Proposed DaVita Dialysis Center - NCR162042 - Stormwater Narrative Revised

DAVITA, INC. BUNN, NC STORMWATER
CALCULATIONS

Project: DAVITA, INC. DIALYSIS CENTER
565 Main Street
Bunn, NC 27508

Project
Number: NCR172042

Client: DAVITA, INC. DIALYSIS CENTER
2000 16th Street
Denver, CO 80202

Date: October 31, 2017

Table of Contents

General Project Description ................................................................................................ 1
General Project Narrative ............................................................................................... 1
Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 1
Proposed Conditions ...................................................................................................... 1
Water Quality Calculations ............................................................................................. 2

Peak Rate and Stormwater Routing Calculations ............................................................... 3
Water Quality/Bio-retention Calculations……………………………………………………………..4
Soils Report ......................................................................................................................... 5
Geotechnical Report ............................................................................................................ 6
FEMA Flood Map .................................................................................................................. 7
USGS MAP............................................................................................................................ 7
NOAA Atlas 14 Precipitation Values .................................................................................... 7

General Project Description/Stormwater Management

GENERAL PROJECT NARRATIVE
The subject site is located at 565 Main street in Bunn, N.C. The existing site consists of one parcel
and abuts a residential parcel to the north west, an agricultural parcel to the north east, a cellular
tower to the southeast, and Main Street to the south west. The propose project will develop the site
into a Medical Dialysis center with associated parking, driveways, lighting, utilities, landscaping, and
stormwater facilities. The proposed disturbed area for this project is approximately 1.49 acres.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The subject site is currently a developed residential parcel with an associated stone gravel driveway,
several trees, and landscaping. The majority of the site is composed of pervious area including open
space (grass) and several trees. The rest of the site is composed of compacted gravel and a small shed
(impervious area). The site is very flat and was modeled as one drainage area that discharges to the
south of the property flowing to the swale running along the property roadside frontage. This swale
drains to a NCDOT culvert and drains under the right of way. The site is very flat and was modeled
as one drainage area, discharging to the south of the property and eventually discharging to the swale
in front of the property to the NCDOT right of way. The surface runoff from the site enters a storm
system in the DOT right of way and discharges to Crooked Creek (C;NSW). Slopes across the site
range from 0% to 6% as shown in the survey.

PROPOSED CONDITIONS
As described above, the subject site will be developed into a Medical Dialysis center with various
site improvements in post-development conditions. To control the stormwater for both rate control
and water quality requirements, two bio-retention areas are proposed to the north east (Basin 1) and
south east (Basin 2) part of the property. Basin 1 receives runoff from the Building, access drive, and
unloading area which is intended to treat both the rate and nutrient requirements for the runoff from
these areas. Basin 2 receives runoff from the parking areas and sidewalk areas in the front portion of
the site which is intend to treat these areas. Both Basins 1 and 2 discharge stormwater to the DOT
right of way via a proposed stormwater manhole which will also receive water from the two swales
running along Main Street.

PEAK RUNOFF CALCULATIONS

Per NCDOT coordination, the 10 year and 25 year storms were to be analyzed to the stormwater pipe
running perpendicular to Main Street. Additionally, per NCDEQ requirements, the 10 year storm
shall be controlled from pre to post development. Provided below in Table 1.1-A shows that the
flows for the 10 year and 25 year storm are reduced to the stormwater pipe from pre to post
development.
TABLE 1.1-A

TABLE 1.1 - A PEAK RUNOFF CALCULATIONS
YEAR
STORM
PRE
DEV.
DA1
PRE
DEV.
DA2
TOTAL
PRE
DEV.
POST
DEV. DA
1A
ROUTED
POST
DEV. DA
1B
ROUTED
POST
DEV.
DA 1C
POST
DEV.
DA 1D
TOTAL
POST
DEV.
TOTAL
REDUCTION
10 15.59 9.74 16.69 1.13 1.01 3.43 10.37 13.98 -2.71
25 17.52 11.09 18.77 1.76 1.59 3.86 11.63 15.7 -3.07
100 20.59 13.27 22.09 2.87 2.53 4.53 13.63 18.43 -3.66

The total flow to the storm pipe is reduced for all three storm events and does not surcharge out of
the pipe based on the pipe calculations shown in Appendix 3: Peak Rate Calculations.

WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS:

Per NCDEQ requirements, the first 1” of rain runoff is to be treated by an approved stormwater
structure that achieves 85% Total Suspended Solid Reduction. To achieve this, basin 1 and 2 are
proposed which are bio-retention basins (with IWS) and both achieve 85% Total Suspended Solids
Reduction. Please see the Water Quality Calculations within this Report.

Peak Rate and Stormwater Routing Calculations

123456
7
8
9
10
1
Watershed Model Schematic Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5
Project: H:\2017\NCR172042\Technical\Calculations and Reports\01_Stormwater\NCR172042 - Peak Flow Analysis 103117.gpwTuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hydrograph Summary Report
2
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph
No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description
(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft)
1 Dekalb 11.91 1 65 27,782 ------ ------ ------ Pre Dev. DA 1
2 Dekalb 7.234 1 135 24,494 ------ ------ ------ Pre Dev. DA2
3 Dekalb 2.444 1 25 2,192 ------ ------ ------ Post Dev. DA 1A
4 Dekalb 2.978 1 25 2,671 ------ ------ ------ Post Dev. DA 1B
5 Dekalb 2.631 1 60 5,664 ------ ------ ------ Post Dev. DA 1C
6 Dekalb 7.957 1 55 15,701 ------ ------ ------ Post Dev. DA 1D
7 Reservoir 0.545 1 41 456 4 281.84 2,338 Basin 1 Routing
8 Reservoir 0.436 1 41 387 3 280.85 1,920 Basin 2 Routing
9 Combine 12.73 1 65 52,276 1, 2, ------ ------ Pre Development DA
10 Combine 10.71 1 55 46,704 2, 5, 6,
7, 8,
------ ------ Post Development DA
H:\2017\NCR172042\Technical\Calculations and Reports\01_Stormwater\NCR172042 - Peak Flow Analysis 103117.gpwReturn Period: 2 Year Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 1
Pre Dev. DA 1
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 11.91 cfs
Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 1.08 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 27,782 cuft
Drainage area = 5.940 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.5*
Intensity = 4.011 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 13.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(1.520 x 0.95) + (4.420 x 0.35)] / 5.940
3
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.2
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
2.00 2.00
4.00 4.00
6.00 6.00
8.00 8.00
10.00 10.00
12.00 12.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Pre Dev. DA 1
Hyd. No. 1 -- 2 Year
Hyd No. 1
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 2
Pre Dev. DA2
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 7.234 cfs
Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 2.25 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 24,494 cuft
Drainage area = 4.890 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.54*
Intensity = 2.740 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 27.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(1.530 x 0.95) + (3.360 x 0.35)] / 4.890
4
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
2.00 2.00
4.00 4.00
6.00 6.00
8.00 8.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Pre Dev. DA2
Hyd. No. 2 -- 2 Year
Hyd No. 2
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 3
Post Dev. DA 1A
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 2.444 cfs
Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 0.42 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 2,192 cuft
Drainage area = 0.530 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.83*
Intensity = 5.556 in/hr Tc by User = 5.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(0.110 x 0.35) + (0.420 x 0.95)] / 0.530
5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
3.00 3.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post Dev. DA 1A
Hyd. No. 3 -- 2 Year
Hyd No. 3
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 4
Post Dev. DA 1B
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 2.978 cfs
Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 0.42 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 2,671 cuft
Drainage area = 0.670 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.8*
Intensity = 5.556 in/hr Tc by User = 5.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(0.170 x 0.35) + (0.500 x 0.95)] / 0.670
6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
3.00 3.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post Dev. DA 1B
Hyd. No. 4 -- 2 Year
Hyd No. 4
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 5
Post Dev. DA 1C
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 2.631 cfs
Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 1.00 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 5,664 cuft
Drainage area = 1.440 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.44*
Intensity = 4.153 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 12.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(0.210 x 0.95) + (1.230 x 0.35)] / 1.440
7
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.0
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
3.00 3.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post Dev. DA 1C
Hyd. No. 5 -- 2 Year
Hyd No. 5
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 6
Post Dev. DA 1D
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 7.957 cfs
Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 0.92 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 15,701 cuft
Drainage area = 3.300 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.56*
Intensity = 4.305 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 11.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(2.120 x 0.35) + (1.180 x 0.95)] / 3.300
8
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
2.00 2.00
4.00 4.00
6.00 6.00
8.00 8.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post Dev. DA 1D
Hyd. No. 6 -- 2 Year
Hyd No. 6
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 7
Basin 1 Routing
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.545 cfs
Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 0.68 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 456 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 4 - Post Dev. DA 1B Max. Elevation = 281.84 ft
Reservoir name = Basin 2 Max. Storage = 2,338 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
9
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
3.00 3.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Basin 1 Routing
Hyd. No. 7 -- 2 Year
Hyd No. 7 Hyd No. 4 Total storage used = 2,338 cuft
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 8
Basin 2 Routing
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.436 cfs
Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 0.68 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 387 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 3 - Post Dev. DA 1A Max. Elevation = 280.85 ft
Reservoir name = Basin 1 Max. Storage = 1,920 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
10
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
3.00 3.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Basin 2 Routing
Hyd. No. 8 -- 2 Year
Hyd No. 8 Hyd No. 3 Total storage used = 1,920 cuft
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 9
Pre Development DA
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 12.73 cfs
Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 1.08 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 52,276 cuft
Inflow hyds. = 1, 2 Contrib. drain. area = 10.830 ac
11
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
2.00 2.00
4.00 4.00
6.00 6.00
8.00 8.00
10.00 10.00
12.00 12.00
14.00 14.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Pre Development DA
Hyd. No. 9 -- 2 Year
Hyd No. 9 Hyd No. 1 Hyd No. 2
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 10
Post Development DA
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 10.71 cfs
Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 0.92 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 46,704 cuft
Inflow hyds. = 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 Contrib. drain. area = 9.630 ac
12
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
2.00 2.00
4.00 4.00
6.00 6.00
8.00 8.00
10.00 10.00
12.00 12.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post Development DA
Hyd. No. 10 -- 2 Year
Hyd No. 10 Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 5 Hyd No. 6
Hyd No. 7 Hyd No. 8
Hydrograph Summary Report
13
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph
No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description
(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft)
1 Dekalb 15.59 1 65 36,366 ------ ------ ------ Pre Dev. DA 1
2 Dekalb 9.745 1 135 32,996 ------ ------ ------ Pre Dev. DA2
3 Dekalb 3.135 1 25 2,812 ------ ------ ------ Post Dev. DA 1A
4 Dekalb 3.820 1 25 3,427 ------ ------ ------ Post Dev. DA 1B
5 Dekalb 3.436 1 60 7,397 ------ ------ ------ Post Dev. DA 1C
6 Dekalb 10.37 1 55 20,455 ------ ------ ------ Post Dev. DA 1D
7 Reservoir 1.135 1 33 1,212 4 281.89 2,471 Basin 1 Routing
8 Reservoir 1.010 1 31 1,008 3 280.88 2,004 Basin 2 Routing
9 Combine 16.69 1 65 69,362 1, 2, ------ ------ Pre Development DA
10 Combine 13.98 1 55 63,067 2, 5, 6,
7, 8,
------ ------ Post Development DA
H:\2017\NCR172042\Technical\Calculations and Reports\01_Stormwater\NCR172042 - Peak Flow Analysis 103117.gpwReturn Period: 10 Year Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 1
Pre Dev. DA 1
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 15.59 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 1.08 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 36,366 cuft
Drainage area = 5.940 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.5*
Intensity = 5.250 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 13.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(1.520 x 0.95) + (4.420 x 0.35)] / 5.940
14
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.2
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
3.00 3.00
6.00 6.00
9.00 9.00
12.00 12.00
15.00 15.00
18.00 18.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Pre Dev. DA 1
Hyd. No. 1 -- 10 Year
Hyd No. 1
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 2
Pre Dev. DA2
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 9.745 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 2.25 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 32,996 cuft
Drainage area = 4.890 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.54*
Intensity = 3.691 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 27.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(1.530 x 0.95) + (3.360 x 0.35)] / 4.890
15
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
2.00 2.00
4.00 4.00
6.00 6.00
8.00 8.00
10.00 10.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Pre Dev. DA2
Hyd. No. 2 -- 10 Year
Hyd No. 2
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 3
Post Dev. DA 1A
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 3.135 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 0.42 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 2,812 cuft
Drainage area = 0.530 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.83*
Intensity = 7.128 in/hr Tc by User = 5.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(0.110 x 0.35) + (0.420 x 0.95)] / 0.530
16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
3.00 3.00
4.00 4.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post Dev. DA 1A
Hyd. No. 3 -- 10 Year
Hyd No. 3
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 4
Post Dev. DA 1B
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 3.820 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 0.42 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 3,427 cuft
Drainage area = 0.670 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.8*
Intensity = 7.128 in/hr Tc by User = 5.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(0.170 x 0.35) + (0.500 x 0.95)] / 0.670
17
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
3.00 3.00
4.00 4.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post Dev. DA 1B
Hyd. No. 4 -- 10 Year
Hyd No. 4
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 5
Post Dev. DA 1C
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 3.436 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 1.00 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 7,397 cuft
Drainage area = 1.440 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.44*
Intensity = 5.423 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 12.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(0.210 x 0.95) + (1.230 x 0.35)] / 1.440
18
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.0
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
3.00 3.00
4.00 4.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post Dev. DA 1C
Hyd. No. 5 -- 10 Year
Hyd No. 5
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 6
Post Dev. DA 1D
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 10.37 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 0.92 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 20,455 cuft
Drainage area = 3.300 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.56*
Intensity = 5.609 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 11.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(2.120 x 0.35) + (1.180 x 0.95)] / 3.300
19
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
2.00 2.00
4.00 4.00
6.00 6.00
8.00 8.00
10.00 10.00
12.00 12.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post Dev. DA 1D
Hyd. No. 6 -- 10 Year
Hyd No. 6
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 7
Basin 1 Routing
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 1.135 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 0.55 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,212 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 4 - Post Dev. DA 1B Max. Elevation = 281.89 ft
Reservoir name = Basin 2 Max. Storage = 2,471 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
20
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
3.00 3.00
4.00 4.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Basin 1 Routing
Hyd. No. 7 -- 10 Year
Hyd No. 7 Hyd No. 4 Total storage used = 2,471 cuft
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 8
Basin 2 Routing
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 1.010 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 0.52 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,008 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 3 - Post Dev. DA 1A Max. Elevation = 280.88 ft
Reservoir name = Basin 1 Max. Storage = 2,004 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
21
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
3.00 3.00
4.00 4.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Basin 2 Routing
Hyd. No. 8 -- 10 Year
Hyd No. 8 Hyd No. 3 Total storage used = 2,004 cuft
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 9
Pre Development DA
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 16.69 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 1.08 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 69,362 cuft
Inflow hyds. = 1, 2 Contrib. drain. area = 10.830 ac
22
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
3.00 3.00
6.00 6.00
9.00 9.00
12.00 12.00
15.00 15.00
18.00 18.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Pre Development DA
Hyd. No. 9 -- 10 Year
Hyd No. 9 Hyd No. 1 Hyd No. 2
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 10
Post Development DA
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 13.98 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 0.92 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 63,067 cuft
Inflow hyds. = 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 Contrib. drain. area = 9.630 ac
23
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
2.00 2.00
4.00 4.00
6.00 6.00
8.00 8.00
10.00 10.00
12.00 12.00
14.00 14.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post Development DA
Hyd. No. 10 -- 10 Year
Hyd No. 10 Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 5 Hyd No. 6
Hyd No. 7 Hyd No. 8
Hydrograph Summary Report
24
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph
No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description
(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft)
1 Dekalb 17.52 1 65 40,872 ------ ------ ------ Pre Dev. DA 1
2 Dekalb 11.09 1 135 37,551 ------ ------ ------ Pre Dev. DA2
3 Dekalb 3.498 1 25 3,138 ------ ------ ------ Post Dev. DA 1A
4 Dekalb 4.262 1 25 3,823 ------ ------ ------ Post Dev. DA 1B
5 Dekalb 3.858 1 60 8,305 ------ ------ ------ Post Dev. DA 1C
6 Dekalb 11.63 1 55 22,945 ------ ------ ------ Post Dev. DA 1D
7 Reservoir 1.759 1 29 1,608 4 281.92 2,561 Basin 1 Routing
8 Reservoir 1.591 1 29 1,333 3 280.92 2,077 Basin 2 Routing
9 Combine 18.77 1 65 78,423 1, 2, ------ ------ Pre Development DA
10 Combine 15.70 1 55 71,743 2, 5, 6,
7, 8,
------ ------ Post Development DA
H:\2017\NCR172042\Technical\Calculations and Reports\01_Stormwater\NCR172042 - Peak Flow Analysis 103117.gpwReturn Period: 25 Year Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 1
Pre Dev. DA 1
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 17.52 cfs
Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 1.08 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 40,872 cuft
Drainage area = 5.940 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.5*
Intensity = 5.901 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 13.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(1.520 x 0.95) + (4.420 x 0.35)] / 5.940
25
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.2
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
3.00 3.00
6.00 6.00
9.00 9.00
12.00 12.00
15.00 15.00
18.00 18.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Pre Dev. DA 1
Hyd. No. 1 -- 25 Year
Hyd No. 1
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 2
Pre Dev. DA2
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 11.09 cfs
Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 2.25 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 37,551 cuft
Drainage area = 4.890 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.54*
Intensity = 4.200 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 27.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(1.530 x 0.95) + (3.360 x 0.35)] / 4.890
26
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
2.00 2.00
4.00 4.00
6.00 6.00
8.00 8.00
10.00 10.00
12.00 12.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Pre Dev. DA2
Hyd. No. 2 -- 25 Year
Hyd No. 2
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 3
Post Dev. DA 1A
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 3.498 cfs
Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 0.42 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 3,138 cuft
Drainage area = 0.530 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.83*
Intensity = 7.952 in/hr Tc by User = 5.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(0.110 x 0.35) + (0.420 x 0.95)] / 0.530
27
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
3.00 3.00
4.00 4.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post Dev. DA 1A
Hyd. No. 3 -- 25 Year
Hyd No. 3
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 4
Post Dev. DA 1B
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 4.262 cfs
Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 0.42 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 3,823 cuft
Drainage area = 0.670 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.8*
Intensity = 7.952 in/hr Tc by User = 5.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(0.170 x 0.35) + (0.500 x 0.95)] / 0.670
28
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
3.00 3.00
4.00 4.00
5.00 5.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post Dev. DA 1B
Hyd. No. 4 -- 25 Year
Hyd No. 4
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 5
Post Dev. DA 1C
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 3.858 cfs
Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 1.00 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 8,305 cuft
Drainage area = 1.440 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.44*
Intensity = 6.089 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 12.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(0.210 x 0.95) + (1.230 x 0.35)] / 1.440
29
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.0
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
3.00 3.00
4.00 4.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post Dev. DA 1C
Hyd. No. 5 -- 25 Year
Hyd No. 5
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 6
Post Dev. DA 1D
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 11.63 cfs
Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 0.92 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 22,945 cuft
Drainage area = 3.300 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.56*
Intensity = 6.292 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 11.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(2.120 x 0.35) + (1.180 x 0.95)] / 3.300
30
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
2.00 2.00
4.00 4.00
6.00 6.00
8.00 8.00
10.00 10.00
12.00 12.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post Dev. DA 1D
Hyd. No. 6 -- 25 Year
Hyd No. 6
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 7
Basin 1 Routing
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 1.759 cfs
Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 0.48 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,608 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 4 - Post Dev. DA 1B Max. Elevation = 281.92 ft
Reservoir name = Basin 2 Max. Storage = 2,561 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
31
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
3.00 3.00
4.00 4.00
5.00 5.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Basin 1 Routing
Hyd. No. 7 -- 25 Year
Hyd No. 7 Hyd No. 4 Total storage used = 2,561 cuft
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 8
Basin 2 Routing
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 1.591 cfs
Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 0.48 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,333 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 3 - Post Dev. DA 1A Max. Elevation = 280.92 ft
Reservoir name = Basin 1 Max. Storage = 2,077 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
32
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
3.00 3.00
4.00 4.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Basin 2 Routing
Hyd. No. 8 -- 25 Year
Hyd No. 8 Hyd No. 3 Total storage used = 2,077 cuft
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 9
Pre Development DA
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 18.77 cfs
Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 1.08 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 78,423 cuft
Inflow hyds. = 1, 2 Contrib. drain. area = 10.830 ac
33
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
3.00 3.00
6.00 6.00
9.00 9.00
12.00 12.00
15.00 15.00
18.00 18.00
21.00 21.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Pre Development DA
Hyd. No. 9 -- 25 Year
Hyd No. 9 Hyd No. 1 Hyd No. 2
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 10
Post Development DA
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 15.70 cfs
Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 0.92 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 71,743 cuft
Inflow hyds. = 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 Contrib. drain. area = 9.630 ac
34
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
3.00 3.00
6.00 6.00
9.00 9.00
12.00 12.00
15.00 15.00
18.00 18.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post Development DA
Hyd. No. 10 -- 25 Year
Hyd No. 10 Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 5 Hyd No. 6
Hyd No. 7 Hyd No. 8
Hydrograph Summary Report
35
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph
No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description
(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft)
1 Dekalb 20.59 1 65 48,031 ------ ------ ------ Pre Dev. DA 1
2 Dekalb 13.27 1 135 44,942 ------ ------ ------ Pre Dev. DA2
3 Dekalb 4.090 1 25 3,669 ------ ------ ------ Post Dev. DA 1A
4 Dekalb 4.984 1 25 4,471 ------ ------ ------ Post Dev. DA 1B
5 Dekalb 4.529 1 60 9,749 ------ ------ ------ Post Dev. DA 1C
6 Dekalb 13.63 1 55 26,906 ------ ------ ------ Post Dev. DA 1D
7 Reservoir 2.865 1 28 2,256 4 281.97 2,698 Basin 1 Routing
8 Reservoir 2.531 1 28 1,864 3 280.96 2,178 Basin 2 Routing
9 Combine 22.09 1 65 92,972 1, 2, ------ ------ Pre Development DA
10 Combine 18.43 1 55 85,717 2, 5, 6,
7, 8,
------ ------ Post Development DA
H:\2017\NCR172042\Technical\Calculations and Reports\01_Stormwater\NCR172042 - Peak Flow Analysis 103117.gpwReturn Period: 100 Year Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 1
Pre Dev. DA 1
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 20.59 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 1.08 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 48,031 cuft
Drainage area = 5.940 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.5*
Intensity = 6.934 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 13.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(1.520 x 0.95) + (4.420 x 0.35)] / 5.940
36
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.2
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
3.00 3.00
6.00 6.00
9.00 9.00
12.00 12.00
15.00 15.00
18.00 18.00
21.00 21.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Pre Dev. DA 1
Hyd. No. 1 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 1
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 2
Pre Dev. DA2
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 13.27 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 2.25 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 44,942 cuft
Drainage area = 4.890 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.54*
Intensity = 5.027 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 27.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(1.530 x 0.95) + (3.360 x 0.35)] / 4.890
37
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
2.00 2.00
4.00 4.00
6.00 6.00
8.00 8.00
10.00 10.00
12.00 12.00
14.00 14.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Pre Dev. DA2
Hyd. No. 2 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 2
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 3
Post Dev. DA 1A
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 4.090 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 0.42 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 3,669 cuft
Drainage area = 0.530 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.83*
Intensity = 9.298 in/hr Tc by User = 5.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(0.110 x 0.35) + (0.420 x 0.95)] / 0.530
38
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
3.00 3.00
4.00 4.00
5.00 5.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post Dev. DA 1A
Hyd. No. 3 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 3
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 4
Post Dev. DA 1B
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 4.984 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 0.42 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 4,471 cuft
Drainage area = 0.670 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.8*
Intensity = 9.298 in/hr Tc by User = 5.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(0.170 x 0.35) + (0.500 x 0.95)] / 0.670
39
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
3.00 3.00
4.00 4.00
5.00 5.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post Dev. DA 1B
Hyd. No. 4 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 4
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 5
Post Dev. DA 1C
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 4.529 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 1.00 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 9,749 cuft
Drainage area = 1.440 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.44*
Intensity = 7.147 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 12.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(0.210 x 0.95) + (1.230 x 0.35)] / 1.440
40
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.0
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
3.00 3.00
4.00 4.00
5.00 5.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post Dev. DA 1C
Hyd. No. 5 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 5
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 6
Post Dev. DA 1D
Hydrograph type = Dekalb Peak discharge = 13.63 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 0.92 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 26,906 cuft
Drainage area = 3.300 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.56*
Intensity = 7.378 in/hr Tc by TR55 = 11.00 min
IDF Curve = Bunn.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = n/a
* Composite (Area/C) = [(2.120 x 0.35) + (1.180 x 0.95)] / 3.300
41
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
2.00 2.00
4.00 4.00
6.00 6.00
8.00 8.00
10.00 10.00
12.00 12.00
14.00 14.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post Dev. DA 1D
Hyd. No. 6 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 6
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 7
Basin 1 Routing
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 2.865 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 0.47 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 2,256 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 4 - Post Dev. DA 1B Max. Elevation = 281.97 ft
Reservoir name = Basin 2 Max. Storage = 2,698 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
42
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
3.00 3.00
4.00 4.00
5.00 5.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Basin 1 Routing
Hyd. No. 7 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 7 Hyd No. 4 Total storage used = 2,698 cuft
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 8
Basin 2 Routing
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 2.531 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 0.47 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,864 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 3 - Post Dev. DA 1A Max. Elevation = 280.96 ft
Reservoir name = Basin 1 Max. Storage = 2,178 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
43
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
3.00 3.00
4.00 4.00
5.00 5.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Basin 2 Routing
Hyd. No. 8 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 8 Hyd No. 3 Total storage used = 2,178 cuft
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 9
Pre Development DA
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 22.09 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 1.08 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 92,972 cuft
Inflow hyds. = 1, 2 Contrib. drain. area = 10.830 ac
44
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
4.00 4.00
8.00 8.00
12.00 12.00
16.00 16.00
20.00 20.00
24.00 24.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Pre Development DA
Hyd. No. 9 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 9 Hyd No. 1 Hyd No. 2
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Hyd. No. 10
Post Development DA
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 18.43 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 0.92 hrs
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 85,717 cuft
Inflow hyds. = 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 Contrib. drain. area = 9.630 ac
45
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
3.00 3.00
6.00 6.00
9.00 9.00
12.00 12.00
15.00 15.00
18.00 18.00
21.00 21.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post Development DA
Hyd. No. 10 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 10 Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 5 Hyd No. 6
Hyd No. 7 Hyd No. 8
Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Pond No. 1 - Basin 2
Pond Data
Contours -User-defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 280.80 ft
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuft)
0.00 280.80 1,917 0 0
1.00 281.80 2,527 2,215 2,215
2.00 282.80 3,195 2,854 5,069
Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures
[A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D]
Rise (in)= 18.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Span (in)= 18.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. Barrels = 1 000
Invert El. (ft)= 279.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
Length (ft)= 432.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Slope (%)= 0.20 0.00 0.00 n/a
N-Value = .013 .013 .013 n/a
Orifice Coeff.= 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Multi-Stage = n/a NoNoNo
Crest Len (ft)= 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crest El. (ft)= 281.80 0.00 0.00 0.00
Weir Coeff.= 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33
Weir Type = 1 --- --- ---
Multi-Stage = Yes NoNoNo
Exfil.(in/hr)= 0.000 (by Contour)
TW Elev. (ft)= 0.00
Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet (ic) and outlet (oc) control. Weir risers checked for orifice conditions (ic) and submergence (s).
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Stage (ft)
0.00 280.80
0.20 281.00
0.40 281.20
0.60 281.40
0.80 281.60
1.00 281.80
1.20 282.00
1.40 282.20
1.60 282.40
1.80 282.60
2.00 282.80
Elev (ft)
Discharge (cfs)
Stage / Discharge
Total Q
Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Tuesday, 10 / 31 / 2017
Pond No. 2 - Basin 1
Pond Data
Contours -User-defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 279.80 ft
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuft)
0.00 279.80 1,414 0 0
0.20 280.00 1,547 296 296
1.00 280.80 2,247 1,509 1,805
1.50 281.30 2,468 1,178 2,983
Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures
[A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D]
Rise (in)= 18.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Span (in)= 18.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. Barrels = 1 000
Invert El. (ft)= 278.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
Length (ft)= 80.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Slope (%)= 0.05 0.00 0.00 n/a
N-Value = .013 .013 .013 n/a
Orifice Coeff.= 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Multi-Stage = n/a NoNoNo
Crest Len (ft)= 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crest El. (ft)= 280.80 0.00 0.00 0.00
Weir Coeff.= 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33
Weir Type = 1 --- --- ---
Multi-Stage = Yes NoNoNo
Exfil.(in/hr)= 0.000 (by Contour)
TW Elev. (ft)= 0.00
Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet (ic) and outlet (oc) control. Weir risers checked for orifice conditions (ic) and submergence (s).
0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500 1,800 2,100 2,400 2,700 3,000
Stage (ft)
0.00 279.80
0.20 280.00
0.40 280.20
0.60 280.40
0.80 280.60
1.00 280.80
1.20 281.00
1.40 281.20
1.60 281.40
1.80 281.60
2.00 281.80
Elev (ft)
Storage (cuft)
Stage / Storage
Storage

Water Quality Calculations/Bio Retention Calculation

Project Information
Project Name:DaVita Dialysis Center
Project #:NCR172042
Designed by:ERB Date:10/31/2017
Checked by:WLB Date:10/31/2017
Site Information
Sub Area Location:
Drainage Area (DA) = 23,301 sf
Impervious Area (IA) = 19,324 sf
On-Site Impervious Area =18,116
Off-Site Impervious Area =1,208
Percent Impervious (I) = 82.9 %
Elevations
Top of Bank Elevation = 281.30 ft
Bottom of Cell Elevation =279.80 ft
Basin Areas/Volumes
Area of Bottom of Cell= 1,414 sf
Volume of Basin=2,983 cf
Required Storage Volume - Using Simple Method
Design Storm = 1 inch (Project Does Not Drain to SA waters)
Determine Rv Value = 0.80 in/in
Storage Volume Required = 1,546 cf (above Permanent Pool)
12 Hour Drain down
Orifice Size =1.40 in (Diameter)Contour
Contour
Area
Incremental
Volume
Accumulated
Volume, S Stage, Z
Driving Head (Ho) = 0.31 ft
Q Orifice =0.029 cfs 279.80 1,414 0 0 0
Drawdown Time =28.7 hours 280.80 2,247 1,805 1,805 1
281.30 2,468 1,178 2,983 1.50
Flow Through Media
0.065462963 cfs
Underdrain Sizing D=16((Q*N)/S^.5))^(3/8)
Media Infiltration Rate = 2 in/hr
Flow Rate Through Media = 0.0655 cfs
Factor of Safety 10
Flow (Q) =0.0655 cfs
Pipe Diamter 6 in
Roughness Coefficient (n) =0.011
Slope =0.01 %
D =2.52
Table from Chapter 5 of NCDENR BMP Manual
USE AT LEAST 2, 6" underdrains
Bioretention Basin 1
Bioretention Basin 1
0.05 + 0.009 (I) =
Anti-Flotation Device
Outside Length =4.00 ft
Outside Width =4.00 ft
Inside Length =3.00 ft
Inside Width =3.00 ft
Bottom Thickness =0.50 ft
Top of Riser =280.80 sf
Invert of Riser =276.30 ft
Area =16.0 sf
(Outside Dim.
= 4-ft x 4-ft,
Inside Dim. =
3-ft x 3-ft)
Volume =80 cf
(Water
Displaced -
Top of Riser to
Bottom of
Riser)
Weight =4,992 lbs (Weight Water Displaced)
Factor of Safety =1.10
WT Req'd of Anti-Flotation Device =5,491 lbs
Volume of Concrete Req'd =62.7 cf
(Unit WT of
Concrete =
150 pcf)
Submerged
Concrete Unit
Weight 87.6
pcf
Depth Provided =1.50 ft
Volume Provided =63.5 cf
(4-ft x 4-ft Box
filled 2.00-ft
WT of Anti-Flotation Device Provided =5,563 lbs OK
Project Information
Project Name:DaVita Dialysis Center
Project #:NCR172042
Designed by:ERB Date:10/31/2017
Checked by:WLB Date:10/31/2017
Site Information
Sub Area Location:
Drainage Area (DA) = 29,387 sf
Impervious Area (IA) = 22,169 sf
Impervious Area Onsite = 21,780
Impervious Area Offsite = 389
Percent Impervious (I) = 75.4 %
Elevations
Top of Bank Elevation = 282.80 ft
Bottom of Cell Elevation =280.80 ft
Basin Areas/Volumes
Area of Bottom of Cell= 1,917 sf
Volume of Basin=5,069 cf
Required Storage Volume - Using Simple Method
Design Storm = 1 inch (Project Does Not Drain to SA waters)
Determine Rv Value = 0.73 in/in
Storage Volume Required = 1,785 cf (above Permanent Pool)
12 Hour Drain down
Orifice Size =2.00 in (Diameter)Contour
Contour
Area
Incremental
Volume
Accumulated
Volume, S Stage, Z
Driving Head (Ho) = 0.31 ft
Q Orifice =0.058 cfs 280.80 1,917 0 0 0
Drawdown Time =24.2 hours 281.80 2,527 2,215 2,215 1
282.80 3,195 2,854 5,069 2.00
Flow Through Media
0.08875 cfs
Underdrain Sizing D=16((Q*N)/S^.5))^(3/8)
Media Infiltration Rate = 2 in/hr
Flow Rate Through Media = 0.0888 cfs
Factor of Safety 10
Flow (Q) =0.0888 cfs
Pipe Diamter 6 in
Roughness Coefficient (n) =0.011
Slope =0.01 %
D =2.82
Table from Chapter 5 of NCDENR BMP Manual
USE AT LEAST 2, 6" underdrains
Bioretention Basin 2
Bioretention Basin 2
0.05 + 0.009 (I) =
Anti-Flotation Device
Outside Length =4.00 ft
Outside Width =4.00 ft
Inside Length =3.00 ft
Inside Width =3.00 ft
Bottom Thickness =0.50 ft
Top of Riser =282.80 sf
Invert of Riser =277.80 ft
Area =16.0 sf
(Outside Dim.
= 4-ft x 4-ft,
Inside Dim. =
3-ft x 3-ft)
Volume =88 cf
(Water
Displaced -
Top of Riser to
Bottom of
Riser)
Weight =5,491 lbs (Weight Water Displaced)
Factor of Safety =1.10
WT Req'd of Anti-Flotation Device =6,040 lbs
Volume of Concrete Req'd =69.0 cf
(Unit WT of
Concrete =
150 pcf)
Submerged
Concrete Unit
Weight 87.6
pcf
Depth Provided =2.00 ft
Volume Provided =75.0 cf
(4-ft x 4-ft Box
filled 2.00-ft
WT of Anti-Flotation Device Provided =6,570 lbs OK

Soils Report

Hydrologic Soil Group—Franklin County, North Carolina
(Fiel)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/19/2017
Page 1 of 439824103982440398247039825003982530398256039825903982410398244039824703982500398253039825603982590748180748210748240748270748300748330748360748390748420748450748480
748180 748210 748240 748270 748300 748330 748360 748390 748420 748450 748480
35° 57' 22'' N 78° 14' 54'' W35° 57' 22'' N78° 14' 41'' W35° 57' 15'' N
78° 14' 54'' W35° 57' 15'' N
78° 14' 41'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
0 50 100 200 300
Feet
0 20 40 80 120
Meters
Map Scale: 1:1,500 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Franklin County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 17, Sep 19, 2016
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 25, 2014—Mar 5,
2017
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Hydrologic Soil Group—Franklin County, North Carolina
(Fiel)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/19/2017
Page 2 of 4
Hydrologic Soil Group
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
DuA Duplin sandy loam, 0 to
3 percent slopes
C 1.5 97.1%
VnB Varina loamy sand, 2 to
6 percent slopes
C 0.0 2.9%
Totals for Area of Interest 1.5 100.0%
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the
soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive
precipitation from long-duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and
three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively
drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water
transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well
drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture.
These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or
soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of
water transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell
potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay
layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious
material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is
for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in
their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Hydrologic Soil Group—Franklin County, North Carolina Fiel
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/19/2017
Page 3 of 4
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Hydrologic Soil Group—Franklin County, North Carolina Fiel
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/19/2017
Page 4 of 4

Geotechnical Report

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

BUNN DIALYSIS SITE

BUNN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

PREPARED FOR:

MR. JAKE HERTZ

DAVITA, INC.

2000 16TH STREET

DENVER, COLORADO

ECS PROJECT NUMBER 06:23602

August 11, 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 PROJECT INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 SCOPE OF W ORK ................................................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 PURPOSES OF EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................................. 2
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION ....................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES .............................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING ....................................................................................................................................... 4
3.0 EXPLORATION RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 6
3.1 SITE CONDITIONS................................................................................................................................................ 6
3.2 SITE GEOLOGY.................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................. 7
3.4 GROUNDWATER .................................................................................................................................................. 7
3.5 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 7
4.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 8
4.1 SITE AND SUBGRADE PREPARATION .................................................................................................................. 8
4.2 ENGINEERED FILL PLACEMENT .......................................................................................................................... 9
4.3 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................... 11
4.4 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 12
4.5 CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE ........................................................................................................................ 13
4.6 PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................. 14
4.7 SEISMIC SITE CLASS DETERMINATION ............................................................................................................. 15
4.8 SITE DRAINAGE ................................................................................................................................................. 16
4.9 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................................. 16
4.11 DEWATERING .................................................................................................................................................. 16
5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ................................................................................................................................... 17

APPENDICES:

Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Boring Logs, Reference Notes for Boring Logs
Appendix C Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D General Conditions
Appendix E Procedures Regarding Field Logs and Samples

Geotechnical Engineering Report August 11, 2017
Bunn Dialysis Site
Bunn, Franklin County, NC
ECS Project Number: 06:23602
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following summarizes the main findings of the exploration, particularly those that
may have a cost impact on the planned development. Further, our principal fo undation
recommendations are summarized. Information provided in the executive summary
should not be utilized in lieu of reading the entire geotechnical report.

The geotechnical exploration performed for the planned development included nine soil
test borings drilled for proposed buildings and pavements to depths of 5 to 20 feet.

The natural residual soils encountered generally consisted of Sandy Elastic SILT (MH),
Sandy SILT (ML), Silty SAND (SM), Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) and Clayey SAND (SC).
The SPT N-values within these soils ranged from 4 to 12 blows per foot, indicating very
loose to medium dense relative densities for the silty/clayey sands and soft to stiff
consistencies for the silts and clays.

Provided the subgrade preparation and earthwork oper ations are completed in strict
accordance with the recommendations provided in this report, the proposed structure
may be supported on conventional shallow foundations and ground -supported floor
slabs. We recommend a maximum net allowable design soil bear ing pressure of 2,500
psf for proportioning continuous and isolated column fo otings bearing on natural soils or
compacted structural fill extending down to natural soils.

Based on the 2012 North Carolina State Building Code, a Site Class of “D” should be
used for seismic design of the proposed building. Our experience indicates that
evaluation of seismic site class in North Carolina using N-values can be overly
conservative. We recommend that geophysical testing be performed for this project to
potentially improve the site class if this could be beneficial to the project.

Specific information regarding the subsurface exploration procedures used, the site and
subsurface conditions at the time of our exploration, and our conclusions and
recommendations concerning the geotechnical design and construction aspects of the
project are discussed in detail in the subsequent sections of this report. Please note
this Executive Summary is an important part of this report, but should be considered a
“summary” only and should not be relied on exclusive of the entire report. The
subsequent sections of this report constitute our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations in their entirety.

Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services August 11, 2017
Bunn Dialysis Site
Bunn, Franklin County, NC
ECS Project Number: 06:23602

2
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 Project Information

The project will consist of the development of a new single-story medical office building
with an approximate footprint of 8,500 square feet. Structural loading information was
not available at this time. Based on our experience with similar projects, ECS
anticipates structural loading will consist of maximum isolated column loads on the
order of 50 kips and maximum wall loads on the order of 2 kips per linear foot. The
development will also incorporate associated paved drive and parking areas.

A site plan, drawn by Alex Roush Architects Inc., was provided by DaVita; however, the
site plan did not contain finished floor elevations, and a grad ing plan was also not
available at the time of this project. The site appeared relatively flat. ECS anticipates
minor cuts and fills on the order of 3 feet or less will be required to establish site
grades.
1.2 Scope of Work

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on the results
of:

 Nine soil test borings performed with a CME-45C drill rig mounted on a Ford F-
450 truck;
 Selected laboratory index testing and engineering properties testing; and
 Engineering analyses of the field and laboratory data with respect to the provided
project information.
1.3 Purposes of Exploration

The primary purposes of the exploration program were to characterize soil and
groundwater conditions at the site and develop geotechnical engineering
recommendations to assist in the design and construction of the proposed project. We
accomplished these objectives by:

 Performing a site reconnaissance to observe the existing site conditions;
 Performing borings to explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions;
 Performing laboratory tests on selected soil samples to evaluate pertinent
engineering properties; and
Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services August 11, 2017
Bunn Dialysis Site
Bunn, Franklin County, NC
ECS Project Number: 06:23602

3
 Analyzing the field and laboratory data to develop appropriate geotechnical
engineering design and construction recommendations.
Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services August 11, 2017
Bunn Dialysis Site
Bunn, Franklin County, NC
ECS Project Number: 06:23602

4
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION
2.1 Exploration Procedures

Nine soil test borings were advanced at the approximate locations shown on the Boring
Location Diagram in Appendix A to depths ranging from approximately 5 to 20 feet
below the existing ground surface.

The boring locations were established and subsequently located in the field by ECS
personnel using hand-held GPS equipment. The existing ground surface elevations
were not given at the time of this project. The boring locations shown on the Boring
Location Diagram should be considered approximate given the methods used.

The soil borings were performed using hollow-stem auger drilling methods by a CME-
45C drill rig mounted on a Ford F-450 truck. Representative soil samples were obtained
by means of the split-barrel sampling procedure in general conformance with ASTM D
1586. In this procedure, a 2-inch O.D., split-barrel sampler is driven into the soil a
distance of 18 inches by a 140-pound hammer with a free fall of 30 inches. The
number of blows required to drive the sampler through the final 12 -inch interval is
termed the Standard Penetration Test value (N-value) and is indicated for each sample
on the boring logs. The SPT N-value can be used as a qualitative indication of the in-
place relative density of cohesionless soils. In a less reliable way, it also indicates the
consistency of cohesive soils. Split-spoon samples were generally obtained at
approximately 2.5-foot intervals in the upper 10 feet and at approximately 5 -foot
intervals thereafter.

The drilling crew maintained field logs of the soils encountered in the borings. After
recovery, each sample was removed from the sampler and visually c lassified.
Representative portions of each sample were then sealed in plastic bags and
transported to our laboratory in Raleigh, North Carolina for visual classification by a
geotechnical engineer and pertinent laboratory testing.
2.2 Laboratory Testing

Representative soil samples obtained during our field exploration were selected and
tested in our laboratory to verify field classifications and to help estimate pertinent
engineering properties of the site soils. The laboratory testing was performed i n
general conformance with the referenced ASTM standards. The laboratory test results
are presented in Appendix C of this report and on the respective boring logs. The
laboratory testing program included:

 Visual classification in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS as described in ASTM D 2487)
 Moisture content tests (ASTM D 2216)
Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services August 11, 2017
Bunn Dialysis Site
Bunn, Franklin County, NC
ECS Project Number: 06:23602

5
 Atterberg limits tests (ASTM D 4318)
 Percent passing No. 200 sieve (ASTM D 1140)
Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services August 11, 2017
Bunn Dialysis Site
Bunn, Franklin County, NC
ECS Project Number: 06:23602

6
3.0 EXPLORATION RESULTS

3.1 Site Conditions

ECS understands the subject site consists of an approximate 0.8 acre parcel located at
565 South Main Street in Bunn, Franklin County, North Carolina. The property is further
identified by the Franklin County Online GIS Database as Parcel Identification Number
(PIN) 008330. Based on a site visit on July 19, 2017, we observed that the property is
currently undeveloped and consists primarily of a relatively flat, open grassed land with
a few mature trees.

3.2 Site Geology

The site is located within the Piedmont physiographic province of the contiguous United
States. The Piedmont is characterized by residual overburden soils weathered in place
from the underlying igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rock.

The topography and relief of the Piedmont uplands have developed from diff erential
weathering of the metamorphic and igneous bedrock. Because of the continued
chemical and physical weathering, the bedrock in the Piedmont is 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 transition between hard/dense residual soils and partially
weathered rock occurs at irregular depths due to variations in degree of weathering.
Also, it is not unusual to find lenses and boulders of ha rd rock and/or zones of partially
weathered rock within the soil mantel well above the general bedrock level.

According to the Geologic Map of North Carolina (1985), the site is underlain by biotite
gneiss and schist of Cambrian age.

Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services August 11, 2017
Bunn Dialysis Site
Bunn, Franklin County, NC
ECS Project Number: 06:23602

7
3.3 Subsurface Conditions

The specific soil conditions at each boring location are noted on the individual boring
logs presented in Appendix B. A general description is also provided below. Subsurface
conditions may vary between boring locations.

Surface Materials
A surficial layer of organic-laden soil, ranging from 3 to 6 inch thick, was encountered at
the boring locations. However, this evidence was driller reported and should not be
used in determining topsoil removal quantities.

Natural Residual Soils
The natural residual soils encountered generally consisted of Sandy Elastic SILT (MH),
Sandy SILT (ML), Silty SAND (SM), Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) and Clayey SAND (SC).
The SPT N-values within these soils ranged from 4 to 12 blows per foot, indicating very
loose to medium dense relative densities for the silty/clayey sands and soft to stiff
consistencies for the silts and clays.

3.4 Groundwater

The driller observed groundwater in borings between 12 to 13 feet below the existing
ground surface, in borings B-1 to B-4, upon completion of drilling in each boring. Water
was present in the sample taken at 8.5 feet to 10 feet in boring B -1, which may indicate
of perched water. Groundwater elevations should be expected to vary depending on
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation, surface water absorption characteristics, and
other factors, and may be present at higher elevations in the future. Also, perched
water conditions should be anticipated on top of low permeability soil layers.
Consequently, the designer and contractor should be aware of this possibility while
designing and constructing this project. Extended monitoring of the groundwater using
wells would be required to determine the fluctuation of the groundwater level over time.

3.5 Laboratory Test Results

Representative samples collected from the upper 5 feet of the subsurface profile were
selected and subjected to the following laboratory testing: natural moisture content,
Percent Passing the No. 200 sieve and Atterberg Limits. The results of the laboratory
testing are provided in the Laboratory Testing Summary in Appendix C and on the
corresponding boring logs in Appendix B.
Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services August 11, 2017
Bunn Dialysis Site
Bunn, Franklin County, NC
ECS Project Number: 06:23602

8
4.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the
proposed construction, the information provided to us during this exploration and our
past experience with similar conditions. Should any of the information provided to us be
changed prior to final design, ECS should be notified to review these recommendations
and make appropriate revisions, if necessary.
4.1 Site and Subgrade Preparation
The first step in preparing the site for the proposed construction should be to remove
trees, vegetation, rootmat, topsoil, deleterious materials and other soft or unsuitable
materials from the existing ground surface within construction areas. These operations
should extend at least 10 feet, where possible, beyond the planned limits of the
proposed buildings, pavements, and fill. Voids created by the removal of tree stumps,
existing structures, and utilities should be backfilled with properly placed and
compacted engineered fill.

Site demolition should include the removal of any existing asphalt, concrete pavement,
concrete slabs, concrete curb and gutter, underground utilities, underground stormwater
structures and pipes, buried structures, and foundations from the proposed construction
areas. Any active underground utilities that may exist within the proposed building area
should be relocated, and any within proposed pavement areas should be evaluated by
the design team and relocated if necessary.

A surficial layer of organic-laden soil was not encountered at the boring locations,
according to the boring logs. However, this information is driller reported and should
not be used in determining topsoil removal quantities. The site was partially covered in
grass; therefore, some surficial stripping is recommended to remove the grass and any
grass rootmat. Google Earth Aerial Imaging shows that the site and the surrounding
area appear to have undergone grading operations around 2011. We recommend a
planned topsoil stripping depth of 6 inches to remove the majority of topsoil and
rootmat.

After proper clearing, stripping, grubbing, and prior to fill placement, foundation, slab, or
pavement construction, the exposed subgrade soils should be carefully evaluated by an
experienced geotechnical engineer to identify localized unstable or otherwise unsuitable
materials. After observing the exposed soils, loose and yielding areas should be
identified by proofrolling the exposed subgrades, with an approved piece of equipment,
such as a loaded dump truck, having a single -axle weight of at least 10 tons. Soft or
unsuitable materials identified during proofrolling operations should be either repaired
in-place or removed and replaced with an approved backfill placed and compacted in
accordance with the recommendations of this report.

Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services August 11, 2017
Bunn Dialysis Site
Bunn, Franklin County, NC
ECS Project Number: 06:23602

9
Elastic SILT (MH) and Fat CLAY (CH) were encountered in borings B-1, B-3, B-4, B-7
and B-8, typically in the upper 3.5 feet, but also to the boring termination depths of 5
feet in B-7 and B-8. These soils may require moisture adjustments, localized
undercutting and replacement, or other appropriate remedial activities if they exist at the
finished subgrade elevation within proposed construction areas. We recommend that a
minimum separation of 3 feet be maintained between the footing and slab-on-grade
bearing levels and high-plasticity soils and a minimum separation of 2 feet be
maintained between pavements and Fat CLAY (CH) to help reduce the potential for
distress of construction as a result of volumetric changes in the soil due to variations in
its moisture content.

Site subgrade conditions will be significantly influenced by weather conditions
and some site soil may degrade rapidly if exposed to water. Subgrades that are
evaluated after periods of rainfall will not respond as well to proofrolling as subgrades
that are evaluated after periods of more favorable weather. We strongly recommend
that rubber tire equipment not be used if subgrade conditions exhibit elevated moisture
conditions. The contractor should use tracked equipment to help minimize the
degradation of exposed subgrades.

The preparation of fill subgrades, as well as proposed building and pavement
subgrades, should be observed on a full-time basis by a representative of ECS. These
observations should be performed by a geotechnical engineer, or his representative, to
observe that unsuitable materials have been removed and that the prepared subgrade
is suitable for support of the proposed construction and/or fills.
4.2 Engineered Fill Placement
Materials satisfactory for use as Structural Fill should consist of inorganic soils
classified as CL, ML, SM, SC, SW, SP, GW, GP, GM and GC, or a combination of
these group symbols, per ASTM D 2487. The materials should be free of organic
matter, debris, and should contain no particle sizes greater than 3 inches in the largest
dimension. The fill should exhibit a maximum dry density of at least 90 pounds per
cubic foot, as determined by a standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D 698). Open
graded materials, such as Gravels (GW and GP), which contain void space in their
mass should not be used in structural fills unless properly encapsulated with filter fabric.

Unsatisfactory fill materials include materials which do not satisfy the requirements for
suitable materials, as well as topsoil and organic materials (OH, OL), and high plasticity
Clay (CH). Given the presence of Elastic SILT (MH) and Fat CLAY (CH) and to reduce
the amount of import material to the site, these materials can be used as Structural Fill
in pavement and non-structural areas. Elastic SILT (MH) and Fat CLAY (CH) should
not be placed as fill in proposed building areas.

Prior to the commencement of fill operations and/or utilization of any off -site borrow
materials, the contractor should provide representative samples of the proposed fill
Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services August 11, 2017
Bunn Dialysis Site
Bunn, Franklin County, NC
ECS Project Number: 06:23602

10
soils to the geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer can determine the
material’s suitability for use as an engineered fill and develop moisture-density
relationships in accordance with the recommendations provided herein. Samples
should be provided to the geotechnical engineer at least 3 to 5 days prior to the
materials’ use in the field to allow for the appropriate laboratory testing to be performed.

Fill materials placed within the building and pavement areas should be placed in lifts not
exceeding 8 inches in loose lift thickness and moisture conditioned to within their
working range of optimum moisture content. Fill more than 18 inches below finished
subgrade elevations should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the soil’s
standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density. Fill placed within 12 inches of
finished subgrade elevation beneath pavements an d slabs should be compacted to at
least 98 percent of the standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density.

The typical working range of optimum moisture for the natural soils at the site is
expected to be within approximately 3 percent of the optimum m oisture content. Care
should also be taken to provide a smooth, gently sloping ground surface at the end of
each day’s earthwork activities to help reduce the potential for ponding and absorption
of surface water.

Grade controls should also be maintained throughout the filling operations. Filling
operations should be observed on a full -time basis by a qualified representative of ECS
to determine that the specified compaction requirements are being achieved. We
recommend that a minimum of one compaction te st per 2,500-square-foot area be
performed for each lift of controlled fill. Within trench or other localized excavations at
least one test shall be performed for each 100 linear feet of each lift of fill. The elevation
and location of the tests should be clearly identified at the time of fill placement. Areas
which fail to achieve the required compaction should be re -worked until the specified
degree of compaction is achieved. Failing test areas may require moisture adjustments
or other suitable remedial activities in order to achieve the required compaction.

Fill materials should not be placed on frozen, frost-heaved, and/or soils which have
been recently subjected to precipitation. Wet or frozen soils should be removed prior to
the continuation of site grading and fill placement. Borrow fill materials, if required,
should not contain excessively wet or frozen materials at the time of placement.
Additionally, if grading operations occur during the winter months, frost -heaved soils
should be removed prior to placement of engineered fill, granular base materials,
foundation or slab concrete, and pavement materials.

If problems are encountered during the site grading operations, or if the actual site
conditions differ from those encountered during our subsur face exploration, the
geotechnical engineer should be notified immediately.

Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services August 11, 2017
Bunn Dialysis Site
Bunn, Franklin County, NC
ECS Project Number: 06:23602

11
4.3 Foundation Recommendations

Provided the subgrade preparation and earthwork operations are completed in strict
accordance with the recommendations provided in this report, the proposed structures
may be supported on conventional shallow foundations and ground-supported floor
slabs. W e recommend a maximum net allowable design soil bearing pressure of 2,500
psf for proportioning continuous and isolated column footings bearing on natural soils,
verified and approved existing fill or compacted structural fill extending down to natural
soils.

A foundation plan was not available at the time of this project, but we understand the
foundations will consist of isolated column footings and exterior wall strip footings. To
reduce the possibility of foundation bearing failure and excessive settlement due to
local shear or "punching" failures, we recommend that that isolated column footings
have a minimum lateral dimension of 24 inches and wall footings should have a
minimum lateral dimension of 16 inches. Furthermore, footings should bear at a depth
to provide adequate frost cover protection. For this region, we recommend the bearing
elevation be a minimum depth of 18 inches below the finis hed exterior grade or in
accordance with the local building code requirements. Once structural loads and site
grades are finalized, ECS requests the opportunity to review and revise our
recommendations, if necessary.

Elastic SILT (MH) and Fat CLAY (CH) were encountered in borings B-1, B-3, B-4, B-7
and B-8, typically in the upper 3.5 feet, but also to the boring termination depths of 5
feet in B-7 and B-8. These soils may require moisture adjustments, localized
undercutting and replacement, or other approp riate remedial activities if they exist at the
finished subgrade elevation within proposed construction areas. We recommend that a
minimum separation of 3 feet be maintained between the footing and slab-on-grade
bearing levels and high-plasticity soils to help reduce the potential for distress of
construction as a result of volumetric changes in the soil due to variations in its moisture
content.

The net allowable soil bearing pressure refers to that pressure which may be
transmitted to the foundation bearing soils in excess of the final minimum surrounding
overburden pressure. The final footing elevation should be evaluated by ECS personnel
to verify that the bearing soils are capable of supporting the recommended net
allowable bearing pressure and suitable for foundation construction. These evaluations
should include visual observations, hand rod probing, and dynamic cone penetrometer
(ASTM STP 399) testing, or other methods deemed appropriate by the geotechnical
engineer at the time of construction.

If unsuitable materials are encountered at the base of a foundation excavation, it will be
necessary to lower the base of the footing through the unsuitable materials or to
undercut the unsuitable soils and to restore original bearing levels by placing
engineered fill materials, NCDOT No. 57 stone, or concrete. These evaluations should
Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services August 11, 2017
Bunn Dialysis Site
Bunn, Franklin County, NC
ECS Project Number: 06:23602

12
be performed within each column footing excavation and at intervals not greater than
50 feet in wall footing excavations. Localized shallow undercutting of foundation
bearing soils should be anticipated in isolated areas.

The settlement of a structure is a function of the compressibility of the bearing
materials, the bearing pressure, actual structural loads, fill depths, and the bearing
elevation of footings with respect to t he final ground surface elevation. Estimates of
settlement for foundations bearing on engineered or non -engineered fills are strongly
dependent on the quality of fill placed. Factors which may affect the quality of fill
include maximum loose lift thickne ss of fills placed and the amount of compactive effort
placed on each lift. For foundations bearing on firm natural soils or new engineered fill,
we expect total settlements for the proposed building to be in the range of
approximately 1 inch. The differential settlement is anticipated to be approximately ½
of the anticipated total settlement. This evaluation is based on our engineering
experience and the anticipated structural loadings for this type of structure, is based on
the assumption that settlements associated with newly placed fills have stabilized, and
is intended to aid the structural engineer with his design.

Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the foundation bearing level if the
foundation excavations remain exposed during periods of inclement weather. This is
especially true for the fine-grained soils at the site. Therefore, foundation concrete
should be placed the same day that proper excavation is achieved and the design
bearing pressure is verified. If the bearing soils are softened by surface water
absorption or exposure to the environment, the softened soils must be removed from
the foundation excavation bottom immediately prior to placement of concrete. If the
foundation excavation must remain open overnight, or if rainfall is imminent while the
bearing soils are exposed, we recommend that a 2 to 3 -inch thick "mud mat" of "lean"
concrete be placed over the exposed bearing soils before the placement of reinforcing
steel.
4.4 Excavation Considerations

Areas of mass excavation, trenches, and pits should meet the requirements of the most
current Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) 2 9 CFR Part 1926
“Occupational Safety and Health Standards – Excavations.” Temporary excavations
should be cut to a stable slope or the excavations should be temporarily braced,
depending upon the excavation depth, nearby site features, and encountered
subsurface conditions. The Contractor’s Competent Person will need to determine the
soil type(s) encountered in excavations a nd the appropriate excavation slope or
bracing. Exposed earth slopes shall be protected during periods of inclement weather.
Regardless, site safety shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor and the
subcontractors.

Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services August 11, 2017
Bunn Dialysis Site
Bunn, Franklin County, NC
ECS Project Number: 06:23602

13
4.5 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade
W e recommend that a minimum separation of 3 feet be maintained between the slab -
on-grade bearing levels and high-plasticity soils to help reduce the potential for distress
of construction as a result of volumetric changes in the soil due to vari ations in its
moisture content. Once the building pad received compacted, structural fill, the pad
must be certified by a proofrolling operation to determine its stability. Alternatively,
compacted and stable Elastic SILT (MH) and Fat CLAY (CH) can remain in place or be
placed as structural fill directly beneath the capillary break layer under the slabs,
provided post-tensioned concrete monolithic slabs and footings are used to support the
buildings.

A modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pci is recommended for firm natural soils and
newly-placed and properly-compacted structural fill soils that can be successfully
proofrolled according to the recommendations in this report. If the method of structural
analysis of the slab utilizes subgrade reaction values adjusted f or the size and shape of
the loaded area, please contact us for modifications to the subgrade reaction values. In
order to allow for some relative displacement, the floor slabs should be structurally
separated from both columns and load bearing walls. In addition, slabs should be
provided with sufficient joints to control cracking associated with concrete volume
changes. To help reduce curling of the slab and any resulting cracking, proper curing
techniques should be used.

In order to minimize the crack width of any shrinkage cracks that may develop near the
surface of the slab, we recommend mesh reinforcement as a minimum be included in
the design of the floor slab. For maximum effectiveness, temperature and shrinkage
reinforcements in slabs on ground should be positioned in the upper third of the slab
thickness. The Wire Reinforcement Institute recommends the mesh reinforcement be
placed 2 inches below the slab surface or in the upper one -third of slab thickness,
whichever is closer to the surface. Adequate construction joints, contraction joints and
isolation joints should also be provided in the slab to reduce the impacts of cracking
and shrinkage. Please refer to ACI 302.1R96 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab
Construction for additional information regarding concrete slab joint design.

We recommend a capillary cutoff layer be provided under the floor slabs to prevent the
capillary rise of water through the slab. The capillary break layer should consist, at a
minimum, of a 4-inch thick clean, crushed stone or washed gravel layer, having a
maximum size of 1.5 inches with a maximum of 12 percent passing the No. 200 sieve.
Prior to placing the stone for the capillary break layer, the floor slab subgrade soil
should be properly compacted and should be free of standing water or mud.

Based on the results of our exploration , it appears unlikely that the floor slabs will be
subjected to hydrostatic pressure from groundwater. However, water vapor
transmission through the slabs is still a design consideration. Evaluating the need for
Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services August 11, 2017
Bunn Dialysis Site
Bunn, Franklin County, NC
ECS Project Number: 06:23602

14
and design of a vapor retarder or vapor barrier for moisture control is outside our scope
of services and should be determined by the project architect/structural engineer based
on the planned floor coverings and the corresponding design constraints, as outlined in
ACI 302.1R-04 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction. Further, health and
environmental considerations with respect to any potentially harmful vapor transmission
are also outside of our scope of services for this project.
4.6 Pavement Design Considerations
For the design and construction of pavements, the subgrades should be prepared in
accordance with the recommendations in the “Site and Subgrade Preparation” and
“Engineered Fill” sections of this report. Where unsuitable or soft soils are
encountered, localized undercutting and/or the use of geosynthetic stabilization
materials should be expected. An ECS geotechnical engineer should provide specific
remedial measure recommendations based upon the conditio ns at the time of
construction.

An important consideration with the design and construction of pavements is surface
and subsurface drainage. Where standing water develops, either on the pavement
surface or within the aggregate base course layer, soft ening of the subgrades and other
problems related to the deterioration of the pavement can be expected. This is
particularly important at the site due to the moisture-sensitive, near-surface soils.
Furthermore, good drainage should help reduce the possib ility of the subgrade
materials becoming saturated during the normal service period of the pavement.
Therefore, we recommend that both the surface and subsurface materials for the
pavement be properly graded to enhance surface and subgrade drainage. In a ddition,
placement of ½-inch diameter holes drilled through catch basins at or slightly above the
subgrade elevation will facilitate base course drainage into the catch basins.

Detailed traffic loading information for proposed development is not available at this
time. We assume that design traffic loads will be limited to cars and light trucks in light-
duty areas (less than 10,000 ESALs in 20 years), in addition to occasional delivery,
garbage, and recycling trucks in medium-duty areas (less than 50,000 ESALs in 20
years).

The recommended pavement sections provided below assume a California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) of 4 for low-plasticity or non-plastic soils compacted to at least 98 percent
of the maximum dry density, determined in accordance with ASTM Speci fication D-698
(standard proctor method), under saturated conditions and equivalent axle loadings of
10,000 and 50,000 ESALs for light-duty and medium-duty pavements, respectively.
CBR testing should be performed on the proposed pavement subgrade materials
at the time of construction to confirm the recommended pavement sections listed
below are based on the soil parameters assumed herein.

Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services August 11, 2017
Bunn Dialysis Site
Bunn, Franklin County, NC
ECS Project Number: 06:23602

15
In the parking and driveway areas, we recommend that the pavements be designed as
flexible pavements using guidelines established by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

Based on the assumed traffic loading conditions and assumed CBR value, we
recommend the minimum pavement section thicknesses provided in the following table.

RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Material
Designation
Light-Duty
Asphalt Pavement
Medium-Duty
Asphalt Pavement
Portland Cement
Concrete (PCC)
Pavement
Asphalt Surface
Course (SF9.5A) 2 inches 3 inches -
Portland Cement
Concrete - - 6 inches
Aggregate Base
Course 6 inches 8 inches 6 inches

ECS should be allowed to review these recommendations and make appropriate
revisions based upon the formulation of the final pavement subgrade soils and traffic
design criteria for the project. It is important to note that the design sections do not
account for construction traffic loading.

The aggregate base course materials beneath pavements and sidewalks should be
compacted to at least 98 percent of their modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM
D 1557).

Front-loading trash dumpsters frequently impose concentrated front -wheel loads on
pavements during loading. This type of loading typically results in rutting of bituminous
pavements and ultimately pavement failures and costly repairs. Therefore, we suggest
that the pavements in the dumpster area utilize the Portland Cement Concrete (PCC)
pavement section provided in Table 1. Appropriate steel reinforcing and jointing should
also be incorporated into the design of all PCC pavements.

It should be noted that these design recommendations may not satisfy the North
Carolina Department of Transportation traffic guidelines. Any roadways constructed for
public use and to be dedicated to the State for repair and maintenance must be
designed in accordance with the State requirements.
4.7 Seismic Site Class Determination
The 2012 North Carolina Building Code (2009 International Building Code with North
Carolina Amendments) requires that a Site Class be assigned for the seismic design of
new structures. The Site Class for the site was determined by calculating a weighted
average SPT N-Value for the top 100 feet of the subsurface profile. Based on the
Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services August 11, 2017
Bunn Dialysis Site
Bunn, Franklin County, NC
ECS Project Number: 06:23602

16
conditions encountered in the borings, we recommend that a Site Class “D,” as defined
in the NCSBC, 2012, be used for the proposed buildings. Our experience indicates that
evaluation of seismic site class in North Carolina using N-values can be overly
conservative. We recommend that geophysical testing be performed for this project to
potentially improve the site class.
4.8 Site Drainage
Positive drainage should be provided around the perimeter of the structure s to reduce
the potential for moisture infiltration into the foundation and/or subgrade soils. We
recommend that landscaped areas adjacent to structures be sloped away from the
construction and maintain a fall of at least 6 inches for the first 10 feet outward from the
structures. Similarly all roof drains should discharge directly into below grade
stormwater piping. The paved surfaces and sidewalks should also be slo ped to divert
surface water away from the proposed building.
4.9 Construction Considerations
It is imperative to maintain good site drainage during earthwork operations to help
maintain the integrity of the site soils. The surface of the site excavation should be kept
properly graded to enhance drainage of surface water away from the construction
areas. We recommend that surface drainage be diverted away from the building and
pavement areas without significantly interrupting its flow. Other practices wo uld involve
sealing the exposed soils daily with a smooth-drum roller at the end of the day’s work to
reduce the potential for infiltration of surface water into the exposed soils. Once the
final subgrade elevation is established and found stable during a final proofroll, the
required thickness of crushed stone should be placed and maintained to help protect
the final subgrades.

The key to reducing disturbance problems with the soils is to have proper control of the
earthwork operations. The earthwork contractor should maintain the site soils within a
workable moisture content range to obtain the required in -place density and maintain a
stable subgrade. In addition, construction equipment cannot be permitted to randomly
travel across the site, especially once the desired final grades have been established.
Construction equipment should be limited to designated lanes and areas, especially
during wet periods, to help minimize disturbance of the site subgrades.
4.11 Dewatering
Based on the groundwater conditions encountered in the borings and our
understanding of the proposed excavation depths, groundwater is not expected to
influence the proposed construction . However, perched water may develop in
excavations at the time of construction, especially following rain events. If groundwater
or perched water is encountered during construction it probably can be controlled
Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services August 11, 2017
Bunn Dialysis Site
Bunn, Franklin County, NC
ECS Project Number: 06:23602

17
through the use of sumps and pumps. If water is encountered that cannot be controlled
by such procedures, ECS should be further consulted. Excavation through saturated
materials may require sheeting and shoring, slope flattening, or benching to control
sloughing and sidewall instability.
5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

This report has been prepared in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to
assist the architect and/or engineer in the design of this project. The scope is limited to
the specific project and locations described herein and our description of the project
represents our understanding of the significant aspects relative to soil and foundation
characteristics. In the event that any changes in the nature or location of the proposed
construction outlined in this report are planned, we should be informed so that the
changes can be reviewed and the conclusions of this report modified or approved in
writing by the geotechnical engineer. It is recommended that all construction operations
dealing with earthwork and foundations are reviewed by an experienced geotechnical
engineer to provide information as to whether the design requirements are fulfilled in
the actual construction. W e would welcome the opportunity to provide field construction
services for you during construction.

The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data
obtained from the soil borings and tests performed at the locations as indicated on the
Boring Location Diagram and other information referenced in this report. This report
does not reflect variations which may occur between the borings. In the performance of
the subsurface exploration, specific information is obtained at specific locations at
specific times. However, it is a well-known fact that variations in soil conditions exist on
most sites between boring locations and also such situations as groundwater levels
vary from time to time. The nature and extent of variations may not become evident
until the course of construction. If site conditions vary from those identified during the
exploration, the recommendations contained in this report may require revision.

APPENDIX A

FIGURES
SITE VICINITY MAP

Bunn Dialysis Site
565 S Main Street
Bunn, NC
SOURCE: Google Maps (2017)
FIGURE NO.
1 OF 2
SCALE
NTS
DATE
August 11, 2017
DRAWN BY
TYD
CHECKED BY
MBO
JOB NO.
23602
SITE
N
SOURCE: Google Earth aerial image (11/03/14)
FIGURE NO.
2 of 2
SCALE
NTS
DATE
August 11, 2017
DRAWN BY
TYD
CHECKED BY
MBO
JOB NO.
23602
Approximate Locations
BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM

Bunn Dialysis Site
565 S Main Street
Bunn, NC

APPENDIX B

BORING LOGS,
REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
18
18
18
18
18
18
Topsoil Depth [4.00"]
(MH) SANDY, ELASTIC SILT, grey, yellow and
red, moist, stiff
(SM) SILTY SAND, red and yellow, moist, loose
(SM) SILTY SAND, yellow and red, wet, loose
(SM) SILTY SAND, yellow, moist, loose
(SM) SILTY SAND, white, brown, moist, loose
END OF BORING @ 20.00'
3
4
5
3
4
3
2
3
5
2
3
3
2
3
4
2
3
4
9 74
37
31.9
7
8
6
7
7
CLIENT
Davita, Inc.
Job #:
06:23602
BORING #
B-1
SHEET
PROJECT NAME
Bunn Dialysis Site
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
SITE LOCATION
565 S. Main St., Bunn, Franklin County, NC
NORTHING EASTING STATION
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL 12.0 WS WD BORING STARTED 07/24/17 CAVE IN DEPTH
WL(SHW)WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED 07/24/17 HAMMER TYPE Manual
WL RIG CME 450 FOREMAN DRILLING METHOD 2.25 ID HSADRILLING METHOD 2.25 ID HSADEPTH (FT)SAMPLE NO.SAMPLE TYPESAMPLE DIST. (IN)RECOVERY (IN)SURFACE ELEVATION
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
WATER LEVELSELEVATION (FT)BLOWS/6"10 20 30 40 50+
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1 2 3 4 5+
ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT2
PLASTIC
LIMIT %
WATER
CONTENT %
LIQUID
LIMIT %
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
RQD% REC.%
STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT
1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
18
18
18
18
18
18
Topsoil Depth [4.00"]
(CL) SANDY, LEAN CLAY, brown and yellow,
moist, firm
(SC) CLAYEY SAND, yellow and grey, moist,
loose
(SM) SILTY SAND, yellow and grey, moist,
loose
(SM) SILTY SAND, yellow and grey, moist,
very loose to loose
END OF BORING @ 20.00'
3
4
4
4
5
5
4
3
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
5
8
10
7
6
4
8
CLIENT
Davita, Inc.
Job #:
06:23602
BORING #
B-2
SHEET
PROJECT NAME
Bunn Dialysis Site
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
SITE LOCATION
565 S. Main St., Bunn, Franklin County, NC
NORTHING EASTING STATION
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL 12.0 WS WD BORING STARTED 07/24/17 CAVE IN DEPTH
WL(SHW)WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED 07/24/17 HAMMER TYPE Manual
WL RIG CME 450 FOREMAN DRILLING METHOD 2.25 ID HSADRILLING METHOD 2.25 ID HSADEPTH (FT)SAMPLE NO.SAMPLE TYPESAMPLE DIST. (IN)RECOVERY (IN)SURFACE ELEVATION
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
WATER LEVELSELEVATION (FT)BLOWS/6"10 20 30 40 50+
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1 2 3 4 5+
ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT2
PLASTIC
LIMIT %
WATER
CONTENT %
LIQUID
LIMIT %
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
RQD% REC.%
STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT
1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
18
18
18
18
18
18
Topsoil Depth [3.00"]
(CH) SANDY, FAT CLAY, yellow, moist, stiff
(ML) SANDY SILT, yellow, grey and red, moist,
firm
(MH) SANDY, ELASTIC SILT, yellow and
brown, moist, firm
(SM) SILTY SAND, yellow, white and red,
moist, loose to medium dense
END OF BORING @ 20.00'
2
4
5
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
2
3
3
4
5
5
6
5
9 54
29
22.1
6
7
5
9
11
CLIENT
Davita, Inc.
Job #:
06:23602
BORING #
B-3
SHEET
PROJECT NAME
Bunn Dialysis Site
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
SITE LOCATION
565 S. Main St., Bunn, Franklin County, NC
NORTHING EASTING STATION
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL 13.0 WS WD BORING STARTED 07/24/17 CAVE IN DEPTH
WL(SHW)WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED 07/24/17 HAMMER TYPE Manual
WL RIG CME 450 FOREMAN DRILLING METHOD 2.25 ID HSADRILLING METHOD 2.25 ID HSADEPTH (FT)SAMPLE NO.SAMPLE TYPESAMPLE DIST. (IN)RECOVERY (IN)SURFACE ELEVATION
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
WATER LEVELSELEVATION (FT)BLOWS/6"10 20 30 40 50+
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1 2 3 4 5+
ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT2
PLASTIC
LIMIT %
WATER
CONTENT %
LIQUID
LIMIT %
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
RQD% REC.%
STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT
1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
18
18
18
18
18
18
Topsoil Depth [6.00"]
(CH) SANDY, FAT CLAY, yellow, moist, stiff
(ML) SANDY SILT, yellow, red and grey, moist,
firm
(ML) SANDY SILT, grey and yellow, moist, stiff
(SM) SILTY SAND, brown and yellow, moist,
loose
END OF BORING @ 20.00'
4
4
5
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
5
4
5
5
5
9
7
6
6
9
10
CLIENT
Davita, Inc.
Job #:
06:23602
BORING #
B-4
SHEET
PROJECT NAME
Bunn Dialysis Site
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
SITE LOCATION
565 S. Main St., Bunn, Franklin County, NC
NORTHING EASTING STATION
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL 12.0 WS WD BORING STARTED 07/24/17 CAVE IN DEPTH
WL(SHW)WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED 07/24/17 HAMMER TYPE Manual
WL RIG CME 450 FOREMAN DRILLING METHOD 2.25 ID HSADRILLING METHOD 2.25 ID HSADEPTH (FT)SAMPLE NO.SAMPLE TYPESAMPLE DIST. (IN)RECOVERY (IN)SURFACE ELEVATION
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
WATER LEVELSELEVATION (FT)BLOWS/6"10 20 30 40 50+
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1 2 3 4 5+
ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT2
PLASTIC
LIMIT %
WATER
CONTENT %
LIQUID
LIMIT %
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
RQD% REC.%
STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT
1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
S-1
S-2
SS
SS
18
18
Topsoil Depth [6.00"]
(CL) SANDY, LEAN CLAY, grey and yellow,
moist, stiff
(CL) SANDY, LEAN CLAY WITH TRACE
GRAVEL, grey, red and yellow, moist, stiff
END OF BORING @ 5.00'
3
4
5
5
4
5
9
9
CLIENT
Davita, Inc.
Job #:
06:23602
BORING #
B-5
SHEET
PROJECT NAME
Bunn Dialysis Site
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
SITE LOCATION
565 S. Main St., Bunn, Franklin County, NC
NORTHING EASTING STATION
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL DRY WS WD BORING STARTED 07/24/17 CAVE IN DEPTH
WL(SHW)WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED 07/24/17 HAMMER TYPE Manual
WL RIG CME 450 FOREMAN Mario DRILLING METHOD 2.25 ID HSADRILLING METHOD 2.25 ID HSADEPTH (FT)SAMPLE NO.SAMPLE TYPESAMPLE DIST. (IN)RECOVERY (IN)SURFACE ELEVATION
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
WATER LEVELSELEVATION (FT)BLOWS/6"10 20 30 40 50+
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1 2 3 4 5+
ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT2
PLASTIC
LIMIT %
WATER
CONTENT %
LIQUID
LIMIT %
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
RQD% REC.%
STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT
1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
S-1
S-2
SS
SS
18
18
Topsoil Depth [5.00"]
(CL) SANDY, LEAN CLAY, brownish-yellow,
moist, firm to stiff
END OF BORING @ 5.00'
3
3
3
4
4
6
6
10
CLIENT
Davita, Inc.
Job #:
06:23602
BORING #
B-6
SHEET
PROJECT NAME
Bunn Dialysis Site
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
SITE LOCATION
565 S. Main St., Bunn, Franklin County, NC
NORTHING EASTING STATION
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL DRY WS WD BORING STARTED 07/24/17 CAVE IN DEPTH
WL(SHW)WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED 07/24/17 HAMMER TYPE Manual
WL RIG CME 450 FOREMAN Mario DRILLING METHOD 2.25 ID HSADRILLING METHOD 2.25 ID HSADEPTH (FT)SAMPLE NO.SAMPLE TYPESAMPLE DIST. (IN)RECOVERY (IN)SURFACE ELEVATION
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
WATER LEVELSELEVATION (FT)BLOWS/6"10 20 30 40 50+
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1 2 3 4 5+
ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT2
PLASTIC
LIMIT %
WATER
CONTENT %
LIQUID
LIMIT %
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
RQD% REC.%
STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT
1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
S-1
S-2
SS
SS
18
18
Topsoil Depth [5.00"]
(CH) SANDY, FAT CLAY, brown, moist, stiff
(CH) SANDY, FAT CLAY, grey and yellow,
moist, stiff
END OF BORING @ 5.00'
3
5
5
3
4
6
10 28.4
10
CLIENT
Davita, Inc.
Job #:
06:23602
BORING #
B-7
SHEET
PROJECT NAME
Bunn Dialysis Site
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
SITE LOCATION
565 S. Main St., Bunn, Franklin County, NC
NORTHING EASTING STATION
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL DRY WS WD BORING STARTED 07/24/17 CAVE IN DEPTH
WL(SHW)WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED 07/24/17 HAMMER TYPE Manual
WL RIG CME 450 FOREMAN Mario DRILLING METHOD 2.25 ID HSADRILLING METHOD 2.25 ID HSADEPTH (FT)SAMPLE NO.SAMPLE TYPESAMPLE DIST. (IN)RECOVERY (IN)SURFACE ELEVATION
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
WATER LEVELSELEVATION (FT)BLOWS/6"10 20 30 40 50+
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1 2 3 4 5+
ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT2
PLASTIC
LIMIT %
WATER
CONTENT %
LIQUID
LIMIT %
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
RQD% REC.%
STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT
1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
S-1
S-2
SS
SS
18
18
Topsoil Depth [4.00"]
(SC) CLAYEY SAND, brown, moist, loose
(CH) SANDY, FAT CLAY, grey and yellow,
moist, stiff
END OF BORING @ 5.00'
3
4
5
5
6
6
9
12
CLIENT
Davita, Inc.
Job #:
06:23602
BORING #
B-8
SHEET
PROJECT NAME
Bunn Dialysis Site
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
SITE LOCATION
565 S. Main St., Bunn, Franklin County, NC
NORTHING EASTING STATION
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL DRY WS WD BORING STARTED 07/24/17 CAVE IN DEPTH
WL(SHW)WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED 07/24/17 HAMMER TYPE Manual
WL RIG CME 450 FOREMAN Mario DRILLING METHOD 2.25 ID HSADRILLING METHOD 2.25 ID HSADEPTH (FT)SAMPLE NO.SAMPLE TYPESAMPLE DIST. (IN)RECOVERY (IN)SURFACE ELEVATION
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
WATER LEVELSELEVATION (FT)BLOWS/6"10 20 30 40 50+
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1 2 3 4 5+
ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT2
PLASTIC
LIMIT %
WATER
CONTENT %
LIQUID
LIMIT %
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
RQD% REC.%
STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT
1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
SS
SS
SS
SS
18
18
18
18
Topsoil Depth [5.00"]
(SM) SILTY SAND, brownish-yellow moist,
loose
(CL) SANDY, LEAN CLAY, brownish-yellow,
moist, firm to stiff
(CL) SANDY, LEAN CLAY, grey and yellow,
moist, stiff
END OF BORING @ 10.00'
2
4
6
3
4
3
4
4
5
4
5
6
10
NP
NP
10.7
7
9
11
CLIENT
Davita, Inc.
Job #:
06:23602
BORING #
B-9
SHEET
PROJECT NAME
Bunn Dialysis Site
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
SITE LOCATION
565 S. Main St., Bunn, Franklin County, NC
NORTHING EASTING STATION
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL DRY WS WD BORING STARTED 07/24/17 CAVE IN DEPTH
WL(SHW)WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED 07/24/17 HAMMER TYPE Manual
WL RIG CME 450 FOREMAN Mario DRILLING METHOD 2.25 ID HSADRILLING METHOD 2.25 ID HSADEPTH (FT)SAMPLE NO.SAMPLE TYPESAMPLE DIST. (IN)RECOVERY (IN)SURFACE ELEVATION
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
WATER LEVELSELEVATION (FT)BLOWS/6"10 20 30 40 50+
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1 2 3 4 5+
ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT2
PLASTIC
LIMIT %
WATER
CONTENT %
LIQUID
LIMIT %
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
RQD% REC.%
STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT
1 OF 1
B-1978677EOB @ 20'MHSMB-28107648EOB @ 20'CLSCSMB-39675911EOB @ 20'CHMLMHSMB-49766910EOB @ 20'CHMLSMB-599EOB @ 5'CLB-6610EOB @ 5'CLB-71010EOB @ 5'CHB-8912EOB @ 5'SCCH05101520Depth in Feet05101520Depth in Feet
NOTES:1 SEE INDIVIDUAL BORING LOG AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.2 PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT (ASTM D1586).3 HORIZONTAL DISTANCES ARE NOT TO SCALE.TopsoilElastic siltSilty sandLow plasticityclayClayey sand/Low plasticity clayHigh plasticityclaySiltWater table atboring completionGENERALIZED SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILEDavita, Inc. 565 S. Main St., Bunn, Franklin County,PROJECT NO.:23602 DATE:8/9/2017 SCALE:1"=5'
B-9107911EOB @ 10'SMCL05101520Depth in Feet05101520Depth in Feet
NOTES:1 SEE INDIVIDUAL BORING LOG AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.2 PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT (ASTM D1586).3 HORIZONTAL DISTANCES ARE NOT TO SCALE.TopsoilElastic siltSilty sandLow plasticityclayClayey sand/Low plasticity clayHigh plasticityclaySiltWater table atboring completionGENERALIZED SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILEDavita, Inc. 565 S. Main St., Bunn, Franklin County,PROJECT NO.:23602 DATE:8/9/2017 SCALE:1"=5'

Reference Notes for Boring Logs (FINAL 10-13-2016) © 2016 ECS Corporate Services, LLC. All Rights Reserved
COHESIVE SILTS & CLAYS
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH, QP
4
SPT5
(BPF)
CONSISTENCY7
(COHESIVE)
<0.25 <3 Very Soft
0.25 - <0.50 3 - 4 Soft
0.50 - <1.00 5 - 8 Medium Stiff
1.00 - <2.00 9 - 15 Stiff
2.00 - <4.00 16 - 30 Very Stiff
4.00 - 8.00 31 - 50 Hard
>8.00 >50 Very Hard

GRAVELS, SANDS & NON-COHESIVE SILTS
SPT5 DENSITY
<5 Very Loose
5 - 10 Loose
11 - 30 Medium Dense
31 - 50 Dense
>50 Very Dense

REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS

1Classifications and symbols per ASTM D 2488-09 (Visual-Manual Procedure) unless noted otherwise.
2To be consistent with general practice, “POORLY GRADED” has been removed from GP, GP-GM, GP-GC, SP, SP-SM, SP-SC soil types on the boring logs.
3Non-ASTM designations are included in soil descriptions and symbols along with ASTM symbol [Ex: (SM-FILL)].
4Typically estimated via pocket penetrometer or Torvane shear test and expressed in tons per square foot (tsf).
5Standard Penetration Test (SPT) refers to the number of hammer blows (blow count) of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch OD split spoon sampler
required to drive the sampler 12 inches (ASTM D 1586). “N-value” is another term for “blow count” and is expressed in blows per foot (bpf).
6The water levels are those levels actually measured in the borehole at the times indicated by the symbol. The measurements are relatively reliable
when augering, without adding fluids, in granular soils. In clay and cohesive silts, the determination of water levels may require several days for the
water level to stabilize. In such cases, additional methods of measurement are generally employed.
7Minor deviation from ASTM D 2488-09 Note 16.
8Percentages are estimated to the nearest 5% per ASTM D 2488-09.

RELATIVE
AMOUNT7
COARSE
GRAINED
(%)8
FINE
GRAINED
(%)8

Trace <5 <5
Dual Symbol
(ex: SW-SM)
10 10
With 15 - 20 15 - 25
Adjective
(ex: “Silty”)
>25 >30
WATER LEVELS6
WL Water Level (WS)(WD)
(WS) While Sampling
(WD) While Drilling
SHW Seasonal High WT
ACR After Casing Removal
SWT Stabilized Water Table
DCI Dry Cave-In
WCI Wet Cave-In
DRILLING SAMPLING SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS
SS Split Spoon Sampler PM Pressuremeter Test
ST Shelby Tube Sampler RD Rock Bit Drilling
WS Wash Sample RC Rock Core, NX, BX, AX
BS Bulk Sample of Cuttings REC Rock Sample Recovery %
PA Power Auger (no sample) RQD Rock Quality Designation %
HSA Hollow Stem Auger

PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION
DESIGNATION PARTICLE SIZES
Boulders 12 inches (300 mm) or larger
Cobbles 3 inches to 12 inches (75 mm to 300 mm)
Gravel: Coarse ¾ inch to 3 inches (19 mm to 75 mm)
Fine 4.75 mm to 19 mm (No. 4 sieve to ¾ inch)
Sand: Coarse 2.00 mm to 4.75 mm (No. 10 to No. 4 sieve)
Medium 0.425 mm to 2.00 mm (No. 40 to No. 10 sieve)
Fine 0.074 mm to 0.425 mm (No. 200 to No. 40 sieve)
Silt & Clay (“Fines”) <0.074 mm (smaller than a No. 200 sieve)

MATERIAL1,2

ASPHALT

CONCRETE

GRAVEL

TOPSOIL

VOID

BRICK

AGGREGATE BASE COURSE

FILL3 MAN-PLACED SOILS

GW WELL-GRADED GRAVEL
gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL
gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GM SILTY GRAVEL
gravel-sand-silt mixtures

GC CLAYEY GRAVEL
gravel-sand-clay mixtures

SW WELL-GRADED SAND
gravelly sand, little or no fines

SP POORLY-GRADED SAND
gravelly sand, little or no fines

SM SILTY SAND
sand-silt mixtures

SC CLAYEY SAND
sand-clay mixtures

ML SILT
non-plastic to medium plasticity

MH ELASTIC SILT
high plasticity

CL LEAN CLAY
low to medium plasticity

CH FAT CLAY
high plasticity

OL ORGANIC SILT or CLAY
non-plastic to low plasticity

OH ORGANIC SILT or CLAY
high plasticity

PT PEAT
highly organic soils

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

B-1S-1 0.33 - 1.83 31.9 MH 74 37 37 73.9B-3S-1 0.25 - 1.75 22.1 CH 54 29 25 60.5B-7S-1 0.42 - 1.92 28.4 SM 65.7B-9S-1 0.42 - 1.92 10.7 SM NP NP NP 30.2Laboratory Testing SummaryNotes:1. ASTM D 2216, 2. ASTM D 2487, 3. ASTM D 4318, 4. ASTM D 1140, 5. See test reports for test method, 6. See test reports for test methodDefinitions:MC: Moisture Content, Soil Type: USCS (Unified Soil Classification System), LL: Liquid Limit, PL: Plastic Limit, PI: Plasticity Index, CBR: California Bearing Ratio, OC: Organic Content (ASTM D 2974)Project No. 06:23602Project Name: Bunn Dialysis SitePM: Taylor DowellPE: Tom SchipporeitPrinted On: Wednesday, August 09, 2017SampleSourceSampleNumberDepth(feet)MC1(%)SoilType2LLAtterberg Limits3PL PIPercentPassingNo. 200Sieve4MaximumDensity(pcf)Moisture - Density (Corr.)5OptimumMoisture(%)CBRValue6OtherPage 1 of 1

APPENDIX D

GENERAL CONDITIONS

The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations submitted in this report are based on
the exploration previously outlined and the data collected at the points shown on the
attached location plan. This report does not reflect specific variations that may occur
between test locations. The borings were loc ated where site conditions permitted and
where it is believed representative conditions occur, but the full nature and extent of
variations between borings and of subsurface conditions not encountered by any boring
may not become evident until the course o f construction. If variations become evident
at any time before or during the course of construction, it will be necessary to make a
re-evaluation of the conclusions and recommendations of this report and further
exploration, observation, and/or testing m ay be required.

This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and
foundation engineering practices and makes no other warranties, either express or
implied, as to the professional advice under the terms of our agreement and incl uded in
this report. The recommendations contained herein are made with the understanding
that the contract documents between the owner and foundation or earthwork contractor
or between the owner and the general contractor and the caisson, foundation,
excavating and earthwork subcontractors, if any, shall require that the contractor certify
that all work in connection with foundations, piles, caissons, compacted fills and other
elements of the foundation or other support components are in place at the loca tions,
with proper dimensions and plumb, as shown on the plans and specifications for the
project.

Further, it is understood the contract documents will specify that the contractor will,
upon becoming aware of apparent or latent subsurface conditions diff ering from those
disclosed by the original soil exploration work, promptly notify the owner, both verbally
to permit immediate verification of the change, and in writing, as to the nature and
extent of the differing conditions and that no claim by the cont ractor for any conditions
differing from those anticipated in the plans and specifications and disclosed by the soil
exploration will be allowed under the contract unless the contractor has so notified the
owner both verbally and in writing, as required above, of such changed conditions. The
owner will, in turn, promptly notify this firm of the existence of such unanticipated
conditions and will authorize such further exploration as may be required to properly
evaluate these conditions.

Further, it is understood that any specific recommendations made in this report as to
on-site construction review by this firm will be authorized and funds and facilities for
such review will be provided at the times recommended if we are to be held responsible
for the design recommendations.

APPENDIX E

PROCEDURES REGARDING FIELD LOGS AND SAMPLES

In the process of obtaining and testing samples and preparing this report, procedures
are followed that represent reasonable and accepted practice in the field of soil and
foundation engineering.

Specifically, field logs are prepared during performance of the drilling and sampling
operations which are intended to portray essentially field occurrences, sampling
locations, and other information.

Samples obtained in the field are frequently subjected to additional reclassification in
the laboratory by more experienced soil engineers, and differences between the field
logs and the final logs exist.

The engineer preparing the report reviews the field, classifications and test data, and
his judgment in interpreting this data, may make further changes.

Samples taken in the field are retained in our laboratory for sixty days and are then
discarded unless special disposition is requested by our client. Samples retained over
a long period of time, even if sealed in jars, are subject to moisture loss which changes
the apparent strength of cohesive soil generally increasing the strength from what was
originally encountered in the field. Since they are then no longer representative of the
moisture conditions initially encountered, an inspection of these samples should
recognize this factor.

FEMA Flood Map

USGS Quadrangle Map

NOAA Atlas 14 Precipitation/Intensity Values