction at locations or depths, between boring locations, not encountered during this exploration. It has been our past experience in this geologic area that materials having Standard Penetration Resistances of less than 50 blows per 6 inches of penetration can generally be excavated using pans and scrapers by first loosening with a single tooth ripper attached to a suitable sized dozer, such as a Caterpillar D-8 or D-9. On earthwork projects requiring ripping a controversy sometimes develops as to whether the materials can be removed by ripping or whether blasting is required. It should be noted that ripping is dependent on the equipment and techniques used, as well as the operator's skill and experience. The success of the ripping operation is dependent on finding the proper combination for the conditions encountered. Excavation of the weathered rock is typically much more difficult in confined excavations. Based on the depth of rocks and boulders encountered within the borings we do not anticipate that jack hammering and/or blasting will be required for this project. 6.7 Fill Material and Placement Recommendations In general, soils comprising the following ASTM classifications and having a Plasticity Index (PI) of less than 25 can be used for structural fill: well -graded GRAVEL (GW), poorly -graded GRAVEL (GP), Silty GRAVEL (GM), Clayey GRAVEL (GC), well -graded SAND or Gravelly SAND (SW), poorly -graded SAND or Gravelly SAND (SP), Silty SAND (SM), Clayey SAND Holt Retail Substation September 23, 2016 Shield Project No. It 60154-01 Page I I of 15 (SC), Sandy SILT (ML) or Sandy or lean CLAY (CL). Prior to fill placement, representative samples of each engineered fill material should be collected and tested by Shield to determine the material's moisture -density characteristics — including the maximum dry density, optimum moisture content and plasticity index. These tests are needed for quality control of the structural fill and to determine if the fill material meets project specification requirements. Backfill in structural areas should contain no more than five (5) percent (by weight) organic material, have a plasticity index (PI) no more than 25, and should have a maximum dry density not less than 90 pounds per cubic foot as determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D-698. Soil not meeting these criteria may be used in nonstructural areas. Once fill placement begins, field density tests should be performed by a qualified soils technician to document the degree of compaction being obtained in the field. Fill material should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. The moisture content of the fill soils should be within plus or minus three (3) percentage points of the optimum moisture content based on the Standard Effort Maximum Dry Density Test (ASTM Test Method D-698). Regular one -point proctors should be conducted to ensure that the most representative Proctor curve is being selected. The in -place dry density should equal or exceed 95 percent of the Standard Effort Maximum Dry Density, unless otherwise specified. The upper 12 inches of fill beneath building pads and roadways should be compacted to 100 percent of the same index for improved support. 6.8 Surface Drainage Care must be exercised by the contractor after subgrade soils are exposed and/or fill materials have been compacted. If water is allowed to stand on the surface, these soils may become saturated. Movement of construction traffic on saturated subgrades causes nutting that may destroy the integrity of the fill. Once the integrity of the subgrade is destroyed, mobility of construction traffic becomes difficult or impossible. Therefore, the fill surface should be sloped to achieve positive drainage and to minimize water from ponding on the fill surface. "Scaling" the exposed subgradc soils by smooth steel -drum rolling or other acceptable means in the event of forecasted inclement weather and to facilitate the drainage of surface water is also recommended. If the surface becomes excessively wet, fill operations should be halted and a Shield geotechnical engineer should be consulted for- guidance. Testing of the fill material and compaction monitoring by our soils technician is essential to achieve acceptable structural fill. 6.9 Groundwater Control It is not anticipated that ground water will be encountered during construction activities. However, if ground water is encountered, Shield should be contacted for further recommendations. In auger drilling operations, water is not introduced into the borehole,;, and the groundwater position can often be determined by observing water flowing into or out of the boreholes. Furthermore, visual observations of the soil samples retrieved during the auger drilling exploration can often be used in evaluating the groundwater conditions. The highest Holt Retail Substation September 23, 2016 Shield Project No. 1 160154-01 Page 12 of 15 groundwater observations are normally encountered in the late winter and early spring. Variations in the location of the long-term water table may occur as a result of changes in precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff, and other factors not immediately apparent at the time of this exploration. 6.10 Utility Installation Utility trench and retaining wall backfills within ten (10) feet of the building footprints should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction in accordance with the Standard Effort Maximum Dry Density Test (ASTM Test Method D-698); however, to minimize the potential for damage to below -grade walls due to compaction -induced lateral stresses, heavy. compaction equipment should not be allowed within five (5) feet of retaining walls. The use of lighter weight compaction equipment such as mechanical tampers (wackers), walk behind rollers, etc. is expected to be required during utility trench and retaining wall backfill operations in order to achieve adequate compaction results. 6.11 Foundation Recommendations Based on the results of the soil test borings performed, the proposed structure can be adequately supported on shallow foundations bearing on existing fill and residual soils or newly placed structural fill, provided the site preparation and compacted fill recommendations outlined in this report are implemented. An allowable net bearing pressure of up to 3,000 pounds per square foot (psi) can be used for design of the foundations bearing on the residual soils exhibiting Standard Penetration Resistances (N-values) of 12 blows per foot (bpf) or greater, or on new structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent of its Standard Effort Maximum Dry Density. The in -place bearing pressure of the foundation sub -soils should be verified at the time of installation by a footing inspection reviewed by a qualified geotechnical engineer. It is important to note that the design foundation pressure provided above is for the preliminary sizing of footings only, and the in -place bearing pressure will need to be verified by Shield for our recommendations to be considered valid. In order to avoid a local shear or "punching" failure of the footings, we recommend the shallow wall and column footings should have a minimum width of 18 and 24 inches respectively, regardless of loading. The footings should extend to a minimum depth of 18 inches below external grades for frost protection. Exposure of the subgrade materials to the environment may weaken these soils at the foundation bearing level. If the foundation excavations remain open for long periods of time, or during inclement weather, re-evaluation of the subgrade materials by a geotechnical staff professional must be performed prior to steel, concrete or stone placement. If the foundation excavation subgrade soils must remain exposed overnight or during inclement weather, we recommend that a 2 to 4 inch thick "mud -mat' of "lead' (2,000 psi) concrete or flowable fill be placed on the bearing soils. The foundation bearing areas should be free of any loose or soft material, standing water and debris. Concrete should not be placed on soils that have been softened by precipitation or frost heave. I lolt Retail Substation September 23, 2016 Shield Project No. 1 160154-01 Page 13 of 15 We recommend that the bearing surface be evaluated by personnel with Shield using hand auger borings with Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing equipment or other suitable methods prior to foundation installation. The purpose of the footing evaluation is to locate any unexpected marginal soil areas or deleterious material which may require undercutting and backfilling. Unsuitable soil detected during this evaluation should be undercut as directed by the geotechnical engineer. It is important to note that the foundation recommendations described above should not be considered valid unless a footing evaluation is conducted at the time of foundation installation. 6.12 Retaining Wall Design Recommendations Retaining walls should be designed to resist both ultimate lateral earth pressures and any additional lateral loads caused by surcharge loads on the adjoining, ground surface. Retaining walls should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures of the compacted backfill soils provided the recommended fill soils described in Section 6.7, "Fill Material and Placement Recommendations" of this report, are utilized as retaining wall backfill soils. The appropriate design values should be chosen based on the condition of the wall (restrained or unrestrained). Unrestrained wall pressures should only be considered applicable where it would be structurally and architecturally acceptable for the wall to laterally deflect 2 percent of the wall height. The retaining walls may be designed utilizing the following equivalent fluid pressures: Condition Rankine Garth Pressure Coefficient Equivalent Fluid Pressure Unrestrained (Active) 0.38 45 psf/ft Restrained (At -Rest) 0.53 60 psf/ft Passive 2.77 320 psf/ft -psf/ft = pounds per square foot per foot of wall/retained soil height -Assumes the slope behind the wall is less than 5 horizontal to 1 vertical (5:1 H:V) -Above values were determined based on a moist unit weight of 115 pcf and an effect internal angle of friction of 28 degrees Retaining wall information was not provided at the time of this report. Shield has assumed the maximum expected exposed wall height of retaining walls onsitc will be 4'/a feet. For surcharge loads, increase the ultimate design pressures behind the wall by an additional uniform pressure equivalent to one-half (for restrained condition) or one-third (for unrestrained condition) of the maximum anticipated surcharge load applied to the surface behind the wall. These design parameters do not account for any build-up of hydrostatic pressure resulting from the infiltration of water behind the retaining walls (i.e, based on the assumption that all backfill is continuously drained). A permanent drainage system should be incorporated into the design of the retaining walls in order to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures. Backfill material behind retaining walls shall be placed in accordance with all applicable recommendations in Section 6.7, "Fill Material and Placement Recommendations," of this report. To minimize potential damage to retaining walls, we recommend that care should be taken when compacting backfill close to the wall. Light weight compaction equipment with a maximum weight of one (1) ton (i.e. hand-held tamper or walk behind compactors) should be Holt Retail Substation September 23, 2016 Shield Project No. 1 160154-01 Page 14 of 15 utilized to compact backfill material within a lateral distance of five (5) feet from the wall or within 45 degrees of the base of the wall, whichever is greater, to prevent shock to the wall. Sliding resistance at the base of the retaining walls should also be considered in its design. Based on the encountered soils during this investigation, the following coefficients of fiction (f) are recommended as a function of the material at the soil/concrete interface: Foundation Subgrade Friction (f) Material - Fill Soils 0.28 Residual Soils 0.30 (Clays) Residual Soils Fine to Medium Sand 0.35 7.0 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE Our technical staff should work closely with you throughout the site development phases of construction. It is particularly important for our personnel to monitor placement and compaction of all engineered fill, and to witness the stripping and proof rolling of the subgrade soils. Additionally, all foundations should be reviewed by personnel from our office in order to compare the conditions evaluated with those found during our field exploration and to establish conformance with the project specifications requirements. We look forward to the opportunity to provide these services, as well as construction monitoring and materials testing. 7.1 Recommendations for Construction Monitorint We recommend that Shield be employed to monitor soil excavations and to report the recommendations concerning till placement and foundation support are completed in a satisfactory manner. Our continued involvement on the project helps provide continuity for proper implementation of the recommendations discussed herein. The following is a recommended scope of service: • Review project plans and construction specifications to assess the interpretation of this report; • Observe the excavation process to document that subsurface conditions encountered during construction are consistent with the conditions anticipated in this report; • Observe the subgrade before placing fill; • Observe the placement and compaction of any engineered fill soils and perform laboratory and field compaction testing of the fill soils; and • Observe all foundations for conformance with recommended bearing stratum. Halt Retail Substation September 23, 2016 Shield Project No. 1160154-01 Page 15 of 15 8.0 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice for the exclusive use of Duke Energy Corporation and/or its assignees, specifically for this project. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our assessment and recommendations are based on information furnished to us or assumed, the data from this geotechnical exploration and generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. The evaluations and recommendations do not reflect variations in subsurface conditions which could exist intermediate of the boring locations or in unexplored areas of the site. Should such variations become apparent during construction, it will be necessary to re-evaluate our evaluations and recommendations based upon on -site . observations or the conditions encountered. Regardless of the thoroughness of the subsurface exploration, there is the possibility that conditions between borings will differ from those at the boring locations, that conditions are not as anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the soil conditions. Therefore, an experienced staff professional working under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer should evaluate earthwork and foundation construction to verify that the conditions anticipated in design actually exist. Otherwise, we assume no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations. If this report is copied or transmitted to a third party, it must be copied or transmitted in its entirety, including test, attachments and enclosures. Interpretations based on only a part of this report may not be valid. 9 0 SOURCE: NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC USGS TOPO MAP ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA GRAPHIC SCALE 0 1,a�oo 2,000 SCALE: 1 in. = 2,000 ft. 0 r. SHIELD iR TA GGART CHEEK ROAD LiL\\/\p• CIIARLOI E. NO 28208 7 a, > .» .,.. ENGINEERING, INC. SITE LOCATION PLAN 3523 BELLEMONT - MT. HERMON ROAD HOLT RETAIL GEOTECH EVALUATION BURLINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA SHIELD N 1160154 01 DATE : 09/07/16 DRAWN BY: RIBS SCALE : AS SHOWN FIGURE : 1 LEGEND w o. - off a:m : rto ♦PmW mn ., { ' I I i (i�®iuomnmueo®oan ilF3-dz xY a �o m �7y1V1:�iw, \ -714 -218 m. OisVibul:en dreuits ..nn. Pma .e mT.o � x.:osvH Rwsrnw wei+w ra �'� T�xvuvq YNYY.w ulrl \ v:n xum. N.IMYY ICRRnW,SP1 TransmSsTaBld�e4 m+. _����- f g NETM COTE MNSHAW P•„ / r 1722 CEL ]22AOB80 - 8.A8{ A I s . i d ter% AREA IR9DE ROAD �R/W - O.tEg4 AOS �cm • HoO GUGSTATION 200' x 300' SUBSTATION ElH COTE HWSHAW JtCEl 722A1891 - 1.1883ACRES \ IfW'A� I -� I x x. J Soil Dorir:9 bra�ion � HOI� Pataa ryA SCd����� wi `` P=a 58722409M - 6./81}ACRES PARC0. M.PMM07/1Y16 SN. YG ]a] OB �599. GG 1J9 x I i 8872241891 . 1.1882ACRES TOTAL SURVEY AREA - 7.8323 ACRES DUKE E . - wnuces u¢x wmR xo.o mar-or-wAr eee b. M Yx .ne7rs ,9. rMo Tn Duke IE rWe w9 s. amR sraE, ro as ,ror ,6EM64 MO G 3a201-IpJI pwtaz-ease s ;_ ,, , ��� �1• �d,� N 1 <✓,� B rl. Y 4 B-5-® 1• n �• c 1 �, f. �.� � •� i �� $-$ 7 � LVI r � .tn yr {!t rB2� L� olilk IV. x }B-4Co 4 p �41 '•; "�, _, i� 1. " �rv.k 1 .yeti �, i r, �1 q j7 �• "1 , r•. �,.; '�• `B / I1 l I ♦ 1 , , 4 [I` KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION Correlation of Penetration Resistances with Relative Density and Consistency Sands and Gravels Silts and Clays Standard Standard Penetration Relative Penetration Resistance Density Resistance Consistency 0-4 Very Loose 0-2 Very Soft 5 - 10 Loose 3-4 Soft 11 - 30 Medium 5 - 8 Firm 31 -50 Dense 9 - 15 Stiff Over 50 Very Dense 16 - 30 Very Stiff 31 -50 Hard Over 50 Very Hard Particle Size identification (Unified Classification System) Boulders - Diameter exceeds 12 inches Cobbles - 3 to 12 inches diameter Gravel - Coarse - 3/4 to 3 inches diameter Fine - 4.76 turn to 3/4 inch diameter Sand - Coarse - 2.0 mm to 4.76 mm diameter Medium - 0.42 mm to 2.0 nun diameter Fine - 0.08 mm to 0.42 mm diameter Silt & Clay - Less than 0.074 mm (particles cannot be seen with naked eye) Secondary Modifiers The second modifiers are generally included when a soil type comprises less than 35 percent of the entire sample. Percent of Sample Modifier 0 — 10 Trace 11 - 20 Little 21-35 Some H:\GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL(0120)WASTER LET 17ltS\GEOTI°CH\SOII.KEY.DOC *__ EffmLDG, -INC. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART COARSE -GRAINED SOILS (more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size,) ' Clean Gravels (Less than 5% fines) ►�.1 Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand )� GW �'mixtures, little or no fines �. GRAVELS More than 50% - GP Poortygreded gmvels, gravel -sand of coarse mixtures. little or no lines fraction larger Gravels with fines (More than 12% fines) than No. 4 — sieve size :N GM Silty gravels, gravel -sand -sill mixtures 's GC Clayey gravels; gravel -sand -clay d mixtures Clean Sands Less then 5% fines SW Well -graded santls. gravelly sands, little or no fina9 SA NDS 50 % or more 1'+-- I Sp I Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, of coarse L little or. no fines fraction smaller Sands will) lines (More than 12%lines) then No.4 ' sieve size I SM Silly sands, sand -silt mixtures SC iii Clayey sands, saw •cley mixtures FINE-GRAINED SOILS (50% or more of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size.) Inorganic sills and very fine sands, rock SILTS I ML flour, silly of clayey fine sands or clayey AND silts wlih slight plasticity Inorganic Gays of low to medium CLAYS Liquid limn CL plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, lass than silty clays, lean clays sB% OL Organic sills and organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous at 10 MH diatomaceous fine sandy or silly soils. SILTS elastic silts AND CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, (at CLAYS Liquid limit clays 50% lr Organic clays of medium to high or greater OH plasticity, organic sills HIGHLY ORGANIC PT I Peal and other highly organic soils SOILS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA DSO D30 GW Cu = I greater than 4; Cc _ between 1 and 3 D10 D10 xD60 GP Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW GM Atterberg limits below "A" line or P.I. less than 4 Above 'A" line with P.I. between 4 and 7 are borderline cases GC Allerberg limits above "A" requiring use of dual symbols line with P.I. greater than 7 DSO D30 Cu = greater than 4; Cc = between 1 and 3 SW D10 DlaxD60 Sp Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW SM Alterberg limits below "A" I Limils plotting In shaded zone line or P.I. less Ihan 4 with P.I. between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use SC Aderberg limits above "A" line with P.I. greater than 7 of dual symbols, Determine percentages of sand and gravel from grain•size curve. Depending on percentage of lines (fraction smaller than No. 200 sieve size). coarse -grained soils are classified as follows: Less than 5 percent .................................... GW. GP. SW, Sp More than 12 percent .... I ............................. GM. GC, SM. SC 5 to 12 percent ................... Borderline cases requiring dual symbols PLASTICITY CHART 60 50 a CH c40 ALINE' i 30 PI = 0.73 LL-20 CL MH8OH u 20 N 10 a "° ML&OL OO 10 20 '30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) (%) Reference- VirginiaDepartment of Transportation, Unified Soil Classification System H:Geo-Environmental\MASTER LETTERS\Unified Soil Classification System.pdf GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Report Data 9/8/16 Boring No.: B-W Boring Method: HQ(19w-Stem-Auger Hammer Type: Automatic— ip Hammes Sheet: L of: Logged By: _SMB Driller: HPC Date Started: 9/6/16 Boring Location: Date Finished: 9/6/16 L as o a L N a s $ SPT blows per Surface Elevation: +/- DESCRIPTION OP MATERIALS (Classification) b a o o U ^ w COMMENTS: 6 in. foot 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 TOP SOIL------------------ . Medium Dense Light Reddish Brown and Black Silty SAND (SM), moist (RESIDUAL) Medium Dense Light Reddish Brown and Black 3.51 Clayey SAND (SC) with fine gravel, moist Dense White and Light Brown Silty SAND 6.0 (SM), damp Ilard Light Brown & Black Sand SILT ML 8'S a y ( )� damp Very Dense White, Black and Light Brown 13.5, SAND (SP) with trace silt, damp Dense White, Black and Light Brown SAND 18.5 (SM) with trace silt, damp Very Dense White and Light Brown SAND vs (SP), damp IS 17 12 17 1 "' 44 1 10 EF 15 2 11 17 3 14 41 4 12 34 . 5 la 79 6 to 1 30 . .17 i 7 8 5014 8 12 5 166 Boring Terminated at 30 fee[. 30.0 GENERAL REMARKS: GPS DATA: GROUNDWATER DATA: Datum: North: East: V ff ]a 17 During Drilling: Dry Feet At Completion: Dty_Feet Caved: 16.5 Feet After 24 Hours: Feet 4301 SHIELD Taggart Creek Road Charlotte, NC 28208 Telephone: Telephone: 704-394-6913 Toll Free: 800-395-5220 ENGINEERING, INC. Fax: 704-394-6968 Holt Retail Substation DUKE ENERGY ' Burlington, NC Shield Project No.: 1160154-01 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Report Date: 9/8/16 Boring No.: BA-2 Boring Method: ltoalkw-Stctxtllugcr-- hammer Type: AtuQulatic-Trip Uanuner Shect: of Logged By: SM13 Driller: IJEC Date Started: 9/6/16 Boring Location: Date Finished: 9/6/16 . a o > G SP'h blows per 6 in. foot Surface Elevation: DESCRIPTION OF MATL'RIALS (Classification) H c 0 v U 2 COMMENTS: 5 10 IS 20 25 30 35 1 12 32 TOP SOIL------------------ 0.3 be Tan and Light Brown Silty SAND (SM) with trace Clay, damp (RESIDUAL) Very Dense Tan, Brown and Gray Mottled 3.5 'Y Y Clayey SAND (SC), damp Very Dense Light Brown SAND SP dam - 6.0 rY g ( )� P -- 8.5 No Recovery ... , - - r . 19 z 13 smb 3 a 4- sofa 4 0 50/3 5013 5 0 5012 50/2 Auger Refusal @ 14 feel Due Dense SAND 14.0 GENERAL REMARKS: GPS DATA: GROUNDWATER DATA: 11 Datum: North: East: V 7At li:l 17 During Drilling: Dry Feet Completion: Dry_Fect Caved: 7 Feet After 24 Hours: Fcet Charlotte, NC 28209 S�IIELD 4301 Taggart Creek Road Tcicphonc:704-394-6913 Telephone: ele Toll Free: 800-395-5220 ENGINEERING, INC. Fax: 704-394-6968 Holt Retail Substation DUKE ENERGY Burlington, NC Shield projectNo.: 1160154-01 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Report Date: 9/8/16 Boring No.: 13-03 Boring Method: Ho11Qw_Stem AueeL Hammer Type: Automatic Trio Hammer Sheet: I oL I Logged By: SMR Driller: I-IPC Date Started: 916/I6 Boring Location: Date Finished: 9/6/16 o > `✓ d 7'�'� °— > a ° L G SP'I' blows per 6 if Surface Elevation: DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS (Classification) E .b c c? U 2 COMMENTS: 5 10 IS 20 25 30 35 0. T_O_PSO_I_I- _______________ Stiff Reddish Brown and Black Sandy CLAY (CH), moist (POSSIBLE FILL) — 3.5 Medium Dense Light Brown Clayey SAND (SC), moist (POSSIBLE FILL) Medium Dense Brown, White and Pink Clayey 6.0 SAND (SC), damp (RESIDUAL) Medium Dense Li ht Brown Cla e SAND ss g Y Y (SC), damp 13.5 very Dense Light Brown SAND (Sp), damp Auger Refusal @ 21 feet Due to Dense SAND 21.0 / i ra 28 15 n 6 53 25 78 1 10 12 2 8 24 3 10 28 4 12 zo 5 s 50/2 ..... 6 6 50/6 GENERAL REMARKS: GPS DATA: GROUNDWATER DATA: Datum: North: East: SZ I tta --V During Drilling: Dry Feet At Completion: Dry —Feet Caved: 10.5 Feet After 24 hours: Feet Charlotte, NC 28208 -SHIELD 4301 Taggart Creek Road Telephone: Telephone:704-394-394-6913 'fall Free: 800-395-5220 ENGINEERING, INC. Fax: 704-394-6968 Holt Retail Substation DUKE ENERGY Burlington, NC Shield Project No.: 1160154-01 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Report Date: 9/8/16 Boring No.: 3[_ Q4 Boring Method: I11211aw Stein -Auger Hammer Type: Automatic-Irip-E-Lmwer Sheet: 1 of: —I— Logged By: _SMB Driller: L1, Date Started: 9/6/16 Boring Location: Date Finished: 9/6/16 o m '✓ q o z' a rn > a o c a'- SP I blows per 6 in, foot Surface Elevation: +/- DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS (Classification) p i Cn ti .b c 'o U V) COMMENTS: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 TOP SOIL - oa Medium Dense Orangish Brown Silty SAND J (SM) with trace Clay, moist (POSSIBLE FILL) Dense Light Brown and Black Silty SAND 3.5 b tY (SM), moist (RESIDUAL) Vc Dense Tan and Gray Sand SILT ML 6.0 !Y Y Y ( ), mold No Rccovcry 3s 20 IS 13 34 9 49 62 1 10 12 2 12 It 30 3 10 as 4 14 36 5 0 - i- 50/1 6 0 50/2 7 0 5010 Auger Refusal @ 23 feet Due to Dense SAND 23.0 GENERAL REMARKS: GPS DATA: GROUNDWATER DATA: Datum: North: East: a y It 17 During Drilling: Dry_Fcct At Completion: Dry_Fcet Caved: 9.2 Feet Aficr 24 Hours: Fect 4301 SHIELD Taggart Creck Road Charlotte, NC 28208 =� Tcicphonc: 704-394-394-6913 Telephone: Toll Free:800-395-5220 ENGINEERING, INC. Fax: 704-394-6968 Holt Retail Substation DUKE ENERGY Burlington, NC Shield Project No.: 1160154-01 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Report Date: 9/8/16 Boring No.: 13-05 Boring Method: HaUQw�lem Auger Hammer Type: Aut4madc-1rip-Uammer_ Sheet: I of. Logged By: _SMB Driller: UPC Date Started: 9/6/16 Boring Location: Date Finished: 9/6/16 o m w " .Y q d '4 a E Ln > a G 04 SPT blows per 6 in. foot Surface Elevation: +/- DESCRIPTION OF MATF'RIALS (Classification) �C c U _ U a s z a. COMMENTS: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 TOPSOIL— --- — 0.3 Dense Light Reddish Brown Silty SAND (SM), moist (POSSIBLE FILL) Vet Dense Brown SAND SP moist — 3.5 (RFSIDUAL) ( ), 17 7 1 10 12 2 10 as . . z0 3 9 52 4 7 50/3 5 9 50/5 Auger Refusal @ 17 feet Due to Rock or Dense 17.0 SAND GENERAL REMARKS: GPS DATA: GROUNDWATER DATA: Datum: North: East: a V ]i V During Drilling: Dry --Feet At Completion: Dry Feet Caved: Feet After 24 Hours: Feet Taggart Qcc4-39 6913Road Charlotte, NC 28208 Telephone: 704-394-6913 SHIELD Telephone: Toll Free: 800-395-5220 ENGINEERING, INC. Fax: 704-394-6968 Holt Retail Substation DUKE ENERGY Burlington, NC Shield Project No.: 1160154-01 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Report Date: 9/8/16 Boring No.: B-06 Boring Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Automatic -Rip Hamme Sheet: I of: 1 Logged By: SMI3 Drillcr: HPC Date Started: 9/6/16 Boring Location: Date Finished: 9/ 16 a° o > > W ,w°1,, n Ca o z' a g cn • > ° o ❑ cC :. SPT blows per p 6 in. foot Surface Elevation: +/- DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS (Classification) B yr '' a o C3 a a w w COMMENTS: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 TOP SOIL Stiff Dark Red Sandy CLAY (CL), moist (POSSIBLE FILL) VeryStiff Light Brown Sand SILT ML 3.5 mot(RESIDUAL) y ( ) Light ht Brown and White Sand " 6.0 g Y SILTML ( ), moist Stiff Light Brown Sandy SILT ( ML with trace ss Sti g ) Clay, moist (RESIDUAL) Dense Light Brown Silty SAND (SM), moist 3.5 FIX ra. zz a 20 20 33 33 12 5 bz 1 10 15 2 8 9 —u 3 10 13 4 12 IS 5 to 34 6 12 44 7 8 43.5 50/3.5 Auger Refusal @ 25 feet Due to Dense SAND 25.0 GENERAL REMARKS: GPS DATA: GROUNDWATER DATA: - Datum: North: East: SZ - WL I During Drilling Dry Fcet At Completion: Dry —Feet Caved: 11.3 Feet After 24 Hours: Feet Taggart Creek Road Charlotte, NC 28208 Telephonc:704-394-6913 SHIELD Telephone: Toll Free: 800-395-5220 ENGINEERING, INC. Fax: 704-394-6968 Holt Retail Substation DUKE ENERGY Burlington, NC Shield project No.: 1160154-01 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Rcport Date: 9/9/16 Boring No.: B-07 Boring Method: Hollow Stern -Auger— Hammer Type: Automaticsrip-Hammer Sheet: I of: I Logged By: _SMB Driller: HPC Date Started: 9/6/16 Boring Location: Date Finished: 9/6/16 fs] ° Ca o " a rn > v � c cue v SPT blows per 6 in. foot Surface Elevation: +/- DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS (Classification) E in b c C7 �_ U 5 .5 E Z D. COMMENTS: 5 l0 IS 20 25 30 35 3" TOPSOIL 0.3 Very Dense Light Brown and Black Silty SAND (SM), damp (RESIDUAL) ua 16 27 I to 39 2 7 50/5.5 17 5015 5 3 5 5015.5 Auger Refusal @ 7.5 feet. Offset 10 feet 7.5 Re-Augered, Auger Refusal cr 5 feet after Offset. Refusal Due to Dense SAND GENERAL REMARKS: GPS DATA: GROUNDWATER DATA: Datum: North: East: SZ ]a -V- During Drilling: Dry Fect At Completion: DIy Feet Caved: 5.4 Feet Aftcr 24 H0Urs: Fect hone:Tagg7 Creek Road Charlotte, NC 28208 Telephone: TollFree::004-394-6913 Toll Free: 800-395-5220 -395-5220 ENGINEERING, INC. Fax: 704-394-6968 Holt Retail Substation DUKE ENERGY Burlington, NC Shield Project No.: 1160154-01 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 = 65 C) 60 } of 55 Z 50 LL Z 45 U w 40 a 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 112318 3 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 5060 100 140 200 IL inn 10 1 n 1 not 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND __ SILT OR CLAY "'�' vn �.�n 1 coarse fine coarse I__ medium fine ISpecimen Identification I Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu • B-01 9.3 _Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay 0B-01 9.3 9.525 0.16 0.1 56.3 43.6 4301 Taggart Creek Road Holt Retail Substation SHIELD Charlotte, NC 4-398 (DUKE BNGRGY) Telephone: 0-395 5220 Burlington, NC Toll Free: 800-395-5220 � ENGINEERING, INC. Fax 704-394-6968 Shield Project No.: 1160154-01 HOLT RETAIL GEOTEGH EVALUATIONWRING LOGSBORING LOGS GPJB-019TQ0164', 1131 PM GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 314 1/23/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200 1 1 1. I I I I I I: I II I I I I I I I 1131111111111 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine Specimen Identification Classification ILL PL PI Cc CU 01 B-03 1.3 FAT CLAY with SAND(CH) 53 28 I 25 ISpecimen Identification I D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel I %Sand I %Silt %Clay 013-03 1.3 4.75 1 om--T-2-2-2—T 77.8 4301 Taggart Creek Road Holt Retail Substation *4k ELDTel phon NC 4-394 (DUKE ENERGY) Cha hone: C 282 4-6913 Toll Free: 800-395-5220 Burlington, NC ERING, INC. Fax 704-394-6968 Shield Project No.: 1160154-01 Hi RP lFfT.1MIFl11 MlLAl HM T HFT111 f.MTFf.HFV<IIATI(1NIMHINf.I Ml1MPINf.I MCC.GIPA:14MlMlfi1. 11 :tt LM f- 00 w GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 314 1123/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200 11. I I I I I I I I. I I I I: I I I I GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS n�ool oo i.vuuuuo GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine Specimen Identification Classification I LL PL I PI Cc CIL • B-04 1.3 SILTY SAND(SM) 1 34 25 9 Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay 0 B-04 1.3 9.525 0.143 0.2 51.1 48.7 4301 Taggart Creek Road Holt Retail Substation SEHIELD Charlotte, NC 4-394 (DUKE ENERGY) Telephone: 704-394-6913 I3urlin *ion, NC Toll Free: 800-395-5220 b NINC. Fax:704-394-6968 Shield Project No.: 1160154-01 PROIECTS361V 11601N 01 HOLT RETAIL GEOTECH EVA UATnNSORING LOGSBORING LOGS GPJBMMG016 <'.1131 PM GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 314 112318 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100140200 11 1 I I 1 I I I 11: I I I I I I I I GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES �.vool_w GRAVEL SAND SILT �r< CLAY OR C coarse I fine coarse medium fne Specimen Identification Classification ILL PL PI Cc Cu • B-04 9.3 ISpecimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel I %Sand %Silt %Clay 013-04 9.3 1 9.525 0.1 37.5 62.4 4301 Taggart Creek Road Charlotte NC Holt Retail Substation (DUKE ENERGY) SHIELD Telephone: 704-394-6913 Burlington, NC ENGINEERING, INC. Tall Free: 800-395-5220 ' 395-5 Fax 704-394-6968 Shield Project No.: 1160154-01 11 VP(11FCTCVIIIfi\I Ifi01 V O1 HOLT DETAIL GEOTEO. EVALNATION%ORING LOGSBORING LOGS GPJBL M20164'. 11'. 31 PM 70 35 30 35 30 75 70 35 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1123/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200 11. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS HYDROMETER COBBLES GRAVEL I SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine I coarse I medium I fine Specimen Identification Classification LL PL I PI Cc Cu • B-06 1.3 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 1 33 21 1 12 1 ISpecimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel � %Sand � %Silt I %Clay • B-06 1.3 2 0.0 38.1 61.9 4301 Taggart Creek Road Holt Retail Substation SHIELD NC 28208 (DUKEENERGY) Telephone e: 70Burlington, NC Toll Free: 800-395-5395-5220 20 urn �' ENGINEERING, INC. Fax: 704-394-6968 Shield Project No.: 1160154-01 ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS 60 CL CH 7z 50 P L s 40 T I C T 30 Y I N 20 — D E X 10 CL-ML ML MH 0 0 20 40 60, 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Specimen Identification LL PL PI Fines Classification • B-01 1.3 17 24 NP 4301 Taggart Creek Road Telephone::704-394-6913 SHIELD Charlotte, 28208 Toll Free: 800-395-5220 0EN GIN EE RIN G,INC. Fax: 704-394-6968 I lolt Retail Substation (DUKE' GNHRGI') Burlington, NC Shield Project No.: 1160154-01 HOLT RETAIL GEOTECH EVALUATIOMBORING LOGSBORING LOGS GPJB419R 164'. 11:31 PM ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS 60 CL CH 50 P L s 40 T I C T 30 Y I N 20 D E X — 10 CL-ML � ML MH 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Specimen Identification LL PL PI Fines Classification • B-03 1.3 53 28 25 78 FAT CLAY with SAND(CH) 4301 Taggart Creek Road Telephone: 704-394-6913[3urlin Toll Free: 800-395-5220 WLDCharlotte 00 395-5 INC. Fax 704-394-6968 Holt Retail Substation (DUKE ENERGY) *[on, NG Shield Project No.: 1 160154-01 �EERING, MTRWECT=nOIIWI16 1 HOLT RUAILGEOTECH WV UA➢OMBORWGLOGSBORINGLOGSGPJ9L39 164;11:31 PM ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS 60 CL CH 50 P L S 40 T I C T 30 Y I N 20 D E X 10 0 — ML MH CL-ML 0 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Specimen Identification LL PL PI Fines Classification • B-04 1.3 34 ,25 9 49 SILTYSAND(SM) 4301 Taggart Creek Road Telephone: 704-394-6913 SHIELD Charlotte, NC 4-394 Toll Free: 800-395-5220 ENGINEERING, INC. Fax: 704-394-6968 I Jolt Retail Substation [3uY11n (DUKE ENERGY) S toil, NC Shield Project No.: 1160154-01 H \PROJECTS3016111E@1 1-91 HOLT RETAIL GEOTECH EVALUATIOM90RING LOGS9ORING LOGS GPJS 049OQ016 <-.11 31 PM ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS 60 CL CH 50 P L s 40 T I C T 30- v I z4 N 20 D E X • — 10 0 ML MH CL-ML � � 0 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Specimen Identification LL PL PI Fines Classification • B-06 1.3 33 21 12 62 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) Charlotte, NC Greek SHIELD 4301 Taggart Creek Road O Telephone: 704-394-6913 Toll Free: 800-395-5220 ENGINEERING, INC. Fax: 704-394-6968 Molt Recall Substation (DUKE ENERGY) Burlington, NC Shield Project No.: 1160154-01 HWROIECTS IO11MHU5 1 HOLT RETAILGEOTECHEV UATIONIBORINGLWG RINGLOGSGPJB-069 i64', 1131 PM ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS 60 CL CH 50 P - Zr4 L s 40 T I C T 30 Y I N 20 — D E X 10 CL-ML ML MH 01 1 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Specimen Identification LL PL PI Fines Classification • B-06 9.3 33 28 5 Taggart Creek Road Charlotte, NC 28208 Telephone: 704-394-6913 SHIELD Telephone* Toll Free: 800-395-5220 ENGINES RIN G,INC. Fax: 704-394-6968 Holt Retail Substation (DUKE ENERGY Burlington, NC Shield Project No.: 1160154-01 H WROJECTM016V 16015 01110LT li4TAIL GEOTEOII LVALOATIONOORING LOGSBORING LOGS GPJB'06WW0164;11;31 PM NWS15llELD MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION Project Name: Holt Retail Project No: 1160154-01 Technician Name: JRS Sample #: 16-101 Date: 9/20/16 Boring No. B-1 B-1 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-3 B-3 B-3 Sample No. S-1 S-2 S-4 S-2 S-1 S-3 S-4 S-5 Depth No. 0.5-2' 3.5-5' 8.5-10' 3.5-5' 0.5-2' 6-7.5' 8.5-10' 13.5-15' Wt. of cup + wet soil 82.68 161.80 979.30 173.23 747.93 198.43 165.86 177.25 Wt. of cup + dry soil 74.04 142.39 903.89 149.66 642.14 176.25 145.34 168.18 Wt. of cup 25.55 25.34 279.77 25.69 258.52 25.36 24.95 25.66 Wt. of dry soil 48.49 117.05 624.12 123.97 383.62 150.89 120.39 142.52 Wt. of water 8.64 19.41 75.41 23.57 105.79 22.18 20.52 9.07 Water Content, % 17.8 16.6 12.1 19.0 27.6 14.7 17.0 6.4 Boring No. B-4. B-4 B-4 B-5 B-5 B-5 Sample No. S-1 S-2 S-3 S-1 S-2 S-3 Depth No. 0.5-2' 3.5-5' 6-7.5' 0.5-2' 3.5-5' 6-7.5' Wt. of cup + wet soil 912.18 153.90 186.83 159.08 193.11 146.44 Wt. of cup + dry soil 802.63 137.46 168.74 139.72 182.41 138.90 Wt. of cup 262.50 25.72 25.39 24.84 25.61 25.50 Wt. of dry soil 540.13 111.74 143.35 114.88 156.80 113.40 Wt. of water 109.55 16.44 18.09 19.36 10.70 7.54 Water Content, % 20.28 14.71 12.62 16.85 6.82 6.65 9(LW2016123 PM HVmjttb=Ml 1601541 Hdt Fetid Geo hNaWa'liwLLe a'Wry Oats isWrekl1 ID1.xisN iisW2G tent $HIELD ENGINEERING, INC. MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION Project Name: Holt Retail Project No: 1160154-01 Technician Name: JRS Sample #: 16-101 Date: 9/20/16 Boring No. B-6 B-6 B-6 B-6 B-7 B-7 Sample No. S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-1 S-2 Depth No. 0.5-2' 3.5-5' 6-7.5' 8.5-10' 0.5-2' 3.5-5' Wt. of cup + wet soil 918.21 139.36 173.06 1116.66 151.62 218.32 Wt. of cup + dry soil 799.60 123.73 148.46 971.39 134.18 176.89 Wt. of cup 252.41 25.68 25.24 256.78 25.79 25.39 Wt. of dry soil 547.19 98.05 123.22 714.61 108.39 151.50 Wt. of water 118.61 15.63 24.60 1 145.27 17.44 41.43 Water Content, % 21.7 15.9 20.0 20.3 16.1 27.3 Boring No. Sample No. Depth No. Wt. of cup + wet soil Wt. of cup + dry soil Wt. of cup Wt. of dry soil Wt. of water Water Content, 92N201612M PM HVrojocee=1M116616Cd1 Hot Reu it Geolecin Evaluton"¢ taryDn�Woistuee16101zlsV sWre Content