20072160 Ver 1_More Info Received_20080612

Storm Water Management Plan
DWQ Project No. 07-2160
-..." 7, f-yli lds irpo t RSA Pi-ojec:t
City o I" 1- Saleni, Noah Cat,olim.i
Comity
Date: June 6,2008
Submitted for: Smith Reynolds Airport
3801 North Liberty Street
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27115

Submiited By: AVCON, Inc.
Mallard Creek III, Suite 145
8604 Cliff Cameron Drive 4
Charlotte, North Carolina 28269 z'

C,
5

Table of Contents
-0 D es""rij,.) t I o n "S, (", c t i (") r;
Construction Sequence
Operation and Maintenance Agreement
Calculations
Soils Report
Dry Extended Detention Basin Supplement Form and Required Items Checklist
•

Construction Sequence
1. Begin Construction on October 15,2008
2. Install silt fence and protect existing streams.
3. Construct Dry Detention Basin.
4. Stabilize Dry Detention Basin.
5. Complete Airside Erosion Control and route through Dry Detention Basin.
6. Complete Construction on Stream Relocation.
7. Stabilize new streams.
8. Route water from old streams to new streams
9. Construct runway safety Area Embankment.
10. Construct Drainage System
•
0
•
•
•
BMP element: Potential problem: How I will remediate the problem:
The inlet device: pipe or The pipe is clogged (if Unclog the pipe. Dispose of the
swale applicable). sediment off-site.
The pipe is cracked or Replace the pipe.
otherwise damaged (if
applicable).
Erosion is occurring in the Regrade the swale if necessary to
swale (if applicable). smooth it over and provide erosion
control devices such as reinforced
turf matting or riprap to avoid
future problems with erosion.
The forebay Sediment has accumulated Search for the source of the
and reduced the depth to 75% sediment and remedy the problem if
of the original design depth possible. Remove the sediment and
(see diagram below). dispose of it in a location where it
will not cause impacts to streams or
the BMP.
Erosion has occurred or Provide additional erosion
riprap is displaced. protection such as reinforced turf
matting or riprap if needed to
prevent future erosion problems.
Weeds are present. Remove the weeds, preferably by
hand. If pesticides are used, wipe
them on the plants rather than
spraying.
The main treatment area Sediment has accumulated Search for the source of the
and reduced the depth to 75% sediment and remedy the problem if
of the original design depth possible. Remove the sediment and
(see diagram below). dispose of it in a location where it
will not cause impacts to streams or
the BMP. Revegetate disturbed
areas immediately with sod
(preferred) or seed protected with
securely staked erosion mat.
Water is standing more than Check outlet structure for clogging.
5 days after a storm event. If it is a design issue, consult an
appropriate professional.
Weeds and noxious plants are Remove the plants by hand or by
growing in the main wiping them with pesticide (do not
treatment area. s ra .
Form SW401-Dry Detention O&M-Rev.3 Page 2 of 4
•
•
BMP element: Potential problem: How I will remediate the problem:
The embankment Shrubs or trees have started Remove shrubs or trees
to row on the embankment. immediately.
Grass cover is unhealthy or Restore the health of the grass cover
eroding. - consult a professional if necessary.
Signs of seepage on the Consult a professional.
downstream face.
Evidence of muskrat or Use traps to remove muskrats and
beaver activity is present. consult a professional to remove
beavers.
An annual inspection by an Make all needed repairs.
appropriate professional
shows that the embankment
needs re air.
The outlet device Clogging has occurred. Clean out the outlet device. Dispose
of the sediment off-site.
The outlet device is damaged Repair or replace the outlet device.
The receiving water Erosion or other signs of Contact the NC Division of Water
damage have occurred at the Quality 401 Oversight Unit at 919-
outlet. 733-1786.
The measuring device used to determine the sediment elevation shall be such that it will
give an accurate depth reading and not readily penetrate into accumulated sediments.
When the basin depth reads 845.5 feet in the main pond, the sediment shall be removed.
When the basin depth reads NA feet in the forebay, the sediment shall be removed.
BASIN DIAGRAM
(fill in the blanks)
Temporary Pool Elevation 845.44
•
Sediment Removal E NA Te porarx
Bottom Elevatio NA 25%
Sediment
Storage
FOREBAY
Form SW401-Dry Detention O&M-Rev-3
Pool ---------- emporar? ool
Sediment Removal Elevation 842.30 Volume
---------------------------------- ------
Bottom Elevation
MAIN POND
Page 3 of 4
25% ediment
Storage
StOn Water Calculations
0
Lump. By: CMW
Chk. By
Date: 6/10/2008
Job No.: 2007.130.01
PROJECT NAME: Smith Reynolds Airport - Runway 33 Safety Area Improvements
Runoff Volume:
Simple Method
Rv=0.05+0.9* la
la = 4.23/12.53 = .3379
Rv=0.05+0.9 * .3379=.3541
WQv = 3630 * Rd * Rv* A = 3630 * 1" * .3541 * 12.53 ac = 16,106 cf
Storage Volume:
Stage-Storage Volume Calculation Table
Stage Elevation Contour Area Incremental Storage Total Storage
(Ft.) (Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) (Cu. Ft.) (Cu. Ft.)
0 841 2,631 0 0
1 842 3,420 3,025 3,025
2 843 4,266 3,843 6,868
3 844 5,168 4,717 11,585
4 845 6,126 5,647 17,232
5 846 7,142 6,634 23,866
6 847 8,214 7,678 31,544
7 848 9,342 9,778 40,321
0 0 0
Orifice Design:
WQv = 16,106 cf
Hydraulic Head = 5 ft.
Drawdown time = 2 days or 48 hours
Q = 16,106 cf / (48 hrs.)*(3600 sec/hr) = 0.0932 cfs
Q= CA(2gH)"
A = Q/C(2gH)s
A = .0932/0.6(2*32.2*5 ).5 = .0087 sq. ft.
D = (4(.0087)/3.14) s = .105 ft. or 1.26 inches
2" minimum Orifice - use 2 inch orifice for drawdown
•
Pre- Development Conditions
•
0
Hydraflow Table of Contents
Smith Reynolds-Existing.gpw
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 31D0 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052 Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
• Hydrograph Return Period Recap
1 -Year
Summarv Regort ................................................................................................................ 2
Hydrograph Reports .......................................................................................................... 3
Hydrograph No. 1, Rational, Predeveloped ..................................................................... 3
TR-55 Tc Worksheet ................................................................................................... 4
2 - Year
Summary Report ................................................................................................................ 0
Hydrograph Reports .......................................................................................................... 6
Hydrograph No. 1, Rational, Predeveloped ..................................................................... 6
10 -Year
....................................................................
Summary Report ....................................... 7
.....
t
h R
H
d ........................ 8
s ....................................................................
epor
rograp
y ..............
8
Hydrograph No. 1, Rational, Predeveloped .............................. .......................................
25 - Year
Summary Report ......................................................................... ....................................... 9
10
Hydrograph Reports ................................................................... .....................................
• Hydrograph No. 1, Rational, Predeveloped .............................. ..................................... 10
50 - Year
Summary Report ......................................................................... ..................................... 11
12
Hydrograph Reports ................................................................... .....................................
12
Hydrograph No. 1, Rational, Predeveloped .............................. .....................................
100 - Year
t
R
............
................................. 13
.....
epor
Summary
t
h R ............................................................
........... ................................. 14
epor
s
Hydrograp
Hydrograph No. 1, ............................................................
Rational, Predeveloped .................................. ................................. 14
IDF Report ......................................................................................................... 15
0
Hyd rog ra ph Return Perioqy ?ew?iydibgraphs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc v6.052

•
•
Hyd.
N No Hydrograph
t Inflow
H
d Peak Outflow (cfs) Hydrograph
. ype y
(s) description
(origin) 1-Yr 2-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr
1 Rational ------ 6.899 8.354 ------- ------- 11.74 13.42 14.64 15.82 Predeveloped
2 Rational ------ 8.351 10.11 ------- ------- 14.22 16.25 17.72 19.15 Post developed
3
I Reservoir 2 0.231 3.520 ------- ------- 9.805 12.58 14.11 15.57 pond 1 routing

I
Proj. file: Smith Reynolds-Existing.gpw Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
H yd rog ra p h Summary Re I?yQa-flow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
•
•
•
Hyd.
No. Hydrograph
type
(origin) Peak
flow
(cfs) Time
interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Hyd.
volume
(cult) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Total
strge used
(cult) Hydrograph
description
1
I Rational 6.899 1 50 20,696 ------ ------ ------ Predeveloped
2 Rational 8.351 1 50 25,053 ------ ------ ------ Post developed
3

I
i
I
i
I Reservoir 0.231 1 99 24,654 2 846.04 24,139 pond 1 routing
i

i
Smith Reynold s-Existing.gpw Return Period: 1 Year Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AUtoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
Hyd. No. 1
Predeveloped
Hydrograph type = Rational
Storm frequency = 1 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 12.530 ac
Intensity = 1.449 in/hr
OF Curve = Winston Salem NC.IDF
3
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Peak discharge = 6.899 cfs
Time to peak = 50 min
Hyd. volume = 20,696 cuft
Runoff coeff. = 0.38'
Tc by TR55 = 50.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1
Composite (Area/C) = [(4.880 x 0.30) + (4.270 x 0.15) + (2.650 x 0.95) + (0.800 x 0.15) + (0.030 x 0.90) + (0110 x 0.60)] / 12.530
Predeveloped
Q (cfs) Q (cfs)
Hyd. No. 1 -- 1 Year
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0 00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0 00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
• Hyd No. 1 Time (min)
TR55 Tc Worksheet
4
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 31DO 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
• Hyd. No. 1
Predeveloped
Description A B C Totals
Sheet Flow
Manning's n-value = 0.011 0.240 0.011
Flow length (ft) = 150.0 150.0 0.0
Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.42 3.42 0.00
Land slope (%) = 1.00 1.75 0.00
Travel Time (min) = 2.14 + 20.14 + 0.00 = 22.28
Shallow Concentrated Flow
Flow length (ft) = 194.00 0.00 0.00
Watercourse slope (%) = 1.75 0.00 0.00
Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved
Average velocity (ft/s) = 2.13 0.00 0.00
Travel Time (min) = 1.51 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 1.51
Channel Flow
X sectional flow area (sqft) = 6.75 0.00 0.00
Wetted perimeter (ft) = 18.06 0.00 0.00
Channel slope (%) = 1.60 0.00 0.00
Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.015 0.015
Velocity (ft/s) = 0.41 0.00 0.00
Flow length (ft) = 642.0 0.0 0.0
Travel Time (min) = 26.35 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 26.35
Total Travel Time, Tc ..................................... ......................................... 50.00 min
0
Hyd rog ra p h Summary Re P9r low Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6 052
•
•
•
Hyd.
No. Hydrograph
type
(origin) Peak
flow
(cfs) Time
interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Hyd.
volume
(cuft) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Total
strge used
(cult) Hydrograph
description
1 Rational 8.354 1 50 25,061 ------ ------ ------ Predeveloped
2 Rational 10.11 1 50 30,337 ------ ------ ------ Post developed
I
3
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
i

I Reservoir 3.520 1 83 29,835 2 846.33 26,409 pond 1 routing

I

I
Smith Reynolds-Existing.gpw Return Period: 2 Year Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
• Hyd. No. 1
Predeveloped
Hydrograph type = Rational
Storm frequency = 2 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 12.530 ac
Intensity = 1.754 in/hr
OF Curve = Winston Salem NC.IDF
6
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Peak discharge = 8.354 cfs
Time to peak = 50 min
Hyd. volume = 25,061 cuft
Runoff coeff. = 0.38*
Tc by TR55 = 50.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1
' Composite (Area/C) = [(4.880 x 0.30) + (4.270 x 0.15) + (2.650 x 0.95) + (0.800 x 0.15) + (0.030 x 0.90) + (0.110 x 0.60)] / 12.530
Q (cfs)
10.00
0 8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0 00
Predeveloped
Hyd. No. 1 -- 2 Year

a

Q (Cfs)
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (min)
• Hyd No. 1
H yd rog ra p h Summary Re Py?rflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
0
•
•
Hyd.
I No.

i Hydrograph
type
(origin) Peak
flow
(cfs) Time
interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Hyd.
volume
(cult) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Total
strge used
(cuft) Hydrograph
description
1 Rational 11.74 1 50 35,232 ------ ------ ------ Predeveloped
j 2 Rational 14.22 1 50 42,650 ------ ------ ------ Post developed
3
i
I

i

I
I

I
i
i

1
I
I Reservoir 9.805 1 66 42,145 2 846.53 27,895 pond 1 routing

I

i
i
?
I

i
Smith Reynold s-Existing.gpw Return Period: 10 Year Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
8
Hydrograph Report
• Hyd. No. 1
Predeveloped
Hydrograph type = Rational
Storm frequency = 10 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 12.530 ac
Intensity = 2.467 in/hr
OF Curve = Winston Salem NC.IDF
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Peak discharge = 11.74 cfs
Time to peak = 50 min
Hyd. volume = 35,232 cuft
Runoff coeff. = 0.38*
Tc by TR55 = 50.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1
Composite (Area/C) = [(4.880 x 0.30) + (4.270 x 0.15) + (2.650 x 0.95) + (0.800 x 0.15) + (0.030 x 0.90) + (0.110 x 0.60)1/ 12.530
Q (cfs)
12.00
• 10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0
Predeveloped
Hyd. No. 1 -- 10 Year
i
Q (cfs)
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00 L I I I I I i i i '- 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (min)
Hyd No. 1

H yd rog ra p h Summary Re Py7raflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
•
•
•
Hyd.
No. Hydrograph
type
(origin) Peak
flow
(cfs) Time
interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Hyd.
volume
(cuft) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Total
strge used
(cult) Hydrograph
description
1 Rational 13.42 1 50 40,266 ------ ------ ------ Predeveloped
2 Rational 16.25 1 50 48,743 ------ ------ ------ Post developed
3
'
i

i

i

i

I
i

I
I
i
I Reservoir 12.58 1 61 48,237 2 846.60 28,439 pond 1 routing
I

i
i
i
it

i

II

i

I

Smith Reynolds-Existing.gpw
i
Return Period: 25 Year
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
• Hyd. No. 1
Predeveloped
Hydrograph type = Rational
Storm frequency = 25 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 12.530 ac
Intensity = 2.819 in/hr
OF Curve = Winston Salem NC.IDF
10
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Peak discharge = 13.42 cfs
Time to peak = 50 min
Hyd. volume = 40,266 cuft
Runoff coeff. = 0.38*
Tc by TR55 = 50.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1
" Composite (Area/C) = [(4.880 x 0.30) + (4.270 x 0.15) + (2.650 x 0.95) + (0.800 x 0.15) + (0.030 x 0.90) + (0.110 x 0.60)] / 12.530
Q (cfs)
14.00
12.00
10.00
0
Predeveloped
Hyd. No. 1 -- 25 Year
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00 -f-
Q (Cfs)
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00 L` I I I I I I i 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (min)
_..,.....?,_ Hyd No. 1
11
Hyd rog ra p h Summary Re Ryara-flow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
•
•
•
Hyd
eak
low
cfs)
Time
interval
(min)
Time to
peak
(min)
Hyd.
volume
(cult)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Total
strge used
(cult)
Hydrograph
description
7 .64 1 50 43,911 ------ ------ ------ Predeveloped
7.72 1 50 53,156
----
Post developed

'
i
III
i

I
I
I
i
i
i 4.11 1 60 52,649
2
846.66
28,941
pond 1 routing
I

i
Smith Reynolds-Existing.gpw
I Return Period: 50 Year Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Hydrograph Report
12
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052 Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
• Hyd. No. 1
Predeveloped
Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge = 14.64 cfs
Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time to peak = 50 min
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 43,911 cuft
Drainage area = 12.530 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.38*
Intensity = 3.074 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 50.00 min
OF Curve = Winston Salem NC.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1
' Composite (Area/C) = [(4.880 x 0.30) + (4.270 x 0.15) + (2.650 x 0.95) + (0.800 x 0.15) + (0.030 x 0.90) + (0.110 x 0.60)] / 12.530
Q (cfs)
15.00
• 12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0 00
Predeveloped
Hyd. No. 1 -- 50 Year
-7 7
d ?
3r 3.
h y
?4.

...,fin

Js

Q (cfs)
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1OU
Time (min)
• Hyd No. 1
13
H yd rog ra p h Summary Re Pyara low Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
is

0 I
Hyd.
No. Hydrograph
type
(origin) Peak
flow
(cfs) Time
interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Hyd.
volume
(cuft) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Total
strge used
(cuft) Hydrograph
description
1
I Rational 15.82 1 50 47,453 ------ ------ ------ Predeveloped
I
2 Rational 19.15 1 50 57,443 ------ ------ ------ Post developed
3
I
?

i

i

l Reservoir 15.57 1 59 56,935 2 846.73 29,498 pond 1 routing

I
I
I
;
I

I
I
I

i

Smith Reynold s-Existing.gpw
j
I

Return Period: 100 Year
Jun 1
Tuesday, 0, 2008
14
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
• Hyd. No. 1
Predeveloped
Hydrograph type = Rational
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 12.530 ac
Intensity = 3.322 in/hr
OF Curve = Winston Salem NC.IDF
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Peak discharge = 15.82 cfs
Time to peak = 50 min
Hyd. volume = 47,453 cuft
Runoff coeff. = 0.38*
Tc by TR55 = 50.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1
Composite (Area/C) = [(4.880 x 0.30) + (4.270 x 0.15) + (2.650 x 0.95) + (0.800 x 0.15) + (0.030 x 0.90) + (0.110 x 0.60)] / 12.530
Q (cfs)
18.00
• 15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0 00
Predeveloped
Hyd. No. 1 -- 100 Year
Q (cfs)
18.00
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (min)
• Hyd No. 1
r
s
A
Hydraflow Rainfall Report
15
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
Return Intensity-Duration-Frequency Equation Coefficients (FHA)
Period
(Yrs) B
D
E
(N/A)
1 57.3018 12.6000 0.8890 --------
2 68.6290 13.0000 0.8850 --------
3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --------
5 67.5316 12.6000 0.8309 --------
10 67.3303 12.4000 0.8000 --------
25 58.6655 11.0000 0.7384 --------
50 54.7434 10.3000 0.7025 --------
100 47.2780 9.0000 0.6512 --------
File name: Winston Salem NC.IDF
Intensity = B / (Tc + D)^E
Return Intensity Values (in/hr)
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Nenoa
(Yrs) 5 min 10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55 60
1 4.48 3.58 3.00 2.59 2.28 2.04 1.85 1.69 1.56 1.45 1.35 1.27
i
2 5.32 4.28 3.60 3.11 2.74 2.46 2.23 2.04 1.89 1.75 1.64 1.54
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 6.23 5.06 4.29 3.73 3.32 2.99 2.73 2.51 2.33 2.17 2.04 1.92
10 6,85 5.60 4.76 4.17 3.71 3.36 3.07 2.84 2.64 2.47 2.32 j 2.19
i

25 7.57
6.20
5.29
4.65
4.16
3.78
3.47
3.22
3.00
2.82 I I
2.66 2.52
50 8.06 6.60 5.66 4.99 4.48 4.08 3.76 3.49 3.27 3.07 2.91 2.76
100 8.48 6.95 5.97 5.28 4.76 4.35 4.02 3.75 3.52 3.32 3.15 3.00
Tc = time in minutes. Values may exceed 60.
Preci . file name: Winston Salem NC. c
Rainfall Precipitation Table (in)
Storm
Distribution I
1-yr
2-yr
3-yr
5-yr
-
10-yr
25-yr
-
50-yr
:
100-yr
SCS 24-hour 2.83 3.42 0.00 4.28 4.96 5.89 6.63 7.40
SCS 6-Hr i 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Huff-1 st 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Huff-2nd 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Huff-3rd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Huff-4th i 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Huff-Indy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
I
Custom 0.00
I 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
•
Post- Development Conditions
•
0
•
Hydraflow Table of Contents
Smith Reynolds-Existing.gpw
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Hydrograph Return Period Recap ..................................................................... 1
1 -Year
Summary Report ................................................................................................................ 2
Hydrograph Reports .......................................................................................................... 3
Hydrograph No. 2, Rational, Post developed .................................................................. 3
TR-55 Tc Worksheet ................................................................................................... 4
2 - Year
Summary Report ................................................................................................................ 5
Hydrograph Reports .......................................................................................................... 6
Hydrograph No. 2, Rational, Post developed .................................................................. 6
10 - Year
Summary Report ................................................................................................................ 7
Hydrograph Reports .......................................................................................................... 8
Hydrograph No. 2, Rational, Post developed .................................................................. 8
•
25 - Year
Summary Report ................................................................................................................ 9
Hydrograph Reports ........................................................................................................ 10
Hydrograph No. 2, Rational, Post developed ................................................................ 10
50 - Year
Summary Report .............................................................................................................. 11
Hydrograph Reports ........................................................................................................ 12
Hydrograph No. 2, Rational, Post developed ................................................................ 12
100 - Year
Summary Report .............................................................................................................. 13
Hydrograph Reports ........................................................................................................ 14
Hydrograph No. 2, Rational, Post developed ................................................................ 14
OF Report ......................................................................................................... 15
0
Hydrograph Return Perioqyc3raflow?iyaibgraphs Extension for AUtoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052

•
Hyd. Hydrograph Inflow Peak Outflow (cfs) Hydrograph

No. type Hyd(s) description
(origin) 1-Yr 2-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr
1 Rational ------ 6.899 8.354 ------- ------- 11.74 13.42 14.64 15.82 Predeveloped
2 Rational ------ 8.351 10.11 ------- ------- 14.22 16.25 17.72 19.15 Post developed
3 Reservoir 2 0.231 3.520 ------- ------- 9.805 12.58 14.11 15.57 pond 1 routing
Proj. file: Smith Reynold s-Existing.gpw Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Hyd rog ra p h Summary Re PyQa-flow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052

•
Hyd.
No. Hydrograph
type
(origin) Peak
flow
(cfs) Time
interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Hyd.
volume
(cuft) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Total
strge used
(cuft) Hydrograph
description
1 Rational 6.899 1 50 20,696 ------ ------ ------ Predeveloped
2 Rational 8.351 1 50 25,053 ------ ------ ------ Post developed
3 Reservoir 0.231 1 99 24,654 2 846.04 24,139 pond 1 routing
Smith Reynolds-Existing.gpw Return Period: 1 Year Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
3
Hydrograph Report
- Hyd. No. 2
Post developed
Hydrograph type = Rational
Storm frequency = 1 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 12.530 ac
Intensity = 1.449 in/hr
OF Curve = Winston Salem NC.IDF
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Peak discharge = 8.351 cfs
Time to peak = 50 min
Hyd. volume = 25,053 cuft
Runoff coeff. = 0.46*
Tc by TR55 = 50.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1
Composite (Area/C) = [(3.000 x 0.30) + (0.990 x 0.24) + (4.510 x 0.15) + (4.240 x 0.95)] / 12.530
Post developed
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 2 -- 1 Year
10.00
• 8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0 00
Q (cfs)
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0 00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
- Hyd No. 2 Time (min)
TR55 Tc Worksheet
4
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
• Hyd. No. 2
Post developed
Description A B C Totals
Sheet Flow
Manning's n-value = 0.011 0.240 0.011
Flow length (ft) = 150.0 150.0 0.0
Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.42 3.42 0.00
Land slope (%) = 1.00 1.75 0.00
Travel Time (min) = 2.14 + 20.14 + 0.00 = 22.28
Shallow Concentrated Flow
Flow length (ft) = 194.00 0.00 0.00
Watercourse slope (%) = 1.75 0.00 0.00
Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved
Average velocity (ft/s) = 2.13 0.00 0.00
Travel Time (min) = 1.51 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 1.51
Channel Flow
X sectional flow area (sqft) = 6.75 0.00 0.00
Wetted perimeter (ft) = 18.06 0.00 0.00
Channel slope (%) = 1.60 0.00 0.00
Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.015 0.015
Velocity (ft/s) = 0.41 0.00 0.00
Flow length (ft) = 642.0 0.0 0.0
Travel Time (min) = 26.35 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 26.35
Total Travel Time, Tc .............................................................................. 50.00 min
9
Hyd rog ra p h Summary Re PyRrIflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
4
4
0
Hyd.
No. Hydrograph
type
(origin) Peak
flow
(cfs) Time
interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Hyd.
volume
(cuft) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Total
strge used
(cuft) Hydrograph
description
1 Rational 8.354 1 50 25,061 ------ ------ ------ Predeveloped
2 Rational 10.11 1 50 30,337 ------ ------ ------ Post developed
3 Reservoir 3.520 1 83 29,835 2 846.33 26,409 pond 1 routing
Smith Reynolds-Existing.gpw Return Period: 2 Year Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Hydrograph Report
6
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
Hyd. No. 2
Post developed
Hydrograph type = Rational
Storm frequency = 2 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 12.530 ac
Intensity = 1.754 in/hr
OF Curve = Winston Salem NC.IDF
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Peak discharge = 10.11 cfs
Time to peak = 50 min
Hyd. volume = 30,337 cuft
Runoff coeff. = 0.46*
Tc by TR55 = 50.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1
* Composite (Area/C) = [(3.000 x 0.30) + (0.990 x 0.24) + (4.510 x 0.15) + (4.240 x 0.95)] / 12.530
Q (cfs)
12.00
• 10.00
0
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
Q (cfs)
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00 LO I I I I I I I i I 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Hyd No. 2 Time (min)
Post developed
Hyd. No. 2 -- 2 Year
Hyd rog ra p h Summary Re Py9rlflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052

Hyd.
No. Hydrograph
type
(origin) Peak
flow
(cfs) Time
interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Hyd.
volume
(cult) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Total
strge used
(cuft) Hydrograph
description
1 Rational 11.74 1 50 35,232 ------ ------ ------ Predeveloped
2 Rational 14.22 1 50 42,650 ------ ------ ------ Post developed
3 Reservoir 9.805 1 66 42,145 2 846.53 27,895 pond 1 routing
Smith Reynolds-Existing.gpw Return Period: 10 Year Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Hydrograph Report 8
- MyU. NO. L
Post developed
Hydrograph type = Rational
Storm frequency = 10 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 12.530 ac
Intensity = 2.467 in/hr
OF Curve = Winston Salem NC.IDF
Post developed
Hyd. No. 2 -- 10 Year
*Composite (Area/C) _ ((3.000 x 0.30) + (0.990 x 0.24) + (4.510 x 0.15) + (4.240 x 0.95)] /12.530
Q (cfs)
15.00
• 12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0.00

Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Peak discharge = 14.22 cfs
Time to peak = 50 min
Hyd. volume = 42,650 cuft
Runoff coeff. = 0.46*
Tc by TR55 = 50.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1

Q (cfs)
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0 00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
• Hyd No. 2 Time (min)
H yd rog ra p h Summary Re Py9r flow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052

•
Hyd.
No. Hydrograph
type
(origin) Peak
flow
(cfs) Time
interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Hyd.
volume
(cuft) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Total
strge used
(cuft) Hydrograph
description
1 Rational 13.42 1 50 40,266 ------ ------ ------ Predeveloped
2 Rational 16.25 1 50 48,743 ------ ------ ------ Post developed
3 Reservoir 12.58 1 61 48,237 2 846.60 28,439 pond 1 routing
Smith Reynolds-Existing.gpw Return Period: 25 Year Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Hydrograph Report 10
i Hyd. No. 2
Post developed
Hydrograph type = Rational
Storm frequency = 25 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 12.530 ac
Intensity = 2.819 in/hr
OF Curve = Winston Salem NC.IDF
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Peak discharge = 16.25 cfs
Time to peak = 50 min
Hyd. volume = 48,743 cuft
Runoff coeff. = 0.46*
Tc by TR55 = 50.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1
* Composite (Area/C) = [(3.000 x 0.30) + (0.990 x 0.24) + (4.510 x 0.15) + (4.240 x 0.95)] / 12.530
Q (cfs)
18.00
• 15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0.00
Post developed
Hyd. No. 2 -- 25 Year
Q (cfs)
18.00
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0 00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
• - Hyd No. 2 Time (min)
11
Hyd rog ra p h Summary Re P9r flow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052

41
Hyd.
No. Hydrograph
type
(origin) Peak
flow
(cfs) Time
interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Hyd.
volume
(cult) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Total
strge used
(cult) Hydrograph
description
1 Rational 14.64 1 50 43,911 ------ ------ ------ Predeveloped
2 Rational 17.72 1 50 53,156 ------ ------ ------ Post developed
3 Reservoir 14.11 1 60 52,649 2 846.66 28,941 pond 1 routing
Smith Reynolds- Existing. gpw Return Period: 50 Year Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
12
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052 Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
S Hyd. No. 2
Post developed
Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge = 17.72 cfs
Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time to peak = 50 min
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 53,156 cuft
Drainage area = 12.530 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.46*
Intensity = 3.074 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 50.00 min
OF Curve = Winston Salem NC.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1
* Composite (Area/C) = [(3.000 x 0.30) + (0.990 x 0.24) + (4.510 x 0.15) + (4.240 x 0.95)] / 12.530
Q (cfs)
18.00
Post developed
Hyd. No. 2 -- 50 Year
• 15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0 00
Q (cfs)
18.00
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0 00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
. Hyd No. 2 Time (min)
13
Hyd rog ra p h Summary Re PyRrIflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
4
is
•
Hyd.
No. Hydrograph
type
(origin) Peak
flow
(cfs) Time
interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Hyd.
volume
(cuft) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Total
strge used
(cuft) Hydrograph
description
1 Rational 15.82 1 50 47,453 ------ ------ ------ Predeveloped
2 Rational 19.15 1 50 57,443 ------ ------ ------ Post developed
3 Reservoir 15.57 1 59 56,935 2 846.73 29,498 pond 1 routing
Smith Reynolds-Existing.gpw Return Period: 100 Year Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
• Hyd. No. 2
Post developed
Hydrograph type = Rational
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 12.530 ac
Intensity = 3.322 in/hr
OF Curve = Winston Salem NC.IDF
14
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Peak discharge = 19.15 cfs
Time to peak = 50 min
Hyd. volume = 57,443 cuft
Runoff coeff. = 0.46*
Tc by TR55 = 50.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1
* Composite (Area/C) = [(3.000 x 0.30) + (0.990 x 0.24) + (4.510 x 0.15) + (4.240 x 0.95)] / 12.530
Q (cfs)
21.00
18.00
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0.00
Post developed
Hyd. No. 2 -- 100 Year
Q (cfs)
21.00
18.00
15.00
12.00
9.00
3.00
3.00
0 00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
• Hyd No. 2 Time (min)
Hydraflow Rainfall Report
15
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052 Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
•
•
Return
i
d Intensity-Duration-Frequency Equation Coefficients (FHA)
Per
o
(Yrs) B D E (N/A)
1 57.3018 12.6000 0.8890 --------
2 68.6290 13.0000 0.8850 --------
3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --------
5 67.5316 12.6000 0.8309 --------
10 67.3303 12.4000 0.8000 --------
25 58.6655 11.0000 0.7384 --------
50 54.7434 10.3000 0.7025 --------
100 47.2780 9.0000 0.6512 --------
File name: Winston Salem NC.IDF
Intensity = B / (Tc + D)"E
Return Intensity Values (in/hr)
Period
(Yrs)
5 min
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
1 4.48 3.58 3.00 2.59 2.28 2.04 1.85 1.69 1.56 1.45 1.35 1.27
2 5.32 4.28 3.60 3.11 2.74 2.46 2.23 2.04 1.89 1.75 1.64 1.54
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 6.23 5.06 4.29 3.73 3.32 2.99 2.73 2.51 2.33 2.17 2.04 1.92
10 6.85 5.60 4.76 4.17 3.71 3.36 3.07 2.84 2.64 2.47 2.32 2.19
25 7.57 6.20 5.29 4.65 4.16 3.78 3.47 3.22 3.00 2.82 2.66 2.52
50 8.06 6.60 5.66 4.99 4.48 4.08 3.76 3.49 3.27 3.07 2.91 2.76
100 8.48 6.95 5.97 5.28 4.76 4.35 4.02 3.75 3.52 3.32 3.15 3.00
Tc = time in minutes. Values may exceed 60.
Preci . file name: Winston Salem NC. pc
•
Rainfall Precipitation Table (in)
Storm
Distribution 1-yr 2-yr 3-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr
SCS 24-hour 2.83 3.42 0.00 4.28 4.96 5.89 6.63 7.40
SCS 6-Hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Huff-1 st 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Huff-2nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Huff-3rd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Huff-4th 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Huff-Indy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Custom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
•
Pond Routing
0
0
Hydraflow Table of Contents
Smith Reynolds-Existing gpw
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AUtoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052 Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
0 Hydrograph Return Period Recap ..................................................................... 1
1 -Year
Summary Report ................................................................................................................ 2
Hydrograph Reports .......................................................................................................... 3
Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, pond 1 routing .................................................................. 3
2 - Year
Summary Report ................................................................................................................ 4
Hydrograph Reports .......................................................................................................... 5
Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, pond 1 routing .................................................................. 5
10 -Year
Summary Report ................................................................................................................ 6
Hydrograph Reports .......................................................................................................... 7
Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, pond 1 routing .................................................................. 7
25 - Year
Summary Report ................................................................................................................ 8
Hydrograph Reports .......................................................................................................... 9
Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, pond 1 routing .................................................................. 9
50 -Year
Summary Report .............................................................................................................. 10
Hydrograph Reports ........................................................................................................ 11
Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, pond 1 routing ................................................................ 11
100 - Year
Summary Report .............................................................................................................. 12
Hydrograph Reports ........................................................................................................ 13
Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, pond 1 routing ................................................................ 13
OF Report ......................................................................................................... 14
0
H yd rog ra p h Return Pe ri o -FiyBra?lowTiydibgraphs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc v6.052
•
•
•
Hyd.
N Hydrograph Inflow Peak Outflow (cfs) Hydrograph
o. type
(origin) Hyd(s)
1-Yr
2-Yr
3-Yr
5-Yr
10-Yr
25-Yr
50-Yr
100-Yr description

J
1 Rational 6.899 8.354 ------- ------- 11.74 13.42 14.64 15.82 _
Predeveloped

I2
Rational
------
8.351
10.11
-------
-------
14.22
16.25
17.72
19.15 i
Post developed

3

i

,
Reservoir
2
0.231
3.520
-------
-------
9.805
12.58
14.11
15.57 I
pond 1 routing
II
i
i
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
I

I,

I
i Proj. file'. Smith Reynolds-Existing.gpw
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
H yd rog ra p h Summary RePy9r low Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052

0
Hyd.
I' No. Hydrograph
type
(origin) Peak
flow
(cfs) Time
interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Hyd.
volume
(cuft) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Total
strge used
(cuft) Hydrograph
description
1
1
i Rational 6.899 1 50 20,696 ------ ------ ------ Predeveloped
2
i Rational 8.351 1 50 25,053 ------ ------ ------ Post developed
3
I
?I

I

i

I
I

i
I
I
I

i Reservoir 0.231 1 99 24,654 2 846.04 24,139 pond 1 routing

I
i
i
?
i
I

i

i

I

i
i
Smith Reynold s-Existing.gpw Return Period: 1 Year Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
• Hyd. No. 3
pond 1 routing
Hydrograph type = Reservoir
Storm frequency = 1 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 2 -Post developed
Reservoir name = Pond 1
Storage Indication method used.
Q (cfs)
10.00
• 8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0
•
pond 1 routing
Hyd. No. 3 -- 1 Year
300 600 900 1200
Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2
Peak discharge
Time to peak
Hyd. volume
Max. Elevation
Max. Storage
3
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
= 0.231 cfs
= 99 min
= 24,654 cuft
= 846.04 ft
= 24,139 cuft
1500 1800 2100 2400 2700
Total storage used = 24,139 cuft
Q (cfs)
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
3000
Time (min)
H yd rog ra p h Summary Re PyQa-flow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 31DO 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
0
•
is
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph
No. type flow interval peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used description
(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cult) (ft) (tuft)
?

1
i
Rational
8.354
1
50
25,061
------
Predeveloped
I
2
I Rational 10.11 1 50 30,337 ------ ------ ------ Post developed
i
3

I

l
I
I
l
I
I

i Reservoir 3.520 1 83 29,835 2 846.33 26,409 pond 1 routing
I
i
I
li
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
I

I

i

i
Smith Reynolds-Existing.gpw
I Return Period: 2 Year Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Hydrograph Report
pond 1 routing
Hyd. No. 3 -- 2 Year
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
Hyd. No. 3
pond 1 routing
Hydrograph type = Reservoir
Storm frequency = 2 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 2 -Post developed
Reservoir name = Pond 1
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Peak discharge = 3.520 cfs
Time to peak = 83 min
Hyd. volume = 29,835 cuft
Max. Elevation = 846.33 ft
Max. Storage = 26,409 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Q (Cfs)
12.00
* 10.00
•
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0 300
s,_ 1111. Hyd No. 3
600
5
Q (cfs)
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000
Time (min)
-- Hyd No. 2 Total storage used = 26,409 cuft
H yd rog ra p h Summary Re Py9r flow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 31DO 2008 by Autodesk, Inc v6.052

•
Hyd.
No.
r Hydrograph
type
(origin) Peak
flow
(cfs) Time
interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Hyd.
volume
(cuft) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Total
strge used
(cuft) Hydrograph
description
1 Rational 11.74 1 50 35,232 ------ ------ ------ Predeveloped
2 Rational 14.22 1 50 42,650 ------ ------ ------ Post developed
3

i
I

1

i
I
i
i
i
I

I Reservoir 9.805 1 66 42,145 2 846.53 27,895
pond 1 routing i

I
I
I

i

I
Smith Reynold s-Existing.gpw Return Period: 10 Year Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Hydrograph Report
7
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
• Hyd. No. 3
pond 1 routing
Hydrograph type = Reservoir
Storm frequency = 10 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 2 - Post developed
Reservoir name = Pond 1
Storage Indication method used
Q (cfs)
15.00
• 12.00
0
9.00
6.00
3.00
0.00
0 240
Hyd No. 3
pond 1 routing
Hyd. No. 3 -- 10 Year
480 720 960
Hyd No. 2
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Peak discharge = 9.805 cfs
Time to peak = 66 min
Hyd. volume = 42,145 cuft
Max. Elevation = 846.53 ft
Max. Storage = 27,895 cuft
1200 1440 1680 1920 2160
Total storage used = 27,895 cuft
Q (cfs)
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0.00
2400
Time (min)
H yd rog ra p h Summary Re Ry9rlflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
•
•
•

Hyd.
No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
flow
(cfs)
Time
interval
(min)
Time to
peak
(min)
Hyd.
volume
(cuft)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Total
strge used
(cuft) I
Hydrograph
description
1 Rational 13.42 1 50 40,266 ------ ------ ------ Predeveloped
I
I
2 Rational 16.25 1 50 48,743 ------ ------ ------ Post developed
3
I
i
III
I
I
II

i

j

II

I

I

I

I
I
I

I Reservoir 12.58 1 61 48,237 2 846.60 28,439 pond 1 routing j

I
I

1
i
I
I
I

I

I
;
I
I

I?
I

I

I
I
I
Smith Reynolds-Existing.gpw
I Return Period: 25 Year Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Hydrograph Report
9
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
Hyd. No. 3
pond 1 routing
Hydrograph type = Reservoir
Storm frequency = 25 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 2 -Post developed
Reservoir name = Pond 1
Storage Indication method used
Q (Cfs)
18.00
• 15.00
•
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0.00
0 180 360
Hyd No. 3
540 720
Hyd No. 2
pond 1 routing
Hyd. No. 3 -- 25 Year
900
Q (cfs)
18.00
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0.00
1080 1260 1440 1620 1800 1980
Time (min)
Total storage used = 28,439 cuft
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Peak discharge = 12.58 cfs
Time to peak = 61 min
Hyd. volume = 48,237 cuft
Max. Elevation = 846.60 ft
Max. Storage = 28,439 cuft
10
H yd rog ra p h Summary Re Py9r flow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052

•

Hyd.
No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
flow
(cfs)
Time
interval
(min)
Time to
peak
(min)
Hyd.
volume
(cuft)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Total
strge used
(cult) I
Hydrograph
description
1
i Rational 14.64 1 50 43,911 ------ ------ ------ Predeveloped
2 Rational 17.72 1 50 53,156 ------ ------ ------ Post developed
I,
i
3
III

I
i

I
I
?

i

I
i
I
I
Ii
I

I
I
i
Reservoir
14.11
1
60
52,649
2
846.66
28,941
pond 1 routing

i

I

I
j
I
I
j

i

Smith Reynold s-Existing. gl w
I
Return Period: 50 Year
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
• Hyd. No. 3
pond 1 routing
Hydrograph type = Reservoir
Storm frequency = 50 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 2 -Post developed
Reservoir name = Pond 1
Storage Indication method used
Q (Cfs)
18.00
• 15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0.00
0
•
pond 1 routing
Hyd. No. 3 -- 50 Year
180 360 540 720
Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2
900
Q (cfs)
18.00
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0.00
1080 1260 1440 1620 1800
Time (min)
Total storage used = 28,941 cuft
11
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Peak discharge = 14.11 cfs
Time to peak = 60 min
Hyd. volume = 52,649 cuft
Max. Elevation = 846.66 ft
Max. Storage = 28,941 cuft
12
Hydrograph Summary Re Py(? low Hydrographs Extension for AUtoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052

•
Hyd.
No. Hydrograph
type
(origin) Peak
flow
(cfs) Time
interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Hyd.
volume
(cult) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Total
strge used
(cult) Hydrograph
description
1 Rational 15.82 1 50 47,453 ------ ------ ------ Predeveloped
2 Rational 19.15 1 50 57,443 ------ ------ ------ Post developed
3
'

I

I

I
I

I
(I

i

?I
I
I

i
I
i
I Reservoir 15.57 1 59 56,935 2 846.73 29,498 pond 1 routing
I
I
I
I

i
I

i

li
i
I
i

i
Smith Reynold s-Existing.gpw
i Return Period: 100 Year Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008 II
Hydrograph Report
pond 1 routing
Hyd. No. 3 -- 100 Year
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
• Hyd. No. 3
pond 1 routing
Hydrograph type = Reservoir
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 2 -Post developed
Reservoir name = Pond 1
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008
Peak discharge = 15.57 cfs
Time to peak = 59 min
Hyd. volume = 56,935 cuft
Max. Elevation = 846.73 ft
Max. Storage = 29,498 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Q (Cfs)
21.00
18.00
•
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0.00
0
13
Q (Cfs)
21.00
18.00
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0.00
120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 Total storage used = 29,498 cuft
•
•
•
Hydraflow Rainfall Report
14
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2008 by Autodesk, Inc. v6.052
Return Intensity-Duration-Frequency Equation Coefficients (FHA)
Period
(Yrs) B D E (N/A)
1 57.3018 12.6000 0.8890 --------
2 68.6290
I , 13.0000 0.8850 --------
3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --------
5 67.5316 12.6000 0.8309 --------
10 67.3303 12.4000 0.8000 --------
25 58.6655 11.0000 0.7384 --------
50 54.7434 10.3000 0.7025 --------
100 47.2780 9.0000 0.6512 --------
File name: Winston Salem NC.IDF
Intensity = B / (Tc + D)^E
Return li Intensity Values (in/hr)
Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008

(Yrs) 5 min 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
1 4.48 ! 3.58 3.00 2.59 2.28 2.04 1.85 1.69 1.56 1.45 1.35 1.27
I I
i
2 5.32 1 4.28 3.60 3.11 2.74 2.46 2.23 2.04 1.89 1.75 1.64 1.54
i
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
5 6.23 5.06 4.29 3.73 3.32 2.99 2.73 2.51 2.33 2.17 2.04 1.92
10 6.85 5.60 4.76 4.17 3.71 3.36 3.07 2.84 2.64 2.47 2.32 2.19
25 7.57 6.20 5.29 4.65 4.16 3.78 3.47 3.22 3.00 2.82 2.66 2.52
i I
50 8.06 6.60 5.66 4.99 4.48 4.08 3.76 3.49 3.27 3.07 ! 2.91 2.76
100 8.48 6.95 5.97 5.28 4.76 4.35 4.02 3.75 3.52 3.32 3.15 3.00
Tc = time in minutes. Values may exceed 60.
Preci . file name: Winston Salem NC. c
Rainfall Precipitation Table (in)
Storm
Distribution 1-yr
2-yr
3-yr
5-yr
10-yr
25-yr
50-yr
100-yr
SCS 24-hour 2.83 3.42 0.00 4.28 4.96 5.89 6.63 7.40
SCS 6-Hr I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Huff-1st 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Huff-2nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Huff-3rd 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Huff-4th 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Huff-Indy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Custom 0.00
I I __ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
•
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Smith Reynolds Airport - Runway Extension
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1359-07-050
Prepared For:
•
Avcon, Inc.
Mallard Creek III, Suite 145
8604 Cliff Cameron Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28269
Prepared By:
*S&ME
385 Timber Road - Suite 104
Mooresville, North Carolina 281 15
October 18, 2007
0
*--S&ME
•
October 18, 2007
Avcon, Inc.
Mallard Creek III, Suite 145
8604 Cliff Cameron Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28269
Attention: Mr. Mike Darcangelo, P.E.
Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Smith Reynolds Airport - Runway Extension
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1359-07-050
Dear Mr. Darcangelo:
• S&ME, Inc. is pleased to submit this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed
Runway 15-33 Safety Area extension at the Smith Reynolds Airport in Winston-Salem,
Forsyth County, North Carolina. This exploration was performed in general accordance
with our proposal No. 1351-17665-07 dated February 12, 2007.
The purpose of the geotechnical study was to determine the general subsurface conditions
at the site and to evaluate those conditions with regard to general site development. This
report presents our findings together with our conclusions and recommendations for
foundation design and construction considerations for the proposed embankment and
drainage structures. In summary, we consider the subsurface conditions at the site
acceptable for support of the proposed embankment and the proposed culverts on shallow
foundation systems following proper implementation of the recommended site
preparation procedures
•
S&ME, INC. / 385 Timber Road, Suite 104 / Mooresville, NC 281 1 5-7899 / p 704.662.8625 f 704.662.8735 / www.smeinc.com
Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1359-07-050
Smith Reynolds Airport - Runwav Extension October 18, 2007
•
•
•
please contact us.
S&ME, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to assist you during this phase of the project. If you
should have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further assistance,
Very truly yours,
S&ME, Inc.
Richard J. Bichse
Staff Profession
CAR
• a SEAL r••
=n: 31501
Christ r J. Br0wrF,? .F !
MO e ille Office M ?G? N?: • ????`
N.C. Registration No. 31/?3Q HER
llllil?
Thomas M. Schipporeit, P.E.
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
RJB/CJB/TMS
Copies Submitted: (3)
2
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .................................... 1
.......................................................................
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... . 1
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................ . 1
1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................... . 1
2.0 Exploration Procedures .................................. 2
......................................................
2.1 FIELD ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................... .2
2.2 LABORATORY ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................ .2
3.0 Area Geology and Subsurface Conditions .......................................................... 2
3.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND AREA GEOLOGY .......................................................................................... 2
3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................ 4
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................... 6
4.1 GENERAL ...................................................................................................................................... 6
4.2 CULVERT FOUNDATION SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 6
4.3 SLOPE STABILITY .......................................................................................................................... 7
5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................... 8
• 5.1 SITE PREPARATION ....................................................................................................................... 8
5.2 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION STABILITY .......................................................................................... 8
5.3 EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................................. 8
5.4 FILL MATERIAL AND PLACEMENT ................................................................................................. 9
6.0 LMTATIONS ....................................................................................................9
APPENDIX
Site Vicinity Map, Figure I
Boring Location Plan, Figure 2
Slope Stability Analysis Results, Figure Nos. 3 through 6
Laboratory Test Results
Legend to Soil Classification and Symbols
Boring Logs, B-1 through B-15
9
Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1359-07-050
Smith Reynolds Airport - Runway Extension October 18. 2007
•
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
Project information was provided by Mr. Mike Darcangelo, P.E. of Avcon, Inc. The
subject area is located at the southeast end of Runway 15-33 at Smith Reynolds Airport
off of North Liberty Street in Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, North Carolina, as shown
in the Site Vicinity Map (Figure No. 1) in the Appendix. It is our understanding that the
extension will include the construction of a new embankment approximately 400 feet in
length and two culverts. The embankment fill will have structural fills up to 20 feet in
depth. The culverts will be steel arch with approximately 20 feet spans and a total linear
footage of 1,030 feet. A proposed borrow area for obtaining soils to be used for
embankment construction is located to the east of Runway 15-33.
1.2 Site Description
The site currently is an active airport. Runway 15-33 runs approximately northwest to
southeast. The runway gently slopes downward towards the southeast and approximately
100 feet southeast of the runway the topography steeply slopes downward with a total
elevation change of approximately 95 feet over approximately 600 linear feet. The
Brushy Fork Stream runs north to south and an un-named tributary to Brushy Fork Stream
• runs west to east in the proposed Safety Area extension.
1.3 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this geotechnical study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site
and develop geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the project.
S&ME has completed the following scope of geotechnical services for this project:
• Visited the site to observe site surface conditions, mark proposed boring locations
and measure water levels at termination of borings.
• Contacted North Carolina One Call to mark the locations of existing underground
utilities in the proposed exploration areas.
• Mobilized a power drilling rig mounted on a rubber-tired ATV (Mobile B-57) and
crew to the site.
• Drilled fifteen (15) soil test borings to depths ranging from 2 to 40 feet below
existing grades in the proposed runway extension area and in the proposed borrow
area. Due to relatively shallow auger refusal, offset borings were advanced at 10
of the boring locations. The borings included split-barrel soil sampling at 2.5 to 5
feet intervals. The sampler was driven in general accordance with the Standard
Penetration Test procedures (ASTM D 1586). The boreholes were backfilled with
soil cuttings.
• Performed laboratory testing consisting of the Atterberg Limits, grain size
distribution and standard Proctor testing of samples collected from Borings B-1
and B-2.
Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1359-07-050
Smith Reynolds Airport - Runway Extension October 18, 2007
• • Prepared this geotechnical engineering report summarizing our field testing
procedures, describing the subsurface conditions at the site, and providing
geotechnical recommendations. The recommendations address site preparation,
earthwork, and foundation design for the proposed embankment and culverts.
2.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
2.1 Field Activities
Fifteen soil test borings (Designated Boring Nos. B-1 through B-15) were drilled at the
approximate locations shown on the Boring Location Plan (Figure No. 2) in the Appendix.
The borings were located in the field by a geotechnical engineer from our office using
existing topographical features and objects. The soil test borings were drilled to depths
ranging from 2 to 40 feet below the existing ground surface elevations using drilling rig
mounted on a rubber-tired ATV (Mobile B-57). Hollow-stem, continuous flight augers
were used to advance the borings to their termination depths.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split spoon sampling was performed at designated
intervals in the soil test boring in general accordance with ASTM D 1586 to provide an
index for estimating soil strength and relative density or consistency and to retrieve
samples for soil classification purposes. Soil samples (auger cuttings) were collected from
Borings B-1 and B-2 at the 10 to 20 feet interval below the existing ground surface and
taken to our laboratory for analysis.
2.2 Laboratory Activities
Once the samples were received in our laboratory, a geotechnical engineer observed each
sample to estimate the distribution of grain size, plasticity, organic content, moisture
condition, color, presence of lenses and seams, and apparent geological origin. The results
of the visual classifications, as well as the field test results, are presented on the individual
boring logs included in the Appendix. Similar soils were grouped into strata on the logs.
The ground surface elevations given on the boring logs were interpolated using the contour
lines shown on the site plans provided to us.
Laboratory testing of the bulk soil samples consisted of the Atterberg Limits (ASTM D-
2487, ASTM D-4318, and ASTM D-4318) to establish a plastic index, plastic limit and
liquid limit, and a grain size analysis (ASTM D-422) along with a standard Proctor Test to
establish the moisture-density relationship (ASTM D-698). The results of the laboratory
test results are attached in the Appendix.
3.0 AREA GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 Physiography and Area Geology
The site is located in the Milton Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North
Carolina as shown in the following figure. The Piedmont Province generally consists of
Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1359-07-050
Smith Reynolds Airport - Runway Extension October 18, 2007
• well-rounded hills and ridges, which are dissected by a well-developed system of draws
and streams. The Piedmont Province is predominantly underlain by metamorphic rock
(formed by heat, pressure and/or chemical action) and igneous rock (formed directly from
molten material), which were initially formed during the Precambrian and Paleozoic eras.
The volcanic and sedimentary rocks deposited in the Piedmont Province during the
Precambrian eras were the host for the metamorphism and were changed to gneiss and
schist. The more recent Paleozoic era had periods of igneous emplacement, with at least
several episodes of regional metamorphism resulting in the majority of the rock types
seen today.
According to the 1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina, the bedrock underlying the
Winston-Salem area consists of metamorphic biotite gneiss and schist, with small masses
of intrusive granitic rock.
APPROXIMATE
•
i
The topography and relief of the Piedmont Province have developed from differential
weathering of the igneous and metamorphic rock. Because of the continued chemical and
physical weathering, the rocks in the Piedmont Province are now generally covered with a
mantle of soil that has weathered in place from the parent bedrock. These soils have
variable thicknesses and are referred to as residuum or residual soils. The residuum is
typically finer grained and has higher clay content near the surface because of the
advanced weathering. Similarly, the soils typically become coarser grained with
increasing depth because of decreased weathering. As the degree of weathering
decreases, the residual soils generally retain the overall appearance, texture, gradation and
foliations of the parent rock.
The boundary between soil and rock in the Piedmont is not sharply defined. A transitional
zone termed "partially weathered rock" is normally found overlying the parent bedrock.
Partially weathered rock (PWR) is defined for engineering purposes as residual material
with Standard Penetration Resistances (N-values) exceeding 100 blows per foot. The
Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1359-07-050
Smith Reynolds Airport - Runway Extension October 18, 2007
• transition between hard/dense residual soils and partially weathered rock occurs at irregular
depths due to variations in degree of weathering. A depiction of typical weathering profiles
in the Piedmont Province is presented in the following figure.
--------- ItJ $4
RESIDUUM
SAPROLITE
(R-Id--
With Relfe
Sinlchwo
PARTIALLY
WEATHERED
ROCK
RELATIYELY
SOUND
ROCK ZONES
i
00,
It k
?, ll
GRANITE TO G4H8R0
Typical Piedmont Weathering Profiles (After Sowers/Richardson, 1983)
Groundwater is typically present in the residual soils and within fractures in the partially
• weathered rock or underlying bedrock in the Piedmont. On upland ridges in the Piedmont,
groundwater may or may not be present in the residual soils above the partially weathered
rock and bedrock. Alluvial soils, which have been transported and deposited by water, are
typically found in floodplains and are generally saturated to within a few feet of the ground
surface. Fluctuations in groundwater levels are typical in residual soils and partially
weathered rock in the Piedmont, depending on variations in precipitation, evaporation, and
surface water runoff. Seasonal high groundwater levels are expected to occur during or just
after the typically wetter months of the year (November through April).
3.2 Subsurface Conditions
General: The soil test borings generally encountered existing fill soils, alluvial soils,
residual soils, partially weathered rock, and auger refusal material. The generalized
subsurface conditions at the site are further described below. For more detailed soil
descriptions and stratifications at a particular boring location, the respective boring log
should be reviewed.
Fill: Existing fill soils were encountered in Borings B-3, B-5, B-6, and B-11 through 13-
14. The fill soil was typically encountered to a depth between approximately 3.0 and 5.5
feet below the existing ground surface. The composition of the fill material generally
consisted of very loose to medium dense brown to gray to red clayey silty fine to coarse
• sand (Unified Soil Classification of SM) or a stiff to firm red fine sandy clayey silt (CL-
ML). The SPT N-values for the fill soils ranged from 3 to 23 blows per foot (bpf) .
4
GNEISS TO SCHIST
Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1359-07-050
Smith Reynolds Airport - Runway Extension October 18, 2007
• Alluvial Soil: Alluvial soils were encountered in Borings B-7, B-11, B-14, and B-15.
Alluvium was encountered from approximately several inches to 3.5 feet below current
ground surface elevation and ranged in thickness from 1.5 feet (Boring B-11) to 13.5 feet
(Boring B-15). The alluvium varied greatly in composition in the borings and ranged
from a well-sorted brown and gray to bluish gray to bluish brown silty fine sand (SW) to
a gray to brown fine sandy silt (ML) to a brown fine sandy clayey silt (MH) to a brownish
red to white orange gray fine to medium sandy clayey silt (CL-ML). The SPT N-values
for the alluvial soils ranged from 1 to 18 bpf .
Residual Soil: Residuum was encountered in Borings B-1 through B-9 and B-15.
Residuum was encountered from approximately several inches to 6.0 feet below current
ground surface elevation and ranged in thickness from 2.5 feet (Boring B-8) to 35.5 feet
(Boring B-3). The residuum varied in composition in the borings and generally consisted
loose to very dense red to brown silty fine to medium sand (SM) with varying amounts of
mica to a firm to very stiff red to tan fine sandy silt (ML) to a stiff to very stiff red fine
sandy clayey silt (CL-ML). The SPT N-values in the residual soils ranged from 6 to 89
bpf .
Partially Weathered Rock: Partially Weathered Rock (PWR) was encountered in
Borings B-1 through B-8, B-10, B-11, and B-13 through B-15 at depths ranging from
approximately several inches (Boring B-10) to 38.5 feet (Boring B-3) below the ground
surface. PWR is defined as material with SPT N-values equaling or in excess of 100 bpf.
• The PWR typically break down into a pink to tan to grayish-white silty fine to coarse
sand with varying amounts of mica and rock fragments when sampled with the SPT
method. Borings B-8 and B-14 encountered SPT N-values equaling or in excess of 100
bpf, but no soil samples were recovered.
Auger Refusal: Auger refusal was encountered in Borings B-4 through B-15 along with
subsequent offsets (Borings B-4-1 through B-6-1 and B-8-1 though B-15-1), ranging in
depth from approximately 2.0 feet (Boring B-10) to 26.0 feet (Boring B-4) below the
existing ground surface elevation. Auger refusal material can consist of boulders, rock
lenses, or bedrock. Rock coring, which was beyond the scope of this study, would be
required to characterize the auger refusal material.
Water Levels: Groundwater level measurements were attempted in the borings at the
completion of drilling. All of the borings were backfilled at termination of boring and
stabilized water levels were not measured. All of the borings were dry with the exception of
Boring B-15 (2 feet below ground surface elevation) and the offset Boring B-15-1 (4 feet
below ground surface elevation). The borehole cave-in depths for the soil test borings are
also included on the individual logs and may be an indication of the stabilized groundwater
level at or near the deeper hole cave-in depths in some of the borings.
Water levels tend to fluctuate with seasonal and climatic variations, as well as with some
types of construction operations. Therefore, groundwater may be encountered during
construction at depths not indicated by the borings.
Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1359-07-050
Smith Reynolds Airport - Runway Extension October 18, 2007
• 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 General
Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the project information outlined
previously and on the data obtained from the field and laboratory testing programs. If the
structural loading, geometry, proposed Runway 15-33 Safety Area location, proposed
borrow area, or proposed grades are changed or significantly differ from those outlined, or if
conditions are encountered during construction that differ from those encountered by the
soil test borings, S&ME, Inc. requests the opportunity to review our recommendations
based on the new information and make any necessary changes.
4.2 Culvert Foundation Support
Based on the results of the soil test borings performed in the planned Runway 15-33 Safety
Area extension, the proposed structures (culverts) can be adequately supported on shallow
foundations bearing on low-plasticity residual soils, partially weathered rock, or newly
placed structural fill, provided the site preparation and fill placement procedures outlined in
this report are implemented. The arch culvert footings bearing in residual soils and newly
placed fill should be design using an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square
foot (psf). Arch culvert footings bearing on partially weathered rock can be designed using
an allowable bearing pressure of 6,000 psf.
i We recommend that the foundation subgrade soils be observed by a staff professional, or a
senior soil technician working under his/her direction, prior to foundation installation. This
is to assess the suitability of the exposed soil for foundation support and confirm the
consistency of the soil with the conditions upon which our recommendations are based.
Soft or unsuitable existing soils encountered at the bottom of the footing excavations should
be undercut to firm soils and replaced with lean concrete.
Based on the soil test borings, soft and loose soils are present in the upper 3 to 6 feet in
some locations. Undercutting of the culvert footings should be anticipated in the vicinity of
Borings B-7 and B-11 through B-15.
The fine-grained subgrade materials can be sensitive to moisture variations; therefore,
foundation excavations should be opened for a minimum amount of time, particularly
during inclement weather. Soils exposed to moisture variations may become highly
disturbed and undercutting may be required prior to placing foundations on these materials.
If the excavation must remain open overnight or if rainfall becomes imminent while the
bearing soils are exposed, we recommend that a 2 to 4-inch thick "mud-mat" of lean (2,000
psi) concrete be placed on the bearing soils before placement of reinforcing steel to help
protect the bearing soils from further disturbance.
•
Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1359-07-050
Smith Reynolds Airport - Runway Extension October 18. 2007
• 4.3 Slope Stability
We understand that the project will include the construction of an embankment with fill
slopes to extend the safety area at the southeastern end of the runway. The fill surface
will slope at an angle of 4-horizontal to 1-vertical (4H:1 V) in this area. The slope will
vary from elevation 898 feet at the top to a low of elevation 810 at the toe of the slope,
resulting in a maximum fill slope height of approximately 88 feet.
Global slope stability analyses were conducted for a proposed 4H:1 V fill slope with a
height of 88 feet. Shear strength properties for the proposed fill soils and the underlying
residual soil were estimated from the laboratory test results, published correlations and
our experience with similar soils. The borings drilled in the proposed borrow area
generally encountered sandy silts (ML) and silty sands (SM) suitable for re-use as
compacted fill in the proposed fill slope area. We used the following estimated soil
properties for the slope stability analyses:
Material Angle of Internal Cohesion Moist Unit Weight
Friction (pounds per square (pounds per cubic
(degrees) foot) foot)
Fill (Silty Sand) 30° c = 50 psf M =125 cf
Residual Soil 28° c = 100 psf M =100 cf
. Global slope stability analyses were conducted for both the existing and proposed slopes
using the Spencer Method, a limit equilibrium analysis which accounts for the inter-slice
forces. The analyses indicate that the existing slopes and proposed fill slope with the
estimated soil properties have a factor of safety against a deep-seated global stability
failure of 2.3 to 2.6 (Figure Nos. 3 through 6). Typically, a minimum factor of safety of
1.5 is considered to be adequate for global slope stability for compacted fill slopes.
The proposed fill slope soils should be placed in horizontal 8- to 10-inch thick loose lifts at
a moisture content within three percent of the optimum moisture content of the material as
determined by ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor). Each lift of fill should be uniformly
compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density of the material
determined according to ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor). The upper 18 inches (below the
top of the slope grade) should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the standard Proctor
maximum dry density. In areas where the fill slope materials match an existing sloping
ground surface, the lifts of fill should be "benched" into the existing sloping ground surface
by cutting into the sloping ground surface and "stair stepping" subsequent lifts of fill to
prevent a planar interface between the proposed fill slope and the existing ground surface.
We also recommend that the soils exposed on all slope faces be compacted with track-
mounted equipment prior to covering with erosion control netting. Please note, however,
that the design of erosion control mat requires an analysis of the anticipated precipitation
• and surface water flow velocity, which are normally performed by site civil engineers.
7
Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1359-07-050
Smith Reynolds Airport - Runway Extension October 18, 2007
• 5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Site Preparation
Our evaluation and recommendations are based on the project information provided to us
as documented in this report and on the data obtained from the field exploration program.
The subsurface conditions encountered by the borings are considered adaptable for
support of the proposed culverts and runway extension following the recommended site
preparation procedures.
We anticipate that site preparation for the culvert extension will include the following:
1. Dewatering of the culvert extension bearing area by pumping from sumps.
2. Excavation of unacceptable fill and alluvial soils within the culvert and
embankment areas. Based on the boring results, up to approximately 6 feet of
excavation at some boring locations will be required to achieve acceptable
bearing conditions. Shoring of the end of the existing culvert may be required to
reduce the potential for undermining of the end of the box structure.
3. Confirmation of acceptable bearing conditions using manual probing, following
by backfilling to the required bearing level with lean concrete or flowable fill
under proposed culvert footings.
4. Construction of the culverts and wing walls.
5. Backfilling of wing walls with compacted structural.
• 6. Removal of dewatering cofferdam and restoration of channel flow.
5.2 Temporary Excavation Stability
For temporary excavations, 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 (29 CFR
Part 1926) excavation trench safety standards. The contractor is typically solely
responsible for site safety. This information is provided only as a service and under no
circumstances should we be assumed responsible for construction site safety.
5.3 Excavation Characteristics
Based on the results of the soil test borings, it appears that the some of the excavations in
the proposed Runway 15-33 Safety Area extension culvert construction may encounter
relatively shallow PWR, rock lenses, or bedrock. Also, if excavations more than 15 to 20
feet are needed in the proposed borrow area, they are likely to encounter PWR, rock
lenses, or bedrock. The depth to, and thickness of, PWR and rock lenses or seams, can
vary dramatically in short distances and between boring locations; therefore, shallow
PWR or bedrock could also be encountered elsewhere on the site.
PWR is typically much more difficult to excavate than residual soil. A heavy bulldozer
(Caterpillar D-8 or equivalent) with ripping tools may be able to remove the upper 1 to 3
Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1359-07-050
Smith Reynolds Airport - Runway Extension October 18 2007
feet of partially weathered rock in an open site excavation, which is defined as an area
greater than 10 feet wide by 30 feet long and accessible to heavy equipment. However,
ripping is less effective for removal of partially weathered rock from smaller footing and
utility trench excavations. Deeper PWR, rock lenses, and rock, in addition to PWR in
trench or shallow foundation excavations, could require hammering or blasting to
excavate depending on the grading requirements of the site. We anticipate that the
existing fill and residual soil can be excavated using backhoes, bulldozers, and/or front
end loaders, if necessary to achieve the desired site grading.
6.4 Fill Material and Placement
All fill material used for site grading operations should consist of a clean (free of organic
matter and debris), low plasticity soil (with a Liquid Limit less than 50 and a Plasticity
Index less than 25). The proposed fill should have a maximum dry density of at least 90
pounds per cubic foot as determined by the Standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D
698). All fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness and
compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of its Standard Proctor maximum dry density. We
recommend that field density tests, including one-point Proctor verification tests, be
performed on the fill as it is being placed at a frequency of at least one test per 5,000 square
feet per vertical lift placed.
Based on the results of the soil test borings performed and our experience with similar
• type materials, the on-site low plasticity residual soils, existing fill, and PWR can
typically be used as structural fill. Depending on the time of year, some drying of the
soils may be required prior to reuse as structural fill. If PWR or blasted rock is used as
structural fill, it should be limited to material with rock fragments less than 4 inches in
maximum diameter in fills within 4 feet of finish grade. Rock fragments up to 24 inches
in maximum diameter may be placed in fills at least 4 feet below finish grade in non-
building areas, provided the rock fragments and boulders are blended with soil and
compacted in lifts no greater than the maximum rock size.
6.0 LIMITATIONS
The boring locations given in this report should be considered accurate only to the degree
implied by the methods used to determine them.
The boring logs represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on the
field logs, and visual examinations of samples by a staff professional or technician, in
addition to tests of the field samples. The lines designating the interfaces between
various strata may be gradual.
The generalized subsurface strata and profiles described in this report are intended to
convey trends in subsurface conditions. The boundaries between strata are approximate
and idealized. They have been developed by interpretations of widely-spaced borings.
• Therefore, actual subsurface conditions may vary from those given between test locations.
9
Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1359-07-050
Smith Reynolds Airport - Runwav Extension October 18 2007
is Groundwater levels have been measured or inferred in the borings at the times and under
the conditions stated on the exploration logs in this report. Changes in the groundwater
conditions may occur due to variations in rainfall, evaporation, construction activity,
surface water runoff, and other site specific factors.
Our geotechnical services include storing the samples collected and making them
available for inspection for 90 days. The samples are then discarded unless our client
requests otherwise.
The assessment of site environmental conditions and the determination of contaminants
in the soil, rock, surface water or groundwater of the site were beyond the scope of this
geotechnical study.
The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the
project information given in this report and on our interpretation of the surface and
subsurface data collected. We have made our recommendations based on our experience
with similar subsurface conditions and similar projects. The recommendations apply to
the specific project discussed in this report; therefore, any changes in the project
information should be provided to us so we may review our conclusions and
recommendations and make any appropriate modifications.
S&ME, Inc. should be retained for a general review of the design drawings and
specifications to verify that geotechnical recommendations are properly interpreted and
implemented.
Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical study, there is always a possibility that
subsurface conditions will be different from those at boring locations, that conditions will
not be as anticipated by the designers or contractors, or that the construction process will
alter soil conditions. Therefore, qualified geotechnical personnel should observe
construction to confirm that the conditions indicated by the geotechnical borings actually
exist. We recommend the owner retain S&ME, Inc. for this service since we are already
familiar with the project, the subsurface conditions at the site, and the intent of the
recommendations and design.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Avcon, Inc. for specific application to
the proposed Runway 15-33 Safety Area extension at the Smith Reynolds Airport in
Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, North Carolina. It has been prepared in accordance with
generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice for specific application to this project.
The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon applicable
standards of our practice in this geographic area at the time this report was prepared. No
other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
•
10
•

f

.
2, _ ,,,
CD A r.
c Ak?t n DY?, ,
2 8

'6"
f
-
- fi

rd Snrlth Reynolds
Airport

I i
I
?a Air, i I
-
- 52 8 g
Oro k wood
.
E 18thI 5t i
??
_ .
.
St 6 27th St1
_ - zstn?

204 Map Quest left
IedmontUr IVe zbtl_St l
,?. ' shy St
i E 25th Si " Ne 25th St Ne 25t4 stjro
w left
Source: www.mapqucst.com
SCALE: Bar
CHECKED CJB
BY:
DRAWN BY: RJB
ENGINEERING • TESTING
DATE: 8/15/2007 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
APPROXIMATE
SITE LOCATION
?: - -7
Myra,_!5t IV
®f 20( kAV7EQ
Site Vicinity Map
Smith Reynolds Airport
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
JOB 1359-05-050
NO:
FIGURE NO.
1
N
l 1R
I
r
e
? f
h ? •
.
V?
IT
?V A `? ??yf
t -1
i I.
uHm fewm fn.m f fam fa,m fm,m ` fswoe - -imco • . k:,i:: _
F E fi f -r - two lwae tm m
r°--- -.
T.i
77
1
f
/ r ?? f•
I tt
,.._.__
r°
(IV
l / / , j / r J f
h
t sties
IvviE: HIS DiRg ING HAS BEEN MODIFED BY S&ME, INC
TO SHOW APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF SOIL TEST BORINGS
1 I
AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DETERMINATION OF
QUANTITIES OR DISTANCES.'
SCALE DATE
1"=200' 9/21/07 9751 SOUTHERN PINE BLVD.
?0,ECT NO. DRAWN BY. CHARLOTTE, NC. 26273
?? s PH. 704-523-4726
1359-07-050 CJB FAX [phone]
CHECKED BY-
Nlh+1",.Sl?i
BORING LOCATION PLAN
WINSTON-SALEM AIRPORT
WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROUNA
FlGURE NO.
2

C
O
w
a?
w
0
FIGURE NO.
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DRAWN BY: ZDS S ME Profile 1 Existing Ground Surface Slope Stability Analysis
CHECKED BY: 3
ENGINEERING • TESTING
DATE: ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1013 NO.: 1359-07-050
0 50 100 150 2UU Zou auu aou - - -- --
Distance (ft.)

0
a?
w
SCALE: AS SHOWN FIGURE NO.
DRAWN BY: ZDS *S&ME Profile 1 Proposed Slope Stability Analysis
CHECKED BY: 4
ENGINEERING • TESTING
DATE: IMI 1101)n7 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES JOB NO.: 1359-07-050
VVV0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
Distance M.)
4
4
L
Z
LO
W
LL
W
N
.N
1
�
I
Ln
70
C
1
Q
I
�
�
I
I
Q
O
I
d
I
v
I
�
1
=
�
C
O
m
0
LD
!
I
�
N
o
W
O
I
0)
LO
!
N
Cl)
m
m
I
I
(D
N
!
0 �
O
0
!
Z
0
I
!
I
F
�N
LU ZU
0
0 N
CJ N
I
ZZ
4) +; u
w
!
w
O X Q
ZO
dWfn
II
I
0
ZZ
ww
fA
r
O
N
-
O) O U C
I
c U 0-o J
!
;,
NV
W W.2 N
O
co E
N 0 O CJ N
Z
CTS —L.-
Z��UCd
!
O
�
T-
o
I
o
oc
1 I g g
Q
m
w
(4) u04en913
W
J
Z
W
U)
10
1 U
<
0

970
960
950
940
930
920
91C
O 90C
M
W
89C
880
87(
86(
85(
84(
830 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance (ft.)
SCALE: AS SHOWN
400 450 500 550
DRAWN BY: ZDS 0091VIC Profile 2 Proposed Slope Stability Analysis
CHECKED BY:
ENGINEERING • TESTING
DATE: 1 n1-1 1 11) nn7 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES JOB NO.: 1359-07-050
600 650
FIGURE NO.
6
Laboratory Report Version 4.2
Moisture - Density Report
OS&ME Project #: 1359-07-050
Project Name: Smith Reynolds Airport
Client Name: Avcon, Inc.
Client Address: 1617 East Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28203
Boring #: B-1 Sample #: 1
mica
*S&ME
Report Date: July 17, 2007
Test Date(s): 7/13-17/07
e Date: May 22, 2007
Depth: 10-20'
Maximum Dry Density 112.5 PCF. Optimum Moisture Content 14.8 %
A.Q7 M r? l.OO r l..+Ik- 7 A
ateve btze usea to separate the Uversize Fraction: #4 Sieve 0 3/8 inch Sieve ? 3/4 inch Sieve ?
Mechanical Hammer 0 Manual Hammer ? Moist Preparation ? Dry Preparation CI
Rererences. ASTM D 698. Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Etlbrt
ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
ASTM D 422: Panicle Size Analysis of Soils
ASTM D 4318: Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, & Plastic Index orsoils
16 TM D 2487: Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System)
Technical Responsibility: Chris Brown _
Signanvv
S&ME, INC. 9751 Southern Pine Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28273 1359-07-050 l.xls
Laboratory Report Version 4.2
Particle Size Analysis of Soils
ASTM D 422
E Project #: 1359-07-050 Report Date:
ro?ect Name: Smith Reynolds Airport Test Date(s):
Client Name: Avcon, Inc.
Client Address: 1617 East Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28203
*S&ME
7/19/07
7/13-19/07
yUI'L116 rr. n-1 sample ##: 1 Sample Date: 5/22/07
Location: Offset: Depth: 10-20'
Sample Description: Red silty medium to fine sand (SM) with mica

"l.5 "1"3/4 "1/2'3/8 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100°/a _....r... .. ......? __ ..»._.. _
D
I L L

D
I
T .
F

tai
.
y
K
r

i? 10 L
C
d
U
?
1
D

D

I L L U -
I
(1°/a
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size (mm)
Cobbles
Gravel
Coale Said < 300 mm 12" and > 75 =13")-
< 75 mm and > 4.75 mm #4
< 4.75 mm and >2.00 mm #10 Fine Said
Silt
Clay < 0.425 mm and > 0.075 mm (#200
< 0.075 and > 0.005 mm
< 0.005 mm
Medium Sand < 2.00 mm and > 0.425 nart #40 Colloids < 0.001 mm
Maximum Particle Size 0 Gravel 3.9% Silt 12.2%
Silt & Clay (% Passing #200) 20.2%, Sand 75.9% Clay 8.0%
Apparent Relative Density (Assumed) 2.650 Moisture Content Colloids
Liquid Limit NP Plastic Limit NP Plastic Index NP
Description of Sand & Gravel Particles Rounded ? Angular ? Hard & Durable ? Soft ? Weathered & Friable ?
4echanical Stirring Apparutus (A) Length ofDispersion Period: 1 min. Dispersing Agent- Sodium Hexametuphosphnle: 40 gJLiter
References: ASTM D 422: Particle Size Analysis of Soils AM D 421: Dry Preparation of Soil Samplcs
ASTM D 4318: Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, & Plastic Index of Soils ASTM D 854: Specific Gravity of Soils
t?D 2487: Clu3si6cation of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Clussificalion System)
Technical Responsibility: Chris Brown
S&ME, INC.
SIX"Num P"111an
9751 Southem Pine Blvd., Charlotte, NC 282731359-07-050 8-1 1 (10-20) Hvdro.xls
Laboratory Record Version 4.2
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plastic Index *S&ME
wroject #: 1359-07-050 Report Date:
7/18/07
Project Name: Smith Reynolds Airport Test Date(s): 7/13-18/07
Client Name: Avcon, Inc.
Client Address: 1617 East Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28203
Boring #: B-1 Sample #: 1 Sample Date: 5/22/07
Location: Offset: Depth: 10-20'
Sample Description: Red silty medium to fine sand (SM) with mica
pail # Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Test # I 2 3 4 5 6 I 2 3
Tare #
A Tare Weight
-
B Wet Soil Weight
+A
C Dry Soil Weight + A
D Water Weight (B-C)
E Dry Soil Weight (C-A)
F % Moisture Content (D/E)* 100
N # OF DROPS
LL LL = F * FACTOR
Ave. Average
42.0
40.0
0
i U 38.0
!u
L
7
o 36.0
e 34.0
32.0
Moisture Contents determiner)
by.4STMD 2316
One Point Liquid Limit
N Factor N Factor
20 0.974 26 1.005
21 0.979 27 1.009
22 0.985 28 1.014
23 0.990 29 1.018
24 0.995 30 1.022
25 1.000
10 15 20 25 30 35 32
of Drops 200
J
Notes: Estimate the % Retained on the #40 Sieve
Special Sampling Methods:
Sample Preparation: Wet Preparation ? Dry Preparation 0 Air Dried p NP, Non-Plastic 0
Liquid limit Test: Multipoint Method O One-point Method ? Liquid Limit
Classification: ASTM D 2487 D AASHTO M 145 ? Plastic Limit
Liquid limit Test: ASTM D 4318 © AASHTO T 89 ? Plastic Index
Plastic limit Test: ASTM D 4318 p AASHTO T 90 p Group Symbol SM
Ochnician Name: Jennifer Olsen

Technical Responsibility:

Chris Brown 3"46calion p
i?L -
/?
'--
slenunur Paririon
S&ME, INC. 9751 Southern Pine Blvd., Charlotte. NC 28273 135947-050 R-1 1 t10-Zm Pr.vtc
Laboratory Report Versiun 4.2
Moisture - Density Report *S&ME
*S&ME Project #: 1359-07-050 Report Date: July 17, 2007
Project Name: Smith Reynolds Airport Test Date(s): 7/13-17107
Client Name: Avcon, Inc.
Client Address: 1617 East Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28203
Boring #: B-2 Sample #: Sample Date: May 22
2007
Location.
Sample Description: Offset:
Red tan silty medium to fine sand (SM) with mica Depth: ,
10-20'
Maximum Dry Density 112.1 PCF. Optimum Moisture Content 15.2 %
A-STM T11 AQR M. hnA A
IMooisture-Density Relations of Soil and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Soil Properties
125.0 Natural Moisture
Content:
120.0 Plastic Limit: - NP
Plastic Index: NP
U 115 0 Specific Gravity:
. FIT, I
% Passing
i A 3/4"
1/2"
7- t
Q 110.0
3/8"
#4 99.2
105.0
%
Oversize Fraction
FT , + T
Bulk Sp. Gravity
100.0 % Moisture
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Oversize Fraction
r--
Moisture Content (%)I MDD
Opt. MC
Moisture-Density Curve Displayed: Fine Fraction M Corrected for Oversize Fraction (ASTM D 4718) ?
..... - uacu .u aoijutate ttte vverstze rractlon: #4 Sieve 0 3/8 inch Sieve ? 3/4 inch Sieve ?
Mechanical Hammer p Manual Hammer ? Moist Preparation ? Dry Preparation [x
References. ASTM D 698: Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort
ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
ASTM D 422: Particle Size Analysis or Soils
ASTM D 4318: Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, & Plastic Index of soils
FM D 2487: Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System)
Technical Responsibility:
S&ME, INC.
0
% Sa urati n '
I ur ve
2.65 I

I - ? ? I I I I

Liquid Limit: NP
Chris Brown '"-
Signmurc
9751 Southern Pine Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28273
139-07.050 2.xls
Laboratory Report Version 43
Particle Size Analysis of Soils
ASTM D 422
ME Project #: 1359-07-050
froject Name: Smith Reynolds Airport
Client Name: Avcon, Inc.
Client Address: 1617 East Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28203
*S&ME
Report Date: 7/19/07
Test Date(s): 7/13-19/07
.Dulutg rt: D-r. Sample #: 2 Sample Date: 5/22/07
Location: Offset: Depth: 10-20'
Sample Description: Red tan silty medium to fine sand (SM) with mica
"1S
100r "1 "3/4 "1/2'3/8 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
_ .? _ ..._ _

tsD T - A
C
Vl
r
0.
C
a?
u
L
d)
n

n

100 10 1 0.1
Particle Size (mm) 0.01 0.001
Cobbles
Gravel
Coarse Sand
Medium Sand < 300 mm 12" and > 75 mm 3"
< 75 mm and > 4.75 mm 04
< 4,75 mm and >2.00 trim #10
< 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm #40 Fine Sand
Silt
Cla
Colloids < 0.425 mm and > 0.075 mm #200)
< 0.075 and > 0.005 mm
< 0.005 mm
< 0.001 mm
Maximum Particle Size 0
Silt & Clay (% Passing #200) 24.3%
Apparent Relative Density (Assumed) 2.650
Liquid Limit NP
Gravel 0.8%
Sand 74.9%
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit NP
Silt 14.3%
Clay 10.0%
Colloids
Plastic Index NP
Description of Sand & Gravel Particles Rounded ? Angular ? Hard & Durable ? Soil ? Weathered & Friable ?
Veebunical Stirring Apparatus (A) Length of Dispersion Period: 1 min. Dispersing Agent: Sodium 1Iexametaphosphate: 40 gJ Lifer
References: ASTM D 422: Particle Size Analysis of Soils ASTM D 431: Dry Preparation of$oil Samples
D 4318: Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, & Plastic Index of Soils ASMI D 854: Specific Gruvity of Soils
D 2487: classification of sods for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System)
Technical Responsibility: Chris Brown
sts"al a Pmdro"
S&ME, INC. 9751 Southern Pine Blvd.. Charlotte. NC 282731359-07-050 8-2 2 (40-201 Hvrirn Yle
Laboratory Record Version 4.2
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plastic Index *S&ME
lbroject #: 1359-07-050 Report Date: 7/18/07
Project Name: Smith Reynolds Airport Test Date(s): 7/13-18/07
Client Name: Avcon, Inc.
Client Address: 1617 East Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28203
Boring #: B-2 Sample #: 2 Sample Date: 5/22/07
Location: Offset: Depth: 10-20'
Jarnwe llescnl)tion: Red tan Cilt-v mP/l7,im rr, -A ica,n -44-U
Pan # Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
Test # 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3
Tare #
A Tare Weight
B Wet Soil Weight + A
C Dry Soil Weight + A
D Water Weight (I3-C)
E Dry Soil Weight (C-A)
F % Moisture Content (D/E)* 100
N # OF DROPS Moisture Contents determined
LL LL = F * FACTOR by RSTr41 D 3216
Ave. Average
4L.U
40.0
c
0
U 38.0
36.0
i o
34.0
32.0
Notes:
One Point Liquid Limit
N Factor N Factor
20 0.974 26 1.005
21 0.979 27 1.009
22 0.985 28 1.014
23 0.990 29 1.018
24 0.995 30 1.022
25 1.000
Estimate the % Retained on the #40 Sieve
Special Sampling Methods:
Sample Preparation: Wet Preparation ? Dry Preparation 0 Air Dried El NP, Non-Plastic 0
Liquid limit Test: Multipoint Method © One-point Method ? Liquid Limit
Classification: ASTM D 2487 p AASHTO M 145 ? Plastic Limit
Liquid limit Test: ASTM D 4318 []x AASHTO T 89 0 Plastic Index
Plastic limit Test: ASTM D 4318 21 AASHTO T 90 ? Group Symbol SM
Ochnician Name: Jennifer Olsen
orfau n k
Technical Responsibility: Chris Brown P7
signtuure Position
S&ME, INC. 9751 Southern Pine Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28273 1359-07.050 B-2 2 (10-20) PUls
10 15 20 25 30 35 32 100
# of Drops
LEGEND TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS
SOIL TYPES
(Shown in Graphic Log) CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
•
Fill STD. PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
CONSISTENCY BLOWS/FOOT
Asphalt Very Soft 0 to 2
Soft 3 to 4
Concrete Firm 5 to 8
Stiff 9 to 15
Topsoil Very Stiff 16 to 30
Hard 31 to 50
Partially Weathered Very Hard Over 50
Rock
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS
Cored Rock
STD. PENETRATION
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-
GW RESISTANCE
SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES RELATIVE DENSITY BLOWS/FOOT
POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,
GP GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE Very Loose 0 to 4
Loose 5 to 10
OR NO FINES Medium Dense 11 to 30
GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND - Dense 31 to 50
SILTMIXTURES Very Dense Over 50
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-
GC CLAY MIXTURES
SAMPLER TYPES
SW WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
SANDS
LITTLE OR NO FINES (Shown in Samples Column)
• , . Shelby Tube
POORLY GRADED SANDS,
SP GRAVELLY SAND, LITRE OR NO
FINES.
® Split Spoon
SILTY SANDS, SAND -SILT
SM MIXTURES
I Rock Core
SG. CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY ? No Recovery
MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
SANDS ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
ML
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY TERMS
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
CL MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
SANDY
AS
SILTY
Y
Standard - The Number of Blows of 140 lb. Hammer Falling
,
CLA
S, LE
AN CLAYS Penetration 30 in
Required to Drive 1
4 in
S
lit S
I
D
oon
r ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
OL .
.
.
p
.
.
p
Resistance Sampler 1 Foot. As Specified in ASTM D-1586.
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
REC - Total Length of Rock Recovered in the Core
MH DIATO INORGANIC SILTS, FINE SAND °OR°R Barrel Divided by the Total Length of the Core
SILTY SOILS Run Times 100%.
a
7 INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
CH PLASrlcrrr
RQD - Total Length of Sound Rock Segments
Recovered that are Longer Than or Equal to 4"
OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO (mechanical breaks excluded) Divided by the

HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
i a
Total Length of the Core Run Times 100%.
WATER LEVELS
)wn in Water Level Column)
- ater Level At Termination of Boring
Z ater Level Taken After 24 Hours S&ME
ss of Drilling Water
HC Ile Cave ENGINEERING . TESTING
- ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PROJE
DATE I
LOGGF
DRILLL
J
I
5 -?
0
c?
SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-1
S8.ME Project No. 1359-07-050
NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
ED: 5/22/07 ELEVATION: 936.0 performed with manual hammer (rope and
1ETHOD: 31/:' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 30.0 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
Y: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5/22/07
N. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57
J
>
O z 3 W
z
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION x a .L -i ? (blows/ft) Q
W W 4
W? a s
a 2 >
z
Q U) v¢i 10 20 30 60 80
Topsoil/Rootmat (2 inches)
19
RESIDUUM: Medium Dense Red Silty Fine
SAND (SM)
931
0 14
.
32
RESIDUUM: Dense to Very Dense Red
Micaceous Silty Fine SAND (SM)

26
0 61
9
.
921
0 38
.
RESIDUUM: Dense Red Silty Fine SAND (SM)
with mica HC
916
0 24
.
50/
11
.0
9
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: When
sampled, becomes Red and Tan Silty Fine SAND
with mica and rock fragments
50/
3"

906.0
10
15 -
I
20 -

25-
30
-NOTE
1. TH.
PR
2. S
AC
AC:
3. S T'
4. V?!
IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
INCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
,?AT70N AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
_°VEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 2
S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA
f S&ME Project No. 1359-07-050
t _L !_ED: 5/22107 ELEVATION: 936.0
t ETHOD: 31/." H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 30.0
6Y: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5122107
v?. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57
I
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
i
Boring terminated at 30 feet. Boring dry at
termination with cave-in depth of 18.6 feet- Boring
backfilled at boring termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or
quantities.
S ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
l ND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
• 4MPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ICE WITH ASTM D•1586.
I TION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
fEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
BORING LOG B-1
NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
performed with manual hammer (rope and
cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
J
W
p a W
Z
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
J
cc Q Z,
> W w
d J (blows/ft)
W
F- a>
J v
w a.
M
3 (0 v¢) 10 20 30 6C
w
J
J
Z
80
Page 2 of 2
_* S&&IE
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
4
4 15 RESIDUUM: Medium Dense Tan Silty Fine 928.0
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-2
S&ME Project No. 1359-07-050
DATE DRILLED: 5/22!07 ELEVATION: 943.0 NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
performed with manual hammer (rope and
DRILLING METHOD: 31/:' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 30.0 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5/22/07
DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57

M W p Z STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA W
W w Q O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U)
Q -j W (blows/ft) Q
v J W w 2 d >
Z
Q W Q Q
cn 10 20 30
6
0
8
0

Topsoil (2 inches) . . .
. .
33
RESIDUUM: Dense Red Silty Fine SAND (SM)
with mica
5
938
0 45
.
RESIDUUM: Dense Red Orange White Silty Fine 44
to Coarse SAND (SM) with mica

10 --------------
RESIDUUM: Very Stiff Brown Red White Fine
933
0
20
Sandy SILT (ML) .
27
SAND (SM)
50/
20 HC
923
0 3"
.
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: When

sampled, becomes Pink Micaceous Silty Fine 50/
3"
25 SAND 918
0
.
50/
30 4..
913.0
NU I tJ:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
a. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 2
S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1

V.
C
C
z
LL
2
H
U,
Vo:
4
n
Q
01
N
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-2
SBME Project No. 1359-07-050
DATE DRILLED: 5/22107 ELEVATION: 943
0 NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
. performed with manual hammer (rope and
DRILLING METHOD: 31/4" H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 30.0 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5122/07
DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57
>
W p Z STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w
w Q o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ? U)
Q
2
? w
j
W
(blows/ft) Q
?
p W
0 W a)
J w 0- _
a >

w
10 20 30
6
0
8
0 Z
1
Boring terminated at 30 feet. Boring dry at 1 , 1
. .
termination with cave-in depth of 19.7 feet. Boring
backfilled at boring termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or
quantities.
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1588.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 2 of 2
A S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-3
S8,ME Project No. 1359-07-050

DATE DRILLED: 5122/07
ELEVATION: 895.0 NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
performed with manual hammer (rope and
DRILLING METHOD: 31/:' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 40.0 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5/22107
DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57
F = O W p Z STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w
W w Q o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
I J ¢- -i w (blows/ft)
? v ? _. . Uj w w 2 IL
Q W Q Q
U)
10 20 30
6
0
8
0 Z

tmat (2 inches) . .
. .
. .
EFILL:
e Brown to Gray Clayey Silty Fine 8

5 890
0 10
.
11
10 885
0 9
.

RESIDUUM: Loose to Medium Dense Red Silty
Fine SAND (SM) with mica
20 875
0 7
.
25-4 870
0 6
.
HC
30-7 13
•?nrre. 865.0
4
4 15880.0 9
I. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1588.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 9 of 2
-*S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERYICES
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
LOG B
3
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING
-
SBME Project No. 1359-07-050
NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
ATE DRILLED: 5122/07 ELEVATION: 895.0 performed with manual hammer (rope and
cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
ILLING METHOD: 31/:' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 40.0 are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5122/07
LLER: W. Duncan __ rDRILL RIG: Mobile B-57
J
W
z W
O ar
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
W
2
Q o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION J O J W
n (blows/ft) _J
W
p w
J v a
g M
Z
c7 W U) <
0
10 20 30 608
17
Whit
T
G
M
di
D
35 an
ray
e
RESIDUU
: Me
um
ense 860.0
Silty Fine to Coarse SAND (SM) with rock
fragments
(continued)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: When
hi
Sil
Fi 50/
3
40 ne to
sampled, becomes Tan Gray W
te
ty 855.0
Coarse SAND with rock fragments
Boring terminated at 40 feet. Boring dry at
termination with cave-in depth of 27.5 feet. Boring
backfilled at boring termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or

s quantities.
J
J
3

C
)
J
J
)
j
)
J

NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
• Z BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 2 of 2
*S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT BORING LOG B-4
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA
1
SBME Project No. 1359-07-050
-
NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
DATE DRILLED: 5/22/07 ELEVATION: 865.0 performed with manual hammer (rope and
cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values

LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5122/07
DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57

> Q J Z
}

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

j

?.
W U
2

Q. o

ATERIAL DESCRIPTION

J
of

F-

W ~

blowsl t)
(

-?
>

v w 5
v a- z
< W U) < 10 20 30 60 80
Topsoil (4 inches)
13

RESIDUUM: Stiff to Very Stiff Red Fine Sandy
CLAYEY SILT (CUML)
16

5 860.0
8
8

10-
855.0-
- RESIDUUM: Firm to Stiff Red to Tan Micaceous 8
SILT (ML)
Fine Sand
y 850.0
15
V
J
V
4

10

2
20 845.0
HC
i
Y
50/
r
Q 0..
o PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: No Sample
z 25 Recovered 840.0
r

h
0
4
4
a)
0
0
J
Z

m
O
4 RILLING METHOD: 31/:' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 26.0 are uncorrected field values.
NOTES:
i. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 2
S&ME
ENVIIRONMENTAL SERVICES
4
4
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-4
SBME Project No. 1359-07-050
NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
DATE DRILLED: 5/22/07 ELEVATION: 865.0 performed with manual hammer (rope and
cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
DRILLING METHOD: 3'/4' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 26.0 are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5/22107
DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57

U J
W
W
Z
O W
O n
Z
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
W
?
F = c?
a o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION J H U) F-
U w (blows/ft) J
w
v
C7 W
J

v a ii
m

Q

Z
Q
3 W U) 10 20 30 6080
Boring terminated at 26 feet due to Auger
Refusal. Boring dry at termination with cave-in
depth of 21 feet. Boring backfilled at boring
termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or

i
)
I
I
1
I
1
i quantities.
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OFA REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE MTH ASTM D-1586.
?. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 2 of 2
A S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WIN STON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA
S&ME Project No. 1359-07-050
DATE DRILLED: 5/17/07 ELEVATION: 850.0
DRILLING METHOD: 3'/: ' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 10.0
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5/17/07

DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57

S
U

_ J
;

W
Z

O a W

}
0 CL
Z h
o w < o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION i
_ a
> W v U) <
1 Topsoil/Rootmat (2 inches)
FILL: Stiff Red Fine Sandy CLAYEY SILT
(CUML)
FILL: Medium Dense Red and Tan Clayey Silty
5 Fine SAND (SM)
RESIDUUM: Medium Dense Red Silty Fine
SAND (SM)
1HC
10-" PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: When
sampled, becomes Red Silty Fine SAND
Boring terminated at 10 feet due to Auger
Refusal. Boring dry at termination with cave-in
depth of 8.4 feet. Boring backfilled at boring
termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or
o quantities.
00
0
0
4
m
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
.ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
BORING LOG B-5
Nv I LS: Standard Penetrating Testing
performed with manual hammer (rope and
cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA W
(blows/ft)
J
Z
20 30 60 80
15
14
17
50/
5"
Page 1 of 1
S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

4
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-5-1
SBME Project No. 1359-07-050

DATE DRILLED: 5/17/07
ELEVATION: 850.0 NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
erform
d
ith
l h
d
p
e
w
manua
ammer (rope an
DRILLING METHOD: 31/:' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 8.0 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5/17/07
DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57
J
W
p w

z
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
w w Q MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Ir Q U) _ J (blows/ft) Q
(] v f- J d J

W v
CO can
10 20 30 60 80 Z
Topsoil/Rootmat (2 inches)
No sampling performed see Boring B-5 for material
descriptions.
5 845
0
.
HC
Boring terminated at 8 feet due to Auger Refusal.
Boring was offset 10 feet from Boring B-5. Boring
dry at termination with cave-in depth of 6.2 feet.
Boring backfilled at boring termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or

i quantities.
IYV I CJ.-
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
49 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMEWAL SERVICES
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-6
SAME Project No. 1359-07-050

DATE DRILLED: 5/17/07
ELEVATION: 825.0 NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
performed with manual hammer (rope and
RILLING METHOD: 31/4' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 14.0 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5/17107
DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57

=

U w
Z
O " W
p d
z

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

W
Y
W Q C) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION W
_j ~ 2
J
w w (blows/ft) __j
Q
W N (L EL
>
Q w - ¢ Q z
v> 10 20 30 60 80
Topsoil/Rootmat (2 inches)

FILL: Loose to Medium Dense Brown Clayey Silty 9
Fine to Medium SAND (SM) with quartz fragments
5 820
0 23
.
31
RESIDUUM: Dense to Very Dense Tan

10
Micaceous Silty Fine to Medium SAND (SM)
815
0 89
.
HC
50/
CS > 3"
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: When
sampled, becomes Tan Micaceous Silty Fine to
Coarse SAND
Boring terminated at 14 feet due to Auger
Refusal. Boring dry at termination with cave-in
depth of 13 feet. Boring backfilled at boring
termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or
quantities.
4
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
• 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1588.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
S&ME
* 5
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
4
4 15 797.0
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-7
S&ME Project No. 1359-07-050
NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
DATE DRILLED: 5/17/07 ELEVATION: 812.0 performed with manual hammer (rope and
RILLING METHOD: 31/:' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 16.0 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5/17/07
DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57

U
>
p w
Oz r
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w

(D
a
CL o

ATERIAL DESCRIPTION

_j

a

?

blows/ft)

Q
•? J
0 W
Q > N
v a M
Q >
Z
W Q
`o cn 10 20 30 60 80
Topsoil/Rootmat (2 inches)
ALLUVIUM: Brownish Red to White Ornage Gray 2
Very Soft to Soft Fine to Medium Sandy CLAYEY
SILT (CLIML) with organic materials
3
5 807.0
RESIDUUM: Dense Red Silty Fine SAND (SM) 39
50/
HC 2.,

10 802.0
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: When
sampled, becomes Gray Tan Silty Fine to Coarse
SAND with rock fragments
' U 50/
L
C9 3"

Boring terminated at 16.0 feet due to Auger
Refusal. Boring dry at termination with cave-in
depth of 8.9 feet. Boring backfilled at boring
termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or
quantities.
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
• 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
*_S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-8
S&ME Project No. 1359-07-050
NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
DATE DRILLED: 5/22/07 ELEVATION: 812.0 performed with manual hammer (rope and
cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
ILLING METHOD: 3Y4' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 3.0 are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5/22107
DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57

U ?
j
zo w
Oz a-
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w

w
a o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION _j
W F- w
a s (blows/ft
) Q
CY F- J v 2 2 Z
U w uQi
10 20 30 60 80
Topsoil/Rootmat (2 inches)

RESIDUUM: Dense Red Tan Gray Silty Fin
to
HC 35
50/
Medium SAND (SM)
j 0"
PARTIALLY WED RNo Sam
Recovered
Boring terminated at 3 feet due to Auger Refusal.
Boring dry at termination with cave-in depth of 2.8
feet. Boring backfilled at boring termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or
quantities.
s
i
i
)
i
i
i
0
,
i

NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
• 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
*S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-8-1
SBME Project No. 1359-07-050
NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
DATE DRILLED: 5/22/07 ELEVATION: 812.0 performed with manual hammer (rope and
ILLING METHOD: 31/:' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 4.0 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5/22/07
DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57

v J
>
zo W
z0 CL
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
a_ Q o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a s (blows/ft)
o ? j .°? Q 2 Z
(
? Q -
w (n 10 20 30 60'8A
Topsoil/Rootmat (3 inches)
No sampling performed see Boring B-8 for material
descriptions.
HC
Boring terminated at 4 feet due to Auger Refusal.
Boring dry at termination with cave-in depth of 3.6
feet. Boring backfilled at boring termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or
quantities.
i
)
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
7
4
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG 1S ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
. 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1588.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERYICES
4
4
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-9
SBME Project No. 1359-07-050
NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
DATE DRILLED: 5/22/07 ELEVATION: 810.0
performed with manual hammer (rope and
RILLING METHOD: 31/4' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 3.5 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5/22/07
DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57
U > p 3 z 0 IL
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
~ a?
w w za
o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION g w
a, blows/ft
I
p Q
o:
0 w

¢ w a? (L
>
z
w Q a
U) 10 20 30 60 80
Topsoil/Rootmat (2 inches)
RESIDUUM: Medium Dense Red Brown Silty 12
Fine to Medium SAND (SM) with rock fragments HC
50/
"
0
Boring terminated at 3.5 feet due to Auger
Refusal. Boring dry at termination with cave-in
depth of 2.6 feet. Boring backfllled at boring
termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or
quantities.
NOTES:
i. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
*S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
4
4
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-9-1
SBME Project No. 1359-07-050
NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
DATE DRILLED: 5122107 ELEVATION: 810.0 performed with manual hammer (rope and
RILLING METHOD: 31/4" H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 3.0 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5/22107
DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57
c? > z0 ?3 z 0 CL
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
W w o
< MATERIAL DESCRIPTION W > a ? (blows/ft)
F W m
W v a_
a Q z
cn 10 20 30 60 80
_ 7 Topsoil/Rootmat (2 inches)
No sampling performed see Boring B-9 for material
descriptions. HC

Boring terminated at 3 feet due to Auger Refusal.
Boring dry at termination with cave-in depth of 2.8
feet. Boring backfilled at boring termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or
quantities.
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
*S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-10
SBME Project No. 1359-07-050
NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
DATE DRILLED: 5122107 ELEVATION: 807.0 performed with manual hammer (rope and
RILLING METHOD: 31/:' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 2.0 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5122107
RILLER: W. Duncan
D DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57

v _j
>
p 3 w
z
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
~ a? a c7
o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Q Uj w (blows/ft)
w
Cl v Q w > 6
v Q Z
Q w 0 10 20 30 16.0.8.0,- -
Topsoil/Rootmat (2 inches) He 50/
2"
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: When
sampled, becomes Gray Silty Fine to Coarse
SAND with rock fragments
Boring terminated at 2 feet due to Auger Refusal.
Boring dry at termination with cave-in depth of 1
foot. Boring backfilled at boring termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or
quantities.
s
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
j
? I I I I 1 1- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j

4
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OFA REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLYBE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
a. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
S&ME
ENGINEERING - TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-10-1
SBME Project No. 1359-07-050
NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
DATE DRILLED: 5/22/07 ELEVATION: 807.0 performed with manual hammer (rope and
RILLING METHOD: 31/4' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 2.0 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5/22107
RILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57
W O Z STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA j
~
w z a c?
a o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
-i W - co
h M
> W W
a -j (blows/ft

)

Q
W
Q W a)
-i a d
Q n >
z
W v U) 10 20 30 60 80
Topsoil/Rootmat (3 inches)
HC
No sampling performed see Boring B-10 for
material descriptions.
Boring terminated at 2 feet due to Auger Refusal.
Boring offset. Boring dry at termination with cave-in
depth of 1.6 feet. Boring backfilled at boring
termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or
quantities.
4
4
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICA77ON AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-11
S&ME Project No. 1359-07-050
DATE DRILLED: 5/22/07 ELEVATION: 808
0 NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
. performed with manual hammer (rope and
WRILLING METHOD: 31/:' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 6.0 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5122/07
DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57
>
LU z Z a- STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w
w o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION rr

Q
~

J
-i w

blows/ft)
Z)

Q
o W w w a >
Q w a
N vai
10 20 30 6080 z
Topsoil/Rootmat (2 inches)
FILL: Soft Brown Red Fine Sandy SILT (ML) 4
ALLUVIUM: Loose Brown Green Silty Fine SAND 9
5 SW 803
0-
(
) .
50/
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: No Sample 1
Recovery
Boring terminated at 7.5 feet due to Auger
Refusal. Boring offset 10 feet. Boring dry at
termination. Boring backfilled at boring termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or
quantities.
4
NOTES:
i. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
10ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-11-1
S&ME Project No. 1359-07-050
DATE DRILLED: 5/22/07 ELEVATION: 808.0 NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
performed with manual hammer (rope and
RILLING METHOD: 31/:' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 5.0 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5/22107
DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57
_j
>
p =, w
z CL

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

w
^
CL a)
W x

a o

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

? cn

1-- I
J

_
w w

(blows/ft)

Q
o F W w a >
z
a W a
Lo <
(0
10 20 30 60 80
Topsoil/Rootmat (2 inches)
No sampling performed see Boring B-11 for
material descriptions.
HC
5
803.0
Boring terminated at 5 feet due to Auger Refusal.
Boring offset 10 feet. Boring dry at termination with
cave-in depth of 4 feet. Boring backfilled at boring
termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or
quantities.
4
1. THIS LOG IS ONL Y A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
10ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-12
SBME Project No. 1359-07-050
DATE DRILLED: 5/18107 ELEVATION: 851.0 NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
performed with manual hammer (rope and
IfiPRILLING METHOD: 3'/:' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 3.0 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5/18107

DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57

F

_ J
W
W
Z
p W
O o-
Z

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

W
w w Q o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Q (blows/ft) Q
- >
J w _j
o
<

W
vi
10 20 30 60 80 Z
T/Rootm at (2 inches)
oose Brown Silty Fine AND (SM) 6
HC
Boring terminated at 3 feet due to Auger Refusal.
Boring dry at termination with cave-in depth of 2.5
feet. Boring bacldilled at boring termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or

•n r?n
_ quantities.
V
C
C
2
LL
S
F
U.
C
N
?Y
n
Q
N
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
• ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1588.
9. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
a. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
4
4
0
z
r
w
x
F-
0
4
r
0
m
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-12-1
SBME Project No. 1359-07-050
NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
DATE DRILLED: 5/18/07 ELEVATION: 851.0 performed with manual hammer (rope and
RILLING METHOD: 31/;' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 2.5 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dryon 5/18/07
DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57

U J
>
p ? W
z
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
W
w a o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Ir < a s (blows/ft)
° ¢ w ¢ Q z
3 U) 10 20 30 60 80
Topsoil/Rootmat (3 inches)

No sampling performed see Boring B-12 for HC
material descriptions.
Boring terminated at 2.5 feet due to Auger
Refusal. Boring Offset 10 feet from Boring B-12.
Boring dry at termination with cave-in depth of 2
feet. Boring backfllled at boring termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or
quantities.
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
• Z BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
*S&ME
ENGINEERING - TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-13
S&ME Project No. 1359-07-050

DATE DRILLED: 5/17/07
ELEVATION: 843.0 NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
performed with manual hammer (rope and
JhDRILLING METHOD: 31/;' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 4.3 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5/17/07
DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57

T J
>
p w
O
Z

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

w
_
CL
Q o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U1
(r
~

w
w J

(blows/ft) Z)
Q
V M W W g d >
Z
w v ) 10 20 30 .610.810 1
Topsoil/Rootmat (2 inches)
FILL: Very Loose Brown Clayey Silty Fine to 3
Coarse SAND (SM) with quartz fragments HC

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: When 50/

pled, becomes Gray Black 3"
tFine
to Coarse SAND with rock fragments
Boring terminated at 4.3 feet due to Auger
Refusal. Boring offset 10 feet. Boring dry at
termination with cave-in depth of 3 feet. Boring
backfllled at boring termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or
quantities.

4
v
C
C
2
Y
K
F
Cr
Cr
O
N
Q
r
0
O)
N
IV LIP I Co.
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1588.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1
4
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-13-1
SBME Project No. 1359-07-050
DATE DRILLED: 5/17/07 ELEVATION: 843
0 NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
. performed with manual hammer (rope and
RILLING METHOD: 31/4' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 3.0 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5/17/07
DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57

=
v J
>
p Uj
Z
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

a- w
a- o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
of
co
a W
(blows/ft) j
Q
p
C7 u1
H w m
J :'. IL
2 >
Z
w ., ? v¢i 10 20 30 .6.0.810
Topsoil/Rootmat (2 inches)

No sampling performed see Boring B-13 for HC
material descriptions.

Boring terminated at 3 feet due to Auger Refusal.
Boring offset 10 feet. Boring dry at termination
awith cave-in depth of 2 feet. Boring backfilled at
boring termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or
quantities.
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
16 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
*S&ME
ENGINEERING - TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-14
S&ME Project No. 1359-07-050
DATE DRILLED: 5117107 ELEVATION: 827.0 NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
performed with manual hammer (rope and
RILLING METHOD: 31/4' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 8.9 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5/17/07

DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57

2 Y
= J
>
Uj
p a
- U) W
zz
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
W
a a) Q C

J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION _

'

a

_j W

(blows/ft)
Z)
`? Q. W
Q W CD
J w W a
Q Q

3
W V
v¢i
10 20 30 60 80 Z
Topsoil/Rootmat (2 inches)
FILL: Firm Red Fine SANDY CLAYEY SILT 7
(CUML)

ALLUVIUM: Firm Gray Fine Sandy SILT (ML)
5
822
0 8
.

ALLUVIUM: Medium Dense Red and Black Silty HC

Fine to Medium SAND (SW) with rootlets 18
/
50
PARTI 011
ALLY WEATHERED ROCK: No Sample
Recovery
Boring terminated at 8.9 feet due to Auger
Refusa/at boring termination. Boring offset 10
feet. Boring dry at termination with cave-in depth of
6.1 feet. Boring backfilled at boring termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or
' quantities.
i
unrcc •
1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
Z BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D•1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-14-1
SBME Project No. 1359-07-050
NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
DATE DRILLED: 5/17/07 ELEVATION: 827.0 performed with manual hammer (rope and
RILLING METHOD: 31/:' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 9.5 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: Dry on 5/17107
DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57

=
v -j
>
LD ?T W
Z >-
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
W ¢ o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ? > U) _5 ? (blows/ft) Q
o - rr w
a w a?
w a
Q >
z
N Cnn 10 20 30 .61018.0.
Topsoil/Rootmat (6 inches)
No sampling performed see Boring B-14 for
material descriptions.
5 822
0
.
HC
Boring terminated at 9.5 feet due to Auger
Refusal. Boring dry at termination with cave-in
depth of 7.7 feet. Boring backfilled at boring
termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or
quantities.
4
4
rvv I ca:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
• 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D•1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-15
SBME Project No. 1359-07-050
DATE DRILLED: 5/17107 ELEVATION: 813.0 NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
performed with manual hammer (rope and
11DRILLING METHOD: 31/;' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 17.0 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
are uncorrected field values.
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: 2 feet on 5/17/07
DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57

F- J
W
p l1J
Z
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
Q o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I-
' W w
J (blows/ft)

(] 2
(D
Q
J Q) IL
¢ Q
Z
w v co ai 10 20 30 60 80
Topsoil/Rootmat (3 inches)

ALLUVIUM: Very Soft Tan Red Fine Sandy SILT 1
(ML) (moist)

- Kjlll ALLUVIUM: Firm Brown Fine Sandy Clayey SILT HC

5 H
(M)
6
808
0
.
4
ALLUVIUM: Very Loose Bluish Green to Bluish
: Brown to Brown Silty Fine to Coarse SAND (SW) 2
10 with mica a
d
k f 803
0
n
roc
ragments .

i with mica
Boring terminated at 17 feet due to Auger
Refusal. Boring offset 10 feet. Water level
measured at 2 feet at termination with cave-in
depth of 4 feet. Boring backfi/led at boring
termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
measurements for determination of distances or
quantities.
NOTFC
1
4 15 RESIDUUM: Dense Brown Silty Fine SAND (SM) 798.0 32
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
• Z BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D•1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PROJECT: SMITH REYNOLDS AIRPORT
WINSTON SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-15-1
SBME Project No. 1359-07-050
DATE DRILLED: 5/17/07 ELEVATION: 813.0 NOTES: Standard Penetrating Testing
performed with manual hammer (rope and
DRILLING METHOD: 31/4' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 15.0 cathead system). Plotted SPT blowcount values
LOGGED BY: R. Bichsel WATER LEVEL: 4 feet on 5/17/07 are uncorrected field values.
DRILLER: W. Duncan DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57

T
_ _j
>
p Lu
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
Q_ w o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION _j F-
a J
(blows/ft)
Q
w
Q (D a
Q
W Q
10 20 30 60 80 z
Topsoil/Rootmat (2 inches)
5? I 1HC
No sampling performed see Boring B-15 for
material descriptions.
10
15
Boring terminated at 15 feet due to Auger
Refusal. Boring offset from B-15. Water level
o measured at 4 feet at termination with cave-in
o depth of 5 feet. Boring backfml/ed at boring
w
termination.
Depth measurements are shown to illustrate the
general arrangements of soil types encountered at
the boring location. Do not use depth
o measurements for determination of distances or
a? quantities.

Al YCC.
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
10ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D4586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Permit No.
(to be provided by DWQ)
AMA V.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
NCDENR 401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
DRY EXTENDED DETENTION BASIN SUPPLEMENT
This form must be filled out, printed and submitted.
The Required Items Checklist (Part 111) must be printed, filled out and submitted along with all the required information.
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
Project name Smith Reynolds Airport - Runway 33 Safety Area Improvements
Contact person Mike Darcangelo, P.E.
Phone number 704-954-9008
Date June 9,2008
Drainage area number Basin 1
II. DESIGN INFORMATION
Site Characteristics
Drainage area 545,813.00 ft2
Impervious area 184,376.00 ft2
% Impervious 0.34
Design rainfall depth 1.00 in
Peak Flow Calculations
1-yr, 24-hr rainfall depth 2.83 in
Rational C, pre-development 0.38 (unitless)
Rational C, post-development 0.46 (unitless)
Rainfall intensity. 1-yr, 24-hr storm 0.12 in/hr
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 6.90 ft3/sec
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 8.35 ft3/sec
Pre/Post 1-yr, 24-hr peak control 1.45 ft3/sec
Storage Volume: Non-SR Waters
Design volume 16,106.00 ft3
Sediment storage volume provided 4,027.00 ft3
Storage Volume: SR Waters
1-yr, 24-hr rainfall depth na in
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff volume na ft3
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff volume na ft3
Basin Design Parameters
Drawdown time 2.00 days
SHWT elevation fmsl
Basin bottom elevation 841.00 fmsl
Storage elevation 846.09 fmsl
Basin side slopes 3.0 :1
Top elevation 848.00 fmsl
Freeboard provided 1.25 ft
Basin Bottom Dimensions
Basin length 106.00 ft
Basin width 25.00 ft
Length to width ratio 4.24 :1
Additional Information
Total runoff volume captured by basin 7.02 ac-in
Forebay provided n (Y or N)
Is basin in a recorded drainage easement? n (Y or N)
Does basin capture all runoff at ultimate build-out? y (Y or N) C
Is a sediment depth indicator included? y (Y or N)
Does the basin include a drain? n (Y or N)
Parts I. & II. Design Summary, Page 1 of 1
Form SW401•Dry Extended Detention Basin-Rev.2
•
•
0
Permit N
(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 may initial below. If a
requirement has not been met, attach justification.
Pagel Plan
Initials Sheet No.
CMW SW-1 SW-2 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),
Basin dimensions,
Pretreatment system,
Maintenance access,
Proposed drainage easement and public right of way (ROW),
Overflow device, and
Boundaries of drainage easement.
NA 2. Plan details (1" = 30' or larger) for the bioretention cell showing:
Basin dimensions
Pretreatment system,
Maintenance access,
Outlet structure,
Overflow device,
Flow distribution detail for basin inflow, and
Vegetation specifications.
CMW SW=3 3. Section view of the dry detention basin (1" = 20' or larger) showing:
Side slopes, 3:1 or lower,
Pretreatment and treatment areas, and
Inlet and outlet structures.
CMW SECT. 1 6. A construction sequence that shows how the dry detention basin will be protected from sediment until the
entire drainage area is stabilized.
CMW SECT. 3 7. The supporting calculations.
CMW SECT. 2 8. A copy of the signed and notarized operation and maintenance (0&M) agreement.
CMW NA 9. A copy of the deed restrictions (if required).
CMW SECT. 4 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-Dry Extended Detention Basin-Rev.2
Part III. Required Items Checklist, Page 1 of 1