SW3100301 - Hopewell Baptist Church - Worship Addition (4)

TM
REPORT
OF
SUBSURFACE SOIL EXPLORATION
HOPEWELL BAPTIST CHURCH
MONROE, NORTH CAROLINA
ECS PROJECT NO. 08-6444
December 28, 2009

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
HOPEWELL BAPTIST CHURCH
Monroe, North Carolina
Prepared For:
HOPEWELL BAPTIST CHURCH
420 Hopewell Church Road
Monroe, North Carolina 28110
Prepared By:
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
8702 Red Oak Boulevard, Suite A
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
ECS Project No:
08-6444
Report Date:
December 28, 2009

PA
---� �� ECS CAROLINAS, LLP "Setting the Standard for Service"
Geotechnical is Construction Materials * Environmental * Facilities NG Regrstred Engineemg Firm F-1078
December 28, 2009
Rev. Lee Pigg
Hopewell Baptist Church
420 Hopewell Church Road
Monroe, North Carolina 28110
Reference: Report of Subsurface Exploration
Hopewell Baptist Church
Monroe, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 08-6444
Dear Rev. Pigg:
ECS Carolinas, LLP (ECS) has completed the subsurface exploration for the above referenced project.
This project was authorized and performed in general accordance with ECS Proposal No. 08-11020P.
The purpose of this exploration was to determine the general subsurface conditions at the site and to
evaluate those conditions with regard to foundation, floor slab, seismic design, and pavement support
along with general site development. This report presents our findings along with our conclusions and
recommendations for design and construction of the project.
ECS Carolinas, LLP appreciates the opportunity to assist you during this ph jT,pQhe project. if you have
questions concerning this report, please contact our office. �, �� �,q�A°+e�
Respectfully,
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
Jonathan R. Almond, E.I.
Senior Project Manager
�AA�1:s�o�
&--�=esu
t
0/11111
Paul A. Blake, P.E.
Principal Engineer
NC Registration No. 32820
8702 Red Oak Blvd., Suite A, Charlotte, NC 28217 • [phone] 11 Fax [phone] rwww.ecsfimited.com
A•hc 11, NC•Ch�rketa NC+Grm &— NC-C-1—lc SC. I ,gh NC•S_",1_, NC-AT—gh. NC

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Information.........................................................................................................................1
1.2 Scope of Services............................................................................................................................ l
2. FIELD SERVICES.............................................................................................................................2
2.1 Test Locations.................................................................................................................................2
2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Drilling.......................................................................................2
3. LABORATORY SERVICES.............................................................................................................3
3.1 Soil Classification...........................................................................................................................3
3.2 Laboratory Testing..........................................................................................................................3
4. SITE AND SUBSURFACE FINDINGS...........................................................................................4
4.1 Area Geology..................................................................................................................................4
4.2 Subsurface Conditions....................................................................................................................4
4.3 Groundwater Observations.............................................................................................................5
.5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................6
5.1 Site Development Considerations...................................................................................................6
5.2 Foundations.....................................................................................................................................6
5.3 Slab -On -Grade Support..................................................................................................................7
5.4 Seismic Site Class...........................................................................................................................7
5.5 Pavements.......................................................................................................................................8
5.6 Permanent Groundwater Control....................................................................................................8
5.7 Temporary Groundwater and Dewatering......................................................................................8
5.8 Cut and Fill Slopes..........................................................................................................................8
6 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS......................................................................................10
6.1 Site Preparation.............................................................................................................................10
6.2 Fill Material and Placement..........................................................................................................10
6.3 Below Grade Excavation..............................................................................................................1 1
6.4 Foundation Construction & Testing..............................................................................................12
7 GENERAL COMMENTS...............................................................................................................13
APPENDIX Figure 1 — Site Location Map
Figure 2 — Boring Location Diagram
Boring Logs B-1 — B-17
Boring Summary Table
Unified Soil Classification System
Reference Notes for Boring Logs
ASFE Reference Document

Report of Subswfaee Cxploration
Hopewell Baptist Church
Monroe, North Carolina
Page I
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Information
Rev. Lee Pigg
Hopewell Baptist Church
ECS Project No. 08-6444
December 28, 2009
Project information was provided by Ms. Rachel Joyce of ADW Architects and subsequent submittals
from the design team. In preparation of this report, ECS has reviewed preliminary site layout and civil
drawings provided by Site Solutions that illustrate proposed locations and grades of the structure, planned
parking areas, and proposed detention ponds.
ECS understands that the project is proposed on an approximate 81.5 acre parcel, identified as 08183008C
by the Union County GIS system. The parcel is currently being used largely for farming with wooded
areas in the northeastern quadrant. The site slopes from west to the southeast and northeast, with
elevations ranging between about 545to 480 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The areas of proposed
construction are within the western half of the site, with elevations ranging between approximately 540
and 515 MSL.
ECS understands that the project will consist of a fellowship and preschool building and associated
parking and drive areas. ECS' experience with similar projects indicates that structural loading will be on
the order of 200 kips for column loadings and 4 to 6 kips per linear foot for wall loadings. Review of the
provided civil drawings indicate that up to 4 feet of fill will be required to reach the proposed building pad
elevation.
The project will also include a detention pond in the northwestern corner of the property. ECS anticipates
that the ponds will require less than 5 feet of cut and fill to reach proposed grades.
1.2 Scope of Services
Our scope of services included a subsurface exploration with soil test borings, laboratory testing,
engineering analysis of the foundation support options and preparation of this report with our
recommendations. The subsurface exploration included seventeen (17) soil test borings (B-1 through 13-
17). The borings were performed at the approximate locations shown on the Boring Location Diagram,
Figure 2 in the Appendix, and advanced to depths between 8.7 to 20.0 ft below the existing ground surface
with an ATV mounted drill rig using continuous -flight, hollow -stem augers.

Report of Subsurface Exploration
Hopewell Baptist Church
Monroe, North Carolina
Page 2
2. FIELD SERVICES
2.1 Test Locations
Rev. Lee Pigg
Hopewell Baptist Church
ECS Project No. 08-6444
December 28, 2009
The soil boring locations and depths were provided by the design team. The actual test locations were
established in the field by ECS representatives using GPS and existing site features references. The
approximate test locations are shown on the Boring Location Diagram (Figure 2) presented in the
Appendix of this report, and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used.
Ground surface elevation at each boring location was estimated from the site topographic survey provided
by ADW Architects and should be considered approximate.
2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Drilling
Seventeen .(17) soil test borings were drilled to evaluate the stratification and engineering properties of the
subsurface soils at the project site. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT's) were performed at designated
intervals in general accordance with ASTM D 1586-84. The Standard Penetration Test is used to provide
an index for estimating soil strength and density. In conjunction with the penetration testing, split -barrel
soil samples were recovered for soil classification and potential laboratory tests at each test interval.
Boring Logs are included in the Appendix.
The drill crew also maintained a field log of the soils encountered at each of the boring locations. After
recovery, each sample was removed from the auger and visually classified. Representative portions of
each sample were then sealed and brought to our laboratory in Charlotte, North Carolina for further visual
examination and laboratory testing. Groundwater measurements were attempted at the tennination of
drilling at each boring location and subsequently up to 24 hours after boring termination.

Report of Subsurface Exploration
Hopewell Baptist Church
Monroe, North Carolina
Page 3
3. LABORATORY SERVICES
Rev, Lee Pigg
Hopewell Baptist Church
ECS Project No 08-6444
December 28, 2009
Soil samples were collected from the borings and examined in our laboratory to check field classifications
and to determine pertinent engineering properties. Data obtained from the borings and our visual/manual
examinations are included on the respective boring logs in the Appendix.
3.1 Soil Classification
A geotechnical engineer classified each soil sample on the basis of color, texture, and plasticity
characteristics in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The soil
engineer grouped the various soil types into the major zones noted on the boring logs. The stratification
lines designating the interfaces between earth materials on the boring logs and profiles are approximate; in
situ, the transition between strata may be gradual in both the vertical and horizontal directions. The
results of the visual classifications are presented on the Test Boring Records included in Appendix.
3.2 Laboratory Testing
In addition to the soils classification, ECS performed permeability testing on an undisturbed sample taken
at approximate bottom of pond elevation in boring B-15. The results of the permeability were not
available at time of report submittal and will be supplied under separate cover.

Report of Subsurface Exploration
Hopewell Baptist Church
Monroe, North Carolina
Page 4
4. SITE AND SUBSURFACE FINDINGS
4.1 Area Geology
Rev. Lee Pigg
Hopewell Baptist Church
ECS Project No. 08-6144
December 28, 2009
The site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina. The native soils in the
Piedmont Province consist mainly of residuum with underlying saprolites weathered from the parent
bedrock, which can be found in both weathered and unweathered states. Although the surficial materials
normally retain the structure of the original parent bedrock, they typically have a much lower density and
exhibit strengths and other engineering properties typical of soil. In a mature weathering profile of the
Piedmont Province, the soils are generally found to be finer grained at the surface where more extensive
weathering has occurred. The particle size of the soils generally becomes more granular with increasing
depth and gradually changes first to weathered and finally to unweathered parent bedrock. The mineral
composition of the parent rock and the environment in which weathering occurs largely control the
resulting soil's engineering characteristics. The published information pertaining to the geology in the
general vicinity of the site indicates the parent bedrock underlying the property is metamorphosed diorite
that have experienced intrusion by igneous diorite and quartzite which have in turn experienced further
metamorphism. The onsite residual soils are the product of the weathering of the parent bedrock.
It is important to note that the natural geology within the site has been modified in the past by grading that
included the placement of fill materials. The quality of man-made fills can vary significantly, and it is
often difficult to assess the engineering properties of existing fills. Furthermore, there is no specific
correlation between N -values from standard penetration tests performed in soil test borings and the degree
of compaction of existing fill soils; however, a qualitative assessment of existing fills can sometimes be
made based on the N -values obtained and observations of the materials sampled in the test borings.
4.2 Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions at the site, as indicated by the borings, generally consist of residual soil and
partially weathered rock to the depths explored. The generalized subsurface conditions are described
below. For general soil stratification at a particular boring location, the respective Boring Log found in
the Appendix should be reviewed.
Topsoil was encountered at the ground surface in each boring at depths ranging between 7 and 10 inches.
Below the topsoil, residual soils were encountered at each boring location with the exception of B-16.
Residual soils are formed by the in-place chemical and mechanical weathering of the parent bedrock. The
residual soils were first encountered to depths of 3 to 18 ft below the ground surface. The residual soils
observed in the borings mainly consisted of Silty CLAY, Clayey SILT, Sandy SILT, and Silty SAND. N -
values recorded in the residuum ranged from 2 to 85 bpf. Several boring locations displayed soft CLAY
and SILT profiles within the upper 3 feet. it is likely that these soils are disturbed residuum caused by
farming activities.
Partially weathered rock (PWR) was encountered underlying the residuum in fourteen (14) borings.
Partially weathered rock is defined as any residual material which exhibits a Standard Penetration
Resistance in excess of 100 bpf. The partially weathered rock was encountered at depths between 3 and 18
and extended to boring termination depths. The partially weathered rock in our borings generally sampled
as Silty SAND, exhibiting SPT N -values between 50 blows over 5 inches and 50 blows over 2 inches.
Fill materials were encountered at boring location B -I6 to a depth of 5.5 feet. The fill materials appeared
to have been previously placed in an uncontrolled manner.

Report ofSubsuiface Exploration
Hopewell Baptist Church
Monroe, North Carolina
Page 5
Rev Lee Pigg
Hopewell Baptist Church
ECS Project No 08-6444
December 28, 2009
Materials hard enough to cause auger refusal or rock were not encountered to depth in the borings
performed. Refusal is defined as negligible penetration of the augers under the weight and down pressure
of the drill rig.
4.3 Groundwater Observations
Groundwater level readings were attempted during the time of drilling, after termination of drilling, and
again after 24 hours. No groundwater was recorded within the borings performed on-site. Fluctuations in
the groundwater elevation should be expected depending on precipitation, run-off, utility leaks, and other
factors not evident at the time of our evaluation. Normally, highest groundwater levels occur in late
winter and spring and the lowest levels occur in late summer and fall.

Report of Subsurface Exploration
Hopewell Baptist Church
Monroe, North Carolina
Page 6
Rev. Gee Pigg
Hopewell Baptist Church
ECS Project No 08-6444
December 28, 2009
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Our evaluation of foundation support conditions has been based on our understanding of the site,
project information and the data obtained in our exploration. The general subsurface conditions
utilized in our foundation evaluation have been based on interpolation of subsurface data between and
away from the borings. In evaluating the boring data, we have examined previous correlations
between penetration resistance values and foundation bearing pressures observed in soil conditions
similar to those at your site.
5.1 Site Development Considerations
Fill materials were encountered within one (1) boring location on-site. These fill materials appeared to
have been placed in an uncontrolled manner in the past. ECS recommends that these materials be removed
and replaced with engineered fill if encountered within a structural or pavement area. ECS should be
contacted to evaluate the fill on a location by location basis is encountered.
ECS also encountered several soft surficial residuum profiles, likely caused by previous farming activities
which have disturbed the upper profile. ECS recommends that these areas be improved in place or
undercut and replace on a location by location basis. These areas will likely be evident upon initial
proofrolling activities.
5.2 Foundations
Provided the recommendations outlined herein are implemented, the proposed structure can be adequately
supported on a shallow foundation system consisting of spread footings bearing on undisturbed residual
soil, newly -placed structural fill, or partially weathered rock. A bearing capacity of up to 3 ksf may be
achievable for foundations bearing on firm residual soil or newly placed structural fill.
In order to reduce the possibility of foundation bearing failure and excessive settlement due to local
shear or "punching" action, the 2009 North Carolina Building Code requires that footings have a
minimum width of 18 inches. For this project, minimum wall and column footing dimensions of 18
and 24 inches, respectively, should be maintained to reduce the possibility of a localized, "punching"
type, shear failure. Exterior foundations and foundations in unheated areas should be embedded deep
enough below exterior grades to reduce potential movements from frost action or excessive drying
shrinkage. For this region, we recommend footings be placed at least 18 inches below finished grade.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, undocumented fill is properly removed and replaced with
structural fill, and site preparation recommendations discussed herein are incorporated, total and
differential settlement should be within tolerable limits. Total settlement is anticipated to be less than 1.0
inch while differential settlement between columns is anticipated to be less than 0.5 inch for shallow
foundations.

Report of Subsurface Gaploration
Hopewell Baptist Church
Monroe, North Carolina
Page 7
5.3 Slab -On -Grade Support
Rev. Lee Pigg
Hopewell Baptist Church
ECS Project No. 08-6444
December 28, 2009
Slabs -on -grade can be adequately supported on undisturbed residual soils or on new, properly placed
structural fill provided the site preparation and fill recommendations outlined herein are implemented.
For a properly prepared site, a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) for the soil of 100 pounds per cubic
inch for the soil can be used. This value is representative of a 1 -ft square loaded area and may need
to be adjusted depending the size and shape of the loaded area depending on the method of structural
analysis.
We recommend the slabs -on -grade be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of granular material
having a maximum aggregate size of 1 %z inches and no more than 2 percent fines. Prior to placing the
granular material, the floor subgrade soil should be properly compacted, proofrolled, and free of
standing water, mud, and frozen soil. A properly designed and constructed capillary break layer can
often eliminate the need for a moisture retarder and can assist in more uniform curing of concrete. If
a vapor retarder is considered to provide additional moisture protection, special attention should be
given to the surface curing of the slabs to minimize uneven drying of the slabs and associated
cracking and/or slab curling. The use of a blotter or cushion layer above the vapor retarder can also
be considered for project specific reasons.
Please refer to ACI 302.1 R96 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction and ASTM E 1643
Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular
Fill Under Concrete Slabs for additional guidance on this issue.
ECS recommends that the slab be isolated from the footings so differential settlement of the structure
will not induce shear stresses on the floor slab. Also, in order to minimize the crack width of
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 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 302.1 R96 Guide for
Concrete Floor and Slab Construction for additional information regarding concrete slab joint design.
5.4 Seismic Site Class
The 2009 Edition of the North Carolina Building Code (NCBC) requires that the stiffness of the top
100 -ft of soil profile be evaluated in determining a site seismic classification. Alternately, designers
can default by Code to a Site Class "D" site assumption, unless soils data further reduces the site to
an "E" classification. The soil data available to date indicates that the average soils profile is a site
class "C" based upon a calculated Nbar exceeding 50.
The available soils data indicate that potential for liquefaction of on-site soils is not evident.

Report of Subsurface Exploration
Hopewell Baptist Church
Monroe, North Carolina
Page 8
5.5 Pavements
Rev. Lee Pigg
Hopewell Baptist Church
ECS Project No. 08-6444
December 28, 2009
A pavement structure designed for the appropriate subgrade strength and traffic characteristics can be
adequately supported on undisturbed residual soils or on new, properly compacted structural fill.
Typical pavement sections for light duty areas consist of a minimum flexible pavement section
should consist of 3 inches of asphaltic concrete surface course overlying 6 inches of compacted
aggregate base course (ABC) stone.
For heavy-duty areas, the minimum pavement section should consist of 4 inches of asphaltic concrete
(surface course and binder) overlying 8 inches of compacted ABC stone. A rigid heavy duty
pavement sections should consist a minimum of 6 inches of 5,000 psi concrete overlying 6 inches of
compacted ABC stone. All ABC stone should be compacted to 100 % percent of the standard Proctor
maximum dry density. The pavement cross-sections provided do not account for construction traffic.
The cross-section provided are minimum cross-sections required to support typical traffic loads for
the type of development discussed in this report. Pavement cross-sections should conform to local
standards if they will be maintained by local government. These pavement sections may vary
depending site conditions.
5.6 Permanent Groundwater Control
ECS does not anticipate that a permanent groundwater control system will be required for the
structure.
5.7 Temporary Groundwater and Dewatering
ECS recommends that the grading contractor promote positive surface drainage away from the
proposed building pad during grading. Ponding of surface water can lead to instability of the
subgrade soils.
5.8 Cut and pill Slopes
ECS anticipates that site grading will require the construction of fill slopes on the southern portion of
the site. We recommend that permanent cut slopes with less than 10 ft crest height through
undisturbed residual soils be constructed at 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter. Permanent fill slopes
and cut slopes in previously placed engineered fill less than 20 ft tall may be constructed using
controlled fill at a slope of 2.5:1 or flatter. A slope of 3:1 or flatter may be desirable to permit
establishment of vegetation, safe mowing, and maintenance. The surface of all cut and fill slopes
should be adequately compacted. All permanent slopes should be protected using vegetation or other
means to prevent erosion.
The outside face of building foundations and the edges of pavements placed near slopes should be
located an appropriate distance from the slope. The North Carolina Building Code lists the following
requirements. Buildings or pavements placed at the top of fill slopes should be placed near slopes at
distance equal to at least 1/3 of the height of the slope behind the crest of the slope, but that distance
need not be more than 40 ft.
Buildings or pavements near the bottom of a slope should be located at least % of the height of the
slope from the toe of the slope, but the distance need not be more than 15 ft.

Report ofSubsuiface Exploration
Hopewell Baptist Church
Monroe, North Carolina
Page 9
Rev. Lee Pigg
Hopewell Baptist Church
ECS Project No. 08-6444
December 28, 2009
Slopes with structures located closer than these limits or slopes taller than the height limits indicated,
should be specifically evaluated by the geotechnical engineer and may require approval from the
building code official. Temporary slopes in confined or open excavations should perform
satisfactorily at inclinations of 2(H):1(V). All excavations should conform to applicable OSHA
regulations.
Appropriately sized ditches should run above and parallel to the crest of all permanent slopes to
divert surface runoff away from the slope face. To aid in obtaining proper compaction on the slope
face, the fill slopes should be overbuilt with properly compacted structural fill and then excavated
back to the proposed grades.

Report of Subsurface Exploration
Hopewell Baptist Church
Monroe, North Carolina
Page 10
6
6.1 Site Preparation
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Rev. Lee Pegg
Hopewell Baptist Church
GCS Project No. 08-6444
December 28, 2009
The proposed construction area should be stripped of all topsoil, organic material existing undocumented
fill and other soft or unsuitable material. Any resulting isolate excavations should be backfilled with
suitable fill material. Upon completion of these stripping operations, the exposed subgrade in areas to
receive fill should be proofrolled with a loaded dump truck or similar, pneumatic -tired vehicle having a
loaded weight of approximately 25 tons. After excavation, the exposed subgrades in cut areas should be
similarly proofrolled.
Proofrolling operations should be performed under the observation of a geotechnical engineer or his
authorized representative. The proofrolling should consist of two (2) complete passes of the exposed
areas, with each pass being in a direction perpendicular to the preceding one. Any areas which deflect, rut
or pump during the proofrolling, and fail to be remedied with successive passes, should be improved in
place or undercut to suitable soils and backfilled with compacted fill. Several boring locations displayed
soft CLAY and SILT profiles within the upper 3 feet. These soft CLAY and SILT soils are not anticipated
to pass a proofroll. ECS recommends establishing a contingency in the construction budget to improve
and/or remove and replae the upper 3 feet as needed.
ECS recommends that earthwork operations should be performed in the spring and summer months due to
the need of special drying conditions. The ability to dry wet soils, and therefore the ability to use them for
fill, will likely be reduced if earthwork is performed during spring or summer. If earthwork is performed
during winter or after appreciable rainfall then subgrades may be unstable due to wet soil conditions,
which could increase the amount of undercutting required. Drying of wet soils, if encountered, may be
accomplished by spreading and discing or by other mechanical or chemical means. We recommend a
shrinkage factor of 15 percent for calculating earthwork balances using site soils as fill.
6.2 Fill Material and Placement
The project fill should be soil that has less than five percent organic content and a liquid limit and
plasticity index less than 50 and 20, respectively. Soils with Unified Soil Classification System group
symbols of SP, SW, SM, SC, and ML are generally suitable for use as project fill. Soils with USCS group
symbol of CL that meet the restrictions for liquid limit and plasticity index are also suitable for use as
project fill. Soils with USCS group symbol of MH or CH (high plasticity soil) or corrosive soils are not
suitable for use as project fill.
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). We recommend that moisture control limits of -3 to +2
percent of the optimum moisture content be used for placement of project fill with the added requirement
that fill soils placed wet of optimum remain stable under heavy pneumatic -tired construction traffic.
During site grading, some moisture modification (drying and/or wetting) of the onsite soils will likely be
required. The onsite silty sands and sandy silts appear suitable for use as project fill.
Project fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density except
within 24 inches of finished soil subgrade elevation beneath slab -on -grade, foundations, and pavements.
Within the top 24 inches of finished soil subgrade elevation beneath shallow foundations, the approved
project fill should be compacted to at least 100 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density.
Aggregate base course (ABC) stone should be compacted to 100 percent of standard Proctor maximum
dry density. However, for isolated excavations around footing locations or within utility excavations, a
hand tamper will likely be required. ECS recommends that field density tests be performed on the fill as it

Report of Subsurface Exploration
Hopewell Baptist Church
Monroe, North Caroling
Page I I
Rev. Lee Pigg
Hopewell Baptist Church
ECS Prqject No. 08-6444
December 28, 2009
is being placed, at a frequency determined by an experienced geotechnical engineer, to verify that proper
compaction is achieved.
The maximum loose lift thickness depends upon the type of compaction equipment use. The table below
provides maximum loose lifts that may be placed based on compaction equipment utilized.
LIFT THICKNESS RECOMMENDATIONS
Equipment
Maximum Loose Lift
Thickness, in.
Large, Self -Propelled Equipment (CAT 815, etc.)
8
Small, Self -Propelled or Remote Controlled (Rammax, etc.)
6
Hand Operated (Plate Tamps, Jumping Jacks, Wacker -Packers)
4
ECS recommends that fill operations be observed and tested by an engineering technician to determine if
compaction requirements are being met. The testing agency should perform a sufficient number of tests to
confirm that compaction is being achieved. For mass grading operations we recommend a minimum of
one density per 300 cubic yards of fill placed or per 1 foot of fill thickness, whichever results in more
tests. When dry, the majority of the site soil should provide adequate subgrade support for fill placement
and construction operations. When wet, the soil may degrade quickly with disturbance from construction
traffic. Good site drainage should be maintained during earthwork operations to prevent ponding water on
exposed subgrades.
We recommend at least one test per 1 foot thickness of fill for every 100 linear ft of utility trench backfill.
Where fill will be placed on existing slopes, we recommend that benches be cut in the existing slope to
accept the new fill. All fill slopes should be overbuilt and then cut back to expose compacted material on
the slope face. While compacting adjacent to below -grade walls, heavy construction equipment should
maintain a horizontal distance of l(H):1(V). If this minimum distance cannot be maintained, the
compaction equipment should run perpendicular, not parallel to, the long axis of the wall.
6.3 Bellow Grade Excavation
Based on the results of our subsurface exploration, it appears that the onsite soils, within the depths of
the borings, may be excavated with conventional construction equipment. Although there can be
changes in the subsurface conditions over relatively short distances, problems associated with mass
grading of very dense soils are not anticipated for this project. However, the grading contractor
should be prepared for heavy excavation during utility installation where PWR is encountered near
surface.
We have generally found that materials that our soil drilling augers can penetrate can also be
excavated with a large backhoe or ripped with a dozer mounted ripper. Weathered rock or rock that
cannot be penetrated by the mechanical auger will normally require blasting to loosen it for removal. It
has been our experience that subsurface material with a Standard Penetration Resistance value of
50/6, 50/5, and 50/4 inches of penetration can likely be loosened and ripped using a D-8 dozer
equipped with a single -tooth ripper. For confined excavations, such material can be removed with a
John Deer 120C or equivalent excavator equipped with rock teeth. Subsurface material that exhibited
a Standard Penetration Resistance value of 50/3, 50/2, and 50/1 inches of penetration or less will
likely require blasting for removal.

Report of Subsurface Exploration Rev. Lee Pigg
Hopewell Baptist Church Hopewell Baptist Church
Monroe, North Carolina ECS Project No 08-6444
Page 12 December 28, 2009
6.4 Foundation Construction & Testing
Foundation excavations should be tested to confirm adequate bearing prior to installation of reinforcing
steel or placement of concrete. Unsuitable soils should be undercut to firm soils and the undercut
excavations should be backfilled with compacted controlled fill. Exposure to the environment may
weaken the soils at the footing bearing level if the foundation excavations remain open for too long a
time; therefore, foundation concrete should be placed the same day that foundations are excavated. If
the bearing soils are softened by surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must .be
removed from the foundation excavation bottom immediately prior to placement of concrete. If the
excavation must remain open overnight, or if rainfall becomes imminent while the bearing soils are
exposed, a I- to 3 -inch thick "mud mat" of "lean" concrete may be placed on the bearing surface to
protect the bearing soils. The mud mat should not be placed until the bearing soils have been tested
for adequate bearing capacity. Foundations undercut should be backfilled with engineered fill. If lean
concrete is placed within the undercut zone, the foundation footprint does not require oversizing.
However, if soil or ABC stone is used in lieu of lean concrete, the foundation footprint should be
oversized on a IV; I H scale.
We recommend testing all shallow foundations to confirm the presence of foundation materials
similar to those assumed in the design. We recommend the testing consist of hand auger borings with
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer testing performed by an engineer or engineering technician.

Report of Subsurface Exploration
Hopewell Baptist Church
Monroe, North Carolina
Page 13
7 GENERAL COMMENTS
Rev. Lee Pigg
Hopewell Baptist Church
ECS Project No. 08-6444
December 28, 2009
The borings perfonned at this site represent the subsurface conditions at the location of the borings only.
Due to the prevailing geology, changes in the subsurface conditions can occur over relatively short
distances that have not been disclosed by the results of the borings performed. Consequently, there may
be undisclosed subsurface conditions that require special treatment or additional preparation once these
conditions are revealed during construction.
Our evaluation of foundation support conditions has been based on our understanding of the site and
project information and the data obtained in our exploration. The general subsurface conditions utilized in
our foundation evaluation have been based on interpolation of subsurface data between and away from the
test holes. If the project information is incorrect or if the structure locations (horizontal or vertical) and/or
dimensions are changed, please contact us so that our recommendations can be reviewed. The discovery
of any site or subsurface conditions during construction which deviate from the data outlined in this
exploration should be reported to us for our evaluation. The assessment of site environmental conditions
for the presence of pollutants in the soil, rock, and ground water of the site was beyond the scope of this
exploration.

AW
it
.� C�
0 r1
ro
SITE
e
,,A
P �
—sem �•. 11
21
LEGEND:
N
. ECS E
Source: FIGURE 1 PROJ. MGR SCALE
JRA N T.S.
SITE LOCATION MAP DRAFTSMAN PROJECTNO.
www.MapQuest.com a KDO oa-6"4
6LP SITE
Baptist Church REVISIONS FIGURE
®�oQ Concord Highway and Old Dutch Road 1
SETTIHO THE Monroe, North Carolina DATE
STANUAf20
FOR SP-K%nCE 12-16-09

v
O
t�
r� 0
C. c
16 0
>+Z
O
L 0
16
Q �AM AIML
c�
s -
Yr
z
0
ECS REVISIONS
ENGINEER DRAFTING
JRA KDO
SCALE AS SHOWN
SCALE (IN FEET) LEGEND
75 150 11 PROJECT NO
$
Appr 08-6444
=
FIGURE 1
150 0
DATE 12-16-09

CLIENT
JOB #BORING
jj
SHEET
ADW Architects
6444
B-1
1 °F 1
���
Ii.IE.IP
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Hopewell Baptist Church
SITE LOCATION
-o-' CA�B�TTONS�FTETI�OMETER
Monroe, North Carolina
1 2 3 4 5+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
L[MTr R CONTENT 2 LIMIT X
X-- ------- 1-----------�
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION &RECOVERY
zDESCRIPTION
OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
z
c
>•
z
BOTTOM OF CASING �- LOSS OF CIRCULATION tOD% F
RQD�— ^ ^ REC.K
20%-40%60% 80%100%
E_
m
a
X
W
en
az
N
a
a
F wSTANDARD
SURFACE ELEVATION
525.0
PENETRATION
®BLOWS/FT.
10 20 30 40 50+
0
Topsoil Depth 7"
(s a -s}
I
SS
18
17
RESIDUAL – Stiff, Light Brown,
Clayey SILT, Moist, (ML)
84
Very Hard and Hard, Light
2
SS
18
18
Brown, Fine Sandy SILT, Moist,
520
5
(ML)
49
3
SS
18118
(22-33-29) 62
4
$$
18
IS
1
515
Very Hard, Light Brown, Fine
Sandy SILT with Clay, Moist,
;
5
SS
18
18
(ML)
(29-33-40 74
15
510
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK –
Sampled as Light Brown, Silty
(sD/s} 50
Fine SAND with Rock Fragments_,
Moist, (PWR) 505
20
END OF BORING 0 18.8'
25
500
30
—
—
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
7WG DRY WS OR ®
BORING STARTED 12/10/09
pgHCR) YWL{ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 12/10/09
CAVE IN DEPTH ® 13,4.'
Y.WL
RIG D50T FOREMAN JC
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING #
SHEET
ADW Architects
6444
B-2
1 OF t
hcs
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
SLP
Hopewell Baptist Church
CAFiOLT h1AS
SITE LOCATION
O- CAUBRATTONS/FT. METER
Monroe, North Carolina
1 2 3 4 5+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT x CONTENT R LIMIT x
X---------&---------
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS c
F
z
i✓
a
m
BOTTOM OF CASING W- LOSS OF CIRCULATION 100% F
ROD% -- - RECX
20%40%-6O%8O% 100%
w
a
o
W
c"F
m
a
a
N
m
o
w
SURFACE ELEVATION a ,.,
524.0
® STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT.
10 20 3D 4D 50+
Topsoil Depth 9"
1
SS
18
18
RESIDUAL — Medium Stiff, Light
Brown, Clayey SILT, Moist, (CL)
Medium Dense, Light Brown, 520
23;'. (11-12-1i)
2
SS
18
16
Silty Fine SAND with Rock
5
Fragments, Moist, (SM)
Hard, Light Brown, Fine Sandy
{3-13-z°) 33:
3
SS
18
17
SILT with Clay, Moist, (ML)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK — 515
9-sD/s} 40
4
SS
10
10
Sampled as Light Brown, Silty
1
Fine SAND with Rock Fragments,
Moist, (PWR)
sz-
510
. 30
15
505
50
, iF
END OF BORING 18.7'
20
500
25
495
0
30--
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPRDXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
THE
QwL DRY WS OR (D
BORING STARTED 12/11/09
TWL(BCR) YWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 12/11 /09
CAVE IN DEPTH 0 13.4'
!ZWL
RIG D50T FOREMAN ,JC
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING
SHEET
ADW Architects
6444
B--3
1 OF 1
=v LLP
.
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Hopewell Baptist Church
op►izo�,Ns�►s
SITE LOCATION
-�- CALIBRATED PENETPMETER
TONS/Fr.
Monroe, North Carolina
1 2 3 4 6+
PLASTIC RATER LIQUID
LIMIT x CONTENT x LIMIT x
X---------W---------n
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION &RECOVERY
2
.r
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS {
r
c
z
a
N
o
r
a
ra
z
BOTTOM OF CASING W - LOSS OF CIRCULATION 100% H209:-40%fi0V.--$0%100%
RQDX— — — RECX
w
a
vdi
aSTANDARD
con
v4i
a
a d
SURFACE ELEVATION 524.0 ri
PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT.
10 20 30 40 60+
0
Topsoil Depth S"
,
2 (z -L -i)
1
SS
18
12
RESIDUAL — Very Stiff, Light
Brown, Silty CLAY, Moist, (CL)
520
412-15 30
2
SS
18
16
Medium Dense, Light Brown,
Silty Fine SAND, Moist, (SM)
5
Stiff, Light Brown, Clayey
,
3
SS
18
17
SILT, Moist, (ML)
9 (4=4-5)
Dense, Light Brown, Silt Fine
515
4
SS
18
18
SAND with Clay, Moist, r;�SM)
(3-154 35
1
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK --
.
Sampled as Light Brown, Silty
50
(50/6).6
Fine SAND with Rock Fragments,
510
Moist, (PWR)
15
;
Dense, Light Brown, Silty Fine
SAND with Rock Fragments,
6
SS
18
IS
Moist, (SM)
505
(L2-l3-zD) 33
20
END OF BORING ® 20.0'
500
25
495
30
—1—
THE STRATIFICATIIIN LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
Y WL D RY WS OR (D
BORING STARTED 12/10/09
!Zn(BCR) IWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 12/10/09
CAVE IN DEPTH ® 14.9'
wr,
RIG D50T FOREMAN JC
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
ADW Architects
30B #
6444
BORING #
B-4
SHEET
1 OF 1
_
1ENLIP
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Hopewell Baptist Church
�•o•-�K�s
SITE LOCATION
-0- CALIBRATEroNB`. zOMFTM
Monroe, North Carolina
1 z 3 4 s+
j
PLAS'T'IC WATER LIQUID
I
LIMIT X CONTENT 7. LIMIT Z
-
X -----^-^- -----------n
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
o
_
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION 100%
�'
o
ROD%w
0Y,4 o _ ARE 8
20Y-40� 60.6 80%_ 100
E•
w
o
W
a
m
a
y
K
>
o
a
x E,
w
® STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT.
10 zo 3 40 50+
SURFACE ELEVATION
525.0
0—Topsoil
Depth 8"
1
SS
18
18
RESIDUAL – Soft, Light Brown,
Silty CLAY, Moist, (CL)
111-520
2
SS
18
18
Stiff, Light Brown, Clayey
SILT, Moist, (ML)
5
Very Dense, Light Brown, Silty
T.
3
SS
18
18
Fine SAND, Moist, (SM)
(A-35-3 74
Very Dense, Light Brown, Silty
4
SS
18
18
Fine SAND with Clay and Rock
(30-44-34)' 78
1
Fragments, Moist, (SM)
515
Very Dense, Light Brown, Silty
Fine SAND with Rock Fragments,
5
SS
18
17
Moist, (SM)
(z6-34-34 68
15
510
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK –
Sampled as Gray, Silty Fine
50
SAND with Rock Fragments,
20
Moist, (PWR)
505
END OF BORING ® 18.8'
25
500
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
QwL DRY Ws OR ®
BORING STARTED 12/11/09
YWL(BCR) !fWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 12/11/09
CAVE IN DEPTH` 0 13.4'
TWL
RIG D50T FOREMAN JC
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
ADW Architects
JOB g
6444
BORING
B-5
SHEET
1 OF t
����
LLP
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Hopewell Baptist Church
M=1:n 1rrras
SITE LOCATION
Monroe, North Carolina
=-(>-CAUBRATEDNS/Elm t-OMETER
2 3 4 5+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT % CONTENT x LIMIT x
X-------- ---------A
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
RQD%— — -- REC.%
2096-40%-60°/s --80°6-100%
® STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT.
10 20 30 40 50+
W
aCL
z
tQi,
a
i~
.wa
v6i
c
ai
Y
>
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS ,fir 9
z
BOTTOM OF CASING &--- LOSS OF CIRCULATION 100%
a
m
SURFACE ELEVATION 524.0 caa
0—Topsoil
Depth 9"
8 CWDy 3-5)
1
SS
18
i8
RESIDUAL — Medium Stiff, Light
Brown, Clayey SILT, Moist, (ML)
6
520
.2g �io�13-15)
2
SS
18
18
Dense, Light Brown, Silty Fine
SAND with Clay and Rock
Fragments, Moist, (SM)
(iU-12-20) 32:
3
SS
18
18
zo 32-40) 72
-
Very Dense, Light Brown, Silty
Fine SAND, Moist, (SM) 515
4
SS
i8
18
1
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK —
15
Sampled as Light Brown and
Gray, Silty Fine SAND with Rock 510
Fragments, Moist, (PWR)
" 50
= (50/3):
505
(�/a). SD
4
20
END OF BORING @ 18.8'
500
25-
4951
30
—
—
THE STRATIFICATIGN LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN S131L TYPES IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
QWL DRY Ws OR ®
BORING STARTED 12/10/09
YWL(BCR) IWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 12/10/09
CAVE IN DEPTH ® i3,4'
AWL
RIG D50T FOREMAN JC
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
ADW Architects
JOB #
6444
BORING #
1 B-6
SHEET97
1 OF 1M7LLP
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Hopewell Baptist Church
CAFLOLIN,Q.S
SITE LOCATION
-O- CALIBRATED PENS 4OMETER
7ONs3
Monroe, North Carolina
I 2 4 5+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
UMIT Z CONTENT V. LIMIT 7.
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION &RECOVERY
2
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS P
w
0.
z
w
a
z
BOTTOM OF CASING W-- LOSS OF CIRCULATION 100% B
RQDX— -- •-- REC.%
—20V, -4O% -60X -80%_1O0%_
a
a
C
aCL
in
m
o
a
® STANDARD PENETRATION
HLOWS/FT.
10 20 30 40 50+
SURFACE ELEVATION
525.0 w
O
Topsoil Depth 9"
I
SS
18
18
RESIDUAL — Soft, Light Brown,
4: (2-2-21
Clayey SILT, Moist, (ML)
Stiff, Light Brown, Clayey
SILT, Moist, (ML)
5 (4-5-I'
2
SS
18
18
5
520
Very Dense, Light Brown, Silty
3SS
18
18
Fine SAND with Rock Fragments,
(az-3r4H, 77
Moist, (SM)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK —
50
(45-50/5).
4
S5
1111
Sampled as Light Brown and
1
Gray, Silty Fine SAND with Rock 515
Fragments, Moist, (PWR)
(50/3). 5U
3
i5
510
(50/2). 50
20
END OF BORING @ 18.7' 505
25
500
30
—
—
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
VWL DRY WS OR ®
BORING STARTED 12/10/09
TWL(BCR) ZWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 12/10/09
CAVE IN DEPTH 0 13.3'
OWL
RIG D50T FOREMAN JC
DRILIING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
ADW Architects
JOB # BORING # SHEET
6444 B-7 1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT-ENGINEERLL.iP
Hopewell Baptist Church
c.�Pzc,��lvras
SITE LOCATION
�- CALIBRATED PENETROMETER
TONS/FT.
Monroe, North Carolina
1 2 3 4 5+
PLASTIC NATER LIQUID
LIMIT X CONTENT X LIMIT X
X---------6-----------0
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION &RECOVERY
z
.r
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
z
z
BOTTOM OF CASING ®-- LOSS OF CIRCULATION 100% ` 0
ROD%— -- — REC.%
20V-40%-60%-80% 100%
13.
ra
R
a
y
0.
N10
C
a
A-' 4
SURFACE ELEVATION
524.0 "
® STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/Fr.
20 30 40 50+
O
Topsoil Depth 7"
1
SS
18
14
RESIDUAL — Medium Stiff, Light
7 (34.4)
Brown, Clayey SILT with Rock
Fragments, Moist, (ML)
_
2
SS
18
18
520
Medium Dense, Light Brown,
19 (10;9-10)
5
Silty Fine SAND with Rock
Fragments, Moist, (SM)
3
SS
18
i$
7 (5-7-10)
Very Stiff, Light Brown, Fine
Sandy SILT with Clay, Moist,
(ML) 51S
(,,,"y_za-35 55
4
SS
18
18
1
Very Dense, Light Brown, Silty
Fine SAND with Rock Fragments,
Moist, (SM)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK —
Sampled as Light Brown and s70
(50/6). 58
Gray, Silty Fine SAND with Rock
15
Fragments, Moist, (PWR)
50s
(50/2):
END OF BORING @ 18.7'
20
500
25
495
30--
0
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
THE
QWL DRY WS OR ®
BORING STARTED 12/10/09
!gWL(BCR) ZWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 12/10/09
CAVE IN DEPTH ®
TWL
RIG D50T FOREMAN ,JC
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
ADW Architects
JOB #
6444
BORING #
1 B-8
SHEET
1 OF i
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT—ENGINEER
Hopewell Baptist Church
c.arxoar_�rr<rxs
SITE LOCATION
-O- CALIBRATEDPENT METER
TONSI
Monroe, North Carolina
1 z 3 4 5+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT R CONTENT Z LIMIT 7.
X---------*-----------0
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
z
,r
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION I GO% w
�
o RE
2RQD% — -^^07x--40�-6D.G80o .
� 1D09'
a
oQi
vi
m
a
Fic
SURFACE ELEVATION 524.0
® STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/Fr.
10 20 30 40 50+
Topsoil Depth 9"
;
1
SS
18
18
RESIDUAL — Soft, Light Brown,
3.(2-I-2)
Clayey SILT, Moist, (ML)
520
(y )
2
SS
18
18
Stiff, Light Brown, Fine Sandy
SILT with Clay, Moist, (ML)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK —
50
3
SS
16
16
Sampled as Light Brown and
(6,27-50 a 4
Gray, Silty Fine SAND with Rock
:
Fragments, Moist, (PWR)
50
515
(50/3), _7
1
510
tso/a) 40
15
505
50
END OF BORING C 18.7'
20
500
25
495
0
30--
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
THE
Pf- DRY WS OR ®
BORING STARTED 12/10/09
YWL(BCR) IWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 12/10/09
CAVE IN DEPTH 0 13.2'
TWL
RIG D50T FOREMAN JC
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING #
1
SHEET��
ADW Architects
6444
B-9
i °F 1
toll.LP
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
4=1^Rc3.1L1NAs
Hopewell Baptist Church
SITE LOCATION
-a- CALiBRATEToNS/� PENETROMETER
Monroe, North Carolina
1 2 3 4 5+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT 7 CONTENT X LIMIT X
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION &RECOVERY
SDESCRIPTION
OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
z
nm
H
9
c
a
z
BOTTOM OF CASING.- LOSS OF CIRCULATION 100% F
ROD%— — — REC.%
209'-40%-6096-80 b tOD9I
0
m
a..
m
a
x
ti
a
H
m
�
x
F w
SURFACE ELEVATION
524.0
® STANDARD PENETRATION
SLOWS FG
�
10 ED 30 40 50+
0
Topsoil Depth 10"
1
SS
18
13RESIDUAL
— Very Soft, Light
2 (2-1-1) ' ;
Brown, Silty CLAY, Moist, (CL)
Stiff, Light Brown, Fine Sandy 520
10 (4�4-5
2
SS
18
15
SILT with Clay, Moist, (ML)
5
Dense, Light Brown, Silty Fine
3
SS
18
18
SAND, Moist, (SM)
• (IT -21-14 35
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK — 515
(W/s), 6
Sampled as Light Brown, Silty
10
Fine SAND, Moist, (PWR)
510)
(50/4 4
15
S05
(50/2).
END OF BORING ® 18.7'
20
500
25-
495
30
—
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
VwL DRY WS OR ®
BORING STARTED 12/10/09
tEWL(BCR) IWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 12/10/09
CAVE IN DEPTH ® 14,0'
�WL
RIG D50T FOREMAN JC
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING #
SHEET
ADW Architects
6444
1 B-10
1 OF 1
hrm
LLP
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Hopewell Baptist Church
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATTDNP NEET%OMETER
Monroe, North Carolina
1 2 3 4 5+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT X CONTENT x LIMIT X
QUALITY DESIGNATION &RECOVERY
v
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNIT5 2
o
z
EaROCK
!
F
m
`a
v
}z
z
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION 100% g
� x a
RQD%— — — REC.%
20%40%-60% 80Y1r100%
a
o
�
a
�
a
n�
CQ
o
L)
® STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/Fr.
SURFACE ELEVATION w
529.0 w
0
10 20 30 40 50+
Topsoil Depth 7"
1
SS
18
17
RESIDUAL — Medium Dense to
23'(7-tt-1z)
Dense, Light Brown, Silty Fine
SAND, Moist, (SM)
2
SS
18
17
525
(7-15721) 16
51:14—
Very Dense, Light Brown, Silty
3
SS
18
18
Fine SAND, Moist, (SM)
(zl-z5-so) 85
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK —
50
4
SS
10
10
Sampled as Light Brown, Silty 520
(37-50/4) 4
1
Fine SAND, Moist, (PWR)
END OF BORING ® 9.3'
:
515
15
510
20—
-505
25-
5001
30
—
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
7WL DRY WS OR ®
BORING STARTED 12/11/09
TWVBCR) IWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 12/11/09
CAVE IN DEPTH 0 6.2'
TWL
RIG D50T FOREMAN JC
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
ADW Architects
JOB #
6444
BORING #
B-11
SHEET
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Hopewell Baptist Church
�ggR��w�.s
SITE LOCATION
-O- CALIBRATEDME IOMETER
Monroe, North Carolina
1 2 3 4 s+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT Z CONTENT 7. LIMIT 7.
QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
sROCK
F
z
r~
a
a
BOTTOM OF CASING &— LOSS OF CIRCULATION t00X
F
ROD% — — REC.%
20%40%-60%80 10O%
a
a
a
N
o
a
w
® STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/Fr.
10 20 30 40 50+
SURFACE ELEVATION
525.0
O
Topsoil Depth 9 "
I
SS
18
IS
RESIDUAL — Very Stiff, Light
Brown, Fine Sandy Clayey SILT
with Rock Fragments, Moist,
:
2
SS
18
17
(ML)
2 (3-4-B)
5
520
Very Dense, Light Brown, Silty
3
SS
18
18
Fine SAND with Rock Fragments,
(Ig -2B -3s' 64
Moist, (SM)
(I¢ -3z-50) 82
4
SS
18
17
1
515
END OF BORING CSA 10.0'
15
510
20
505
25
500
30
—
—
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SGIL TYPES [N -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
CWL DRY ws oft ®
BORING STARTED 12/11/09
TWL(SCR) ZWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 12/11/09
CAVE IN DEPTH ® 6.6'
OWL
RIG D50T FOREMAN JC
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING #
SHEET
ADW Architects
6444
1 B-12
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT-ENGINEERj,(��S
Hopewell Baptist Church
c.arxoe ori.as
SITE LOCATION
-O- CALIBRATED PVIETON f OMETER
Monroe, North Carolina
1 2 3 4 5+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT X CONTENT X LIMIT x
z
v
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS 9
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION &RECOVERY
F
z
F
�
a
>z
BOTTOM OF CASING ®— LOSS OF CIRCULATION LOOX `� F
4' d
ROD%— — — REC.Y
20%-40%-60%80%100%
�-
h7
ffl
47
® STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT.
SURFACE ELEVATION w
521.0
00
R
10 20 30 40 50+
QV3
Topsoil Depth 10
520
1
SS
18
18
RESIDUAL – Medium Stiff to
6 (2-3 3)
Stiff, Light Brown, Fine Sandy
Silty CLAY, Moist, (CL)
2
SS
1B
18
12 (s-4-8) '
5
Dense, Light Brown, Silty Fine 515
3
SS
18
iB
SAND with Rock Fragments,
(z4-2i-ls) 36
Moist, (SM)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK –
(I7-so/s), 5
4
SS
11
11
Sampled as Light Brown, Silty
1
Fine SAND with Rock Fragments,
Moist, (PWR) 510
END OF BORING ® 9.4'
15
: •
505
20—
-500
25
495
30
—
—
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPRQXIHATE BGUNBARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
QWL DRY WS OR ®
BORING STARTED 12/11/09
TWL(BCR) !gWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 12/11/09
CAVE IN DEPTH 06.4
�ZWL
RIG D50T FOREMAN JC
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
ADW Architects
309 #
6444
BORING #
1 B-13
SHEET
1 OF 1
_
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT-ENGINEERj„(
p
Hopewell Baptist Church
CARR?LIATAS
SITE LOCATION
-o- CALiBRATITONS/FT, I4OMETER
Monroe, North Carolina
I 2 3 4 s+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT X CONTENT X LIMIT X
---------A
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
z
v
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
z
W
F
r
z
BOTTOM OF CASING IHSS OF CIRCULATION 1OOX
♦
e
ROD% — — RECX
207e-- 4036-60/6-80%10096
Ed
m
E
�
a
U
a
x
® STANDARDN£tRAT[ON
SURFACE ELEVATION 526.0
ai
ran
10 20 30 40 50+
0
Topsoil Depth 9"
525
1
SS
18
12
RESIDUAL — Soft, Light Brown,
3 (1-2-I)
Silty CLAY, Moist, (CL)
(a -Ii -1s)
2
SS
t8
t5
Medium Dense to Dense, Light?
Brown, Silty Fine SAND, Moist,
5
(SM)
520
3
SS
18
18
(I3-z2-zz) 44
Very Dense, Light Brown, STIty
4
SS
18
18
Fine SAND, Moist, (SM)
(ti3-3a-3D), 61
1
.
END OF BORING C 10.0' 515
15
s10
20
505
25—
-500
30—
0
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
THE
VWL DRY WS OR ®
BORING STARTED 12/11/09
TWL(BCR) .LWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 12/11/09
CAVE IN DEPTH 0 6,7'
�ZWL
RIG D50T FOREMAN JG
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING #
SHEET
1
ADW Architects
6444
8-14
1 of 1
MILLP,
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Hopewell Baptist Church
SITE LOCATION
•--0" CALIBRATED PENETIj`OMETEB
TONS/FT.
Monroe, North Carolina
1 2 4 5+
PLASTIC NATER LIQUID
MMTP x CONTENT 7 LIMIT V.
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS m
d (L
z
a
' z
Borrom OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION o
F
x a
ROD%— — — REC.%
20%'-40%-60%80%10Oy
a
m w w
w a a o
r¢ a
18 STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT.
10 20 30 40 50+
SURFACE ELEVATION
524.0 z¢ w
O
Topsoil Depth 9 "
I SS 18 18
RESIDUAL — Stiff, Light Brown,
9 (2-:4-e)
Fine Sandy Clayey SILT, Moist,
(ML)
2 SS I8 15
}lard, Light Brown, Fine Sandy 520
(5-6-�9) 35
5
Clayey SILT with Rock
Fragments, Moist, (ML)
(/6)• .5�0.
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK —
Sampled as Light Brown, Silty
Fine SAND with Rock Fragments,515
(50/5)* 50
Moist, (PWR)
10
END OF BORING 0 8.9'
s10
-
15
_ 505
20—
-500
25
'
495
0
30--
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
THE
QwL DRY WS OR 0
BORING STARTED 12/11/09
VWL(BCR) TWE(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 12/11/09.
CAVE IN DEPTH ® 6,5'
�ZWL
RIG D50T FOREMAN JC
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
ADW Architects
JOB #
6444
BORING #
1 B-15
SHEET
1 OF 1
�I
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT—ENGINEER
�LLP
Hopewell Baptist Church
c.asxo�llrr�s
SITE LOCATION
-O- CALIBRATED PENqOMETER
T0N53
Monroe, North Carolina
1 2 4 5+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT X CONTENT R LIMIT 9.
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION do RECOVERY
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
a�
w
a.
c
w
z
BOTTODI OF CASING ®-- LOSS OF CIRCULATION ]o0x a
ROD%— — — REC.%
20%40%-60% 80% 1O0%
aM
ra
a.SURFACE
y
® STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT.
10 20 30 40 50+
ELEVATION
515.0ra
0
„
Topsoil Depth 10
I SS 18
14
RESIDUAL — Very Soft, Light
2
Brown, Silty CLAY with Rock
Fragments, Moist, (CL)
2 SS 18
17
Stiff, Light Brown, Silty CLAY,
5
Moist, (CL) 510
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK —
(26-50 5
3 SS 11
11
Sampled as Light Brown, Fine
with Rock Fragments,
)
: (so/zs) 50
1
WEATHERED ROCK — 505
LFineSAND
Light Brown, Silty
with Rock Fragments,)
END OF BORING @0 8.7'
15
500
20
495
25
490
30
—1—
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IN—SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
QwL DRY WS OR 40
BORING STARTED 12/11/09
TWL(BCR) IWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 12/11/09
CAVE IN DEPTH ® 6.3'
TWL
RIG D50T FOREMAN J(±
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
JOB # BORING # SHEET
ADW Architects
644.4 1 B-16 1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
t2SLLP
Hopewell Baptist Church
C_^FzC>a_1"ALS
SITE LOCATION
-0- CALIBRATED PENETI}-OMETER
TONs3
Monroe, North Carolina
1 2 4 s+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT % CONTENT x LIMIT %
R -* -d
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
m
ri
z
a
IS
"
a
BOTTOM OF CASING W- LOSS OF CIRCULATION toO%
F
ROD% — — REC.%
2056--40%-609-80%_100%
m
m
cu
Da
a a
e
¢ w
g STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT.
10 20 30 40 50+
SURFACE ELEVATION
525.0
Topsoil Depth 7-
I
SS
18
14
FILL - Very Soft, Red and
(1-'-z)
Brown, Silty CLAY with Rock
1-
Fragments, Moist, (FILL)
2
SS
18
18
k6 (+-aaz)
FILL - Stiff, Red and Brown,
5
Fine Sandy SILT with Rock
520
Fragments, Moist, (FILL)
3
SS
18
18
22 (n-11-111
RESIDUAL - Very Stiff, Light
Brown, Silty Fine SAND with
Rock Fragments, Moist, (SM)
4
SS
i8
18
23(+-10-13)
L
515
END OF BORING Ca 10.0'
15
510
20
505
25
500
30
—1—
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
PL DRY WS OR ®
BORING STARTED 12/11/09
TWL(BCR) IWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 12/11/09
CAVE IN DEPTH
TWL
RIG D50T FOREMAN JC
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING #
SHEET
�
ADW Architects
6444
8-17
1 OF 1
�
LLP
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT—ENGINEER
Hopewell Baptist Church
4=10CkROt_1"AS
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATTONS rr. -METER
Monroe, North Carolina
1 2 3 4 5+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT X CONTENT X UNIT %
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION &RECOVERY
T
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS o
z
a
BOTTOM OF CASING NO—LOSSOF CIRCUTATION 100% a
° REC.9:
20%/ 40%-60 6 80%100Y
a
n
tan
Ed
tan
a
STANDARD PENETRATION
® BLOWS/Ff.
10 20 30 40 50+
SURFACE ELEVATION 527.0
0
Topsoil Depth 7"
I
SS
18
16
RESIDUAL — Stiff, Light Brown, 525
(2 4-6)
Fine Sandy Clayey SILT, Moist,
(ML)
(50 30
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK —
5
Sampled as Light Brown, Silty
Fine SAND with Rock Fragments,
(�s_5D/s). ,500
3
SS
it
11
Most, (PWR) 520
(40-50/5): 5
4
SS
11
11
OF BORING 0 9.4'
10-
-END
515
15—
-510
20-
505
25
.
500
30
—
--
LJ
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IN-SITU THE TRANS17ION MAY BE GRADUAL
7WL DRY WS OR Q
BORING STARTED 12/11/09
�ZWL(BCR) IWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 12/11/09
CAVE IN DEPTH 0 5,8'
S' WL
RIG D50T FOREMAN JC
DRILLING METHOD }ISA

a)
c D
3 co
�m
m
Q
CD
�m�����������W���
o
JO.0
P
W N.
Ob00J
Q�(JiA
t'aN
W
c
In
N
t.A yr
N
In
N•N
Ut t./r
N
l./r
N
Ut
N
Ut
t.h (h
In U
N
to
Vt
H
< G
J
to to
AOlf
•--.
to
\OAA?NAN
AAto
LA
N
to In
N •-'
In
N
1 to
N N
to
N
In
N
H
N
to [n
N N
Ut to
N N
N
N
In
N
to
N
In
N
R. S 0
J
In to
J
J to
Vr
10
Qo
00 00
w W
m
00
w
00
y�
y
o
in
U
to
Go 0,
N
to
oa
to
u,
N
M
r'O�t
to
O
.�.•totr�Ny•�rsNtncntnhyi
Vr
P. mac^+
CA
O
rn
_
00
f9
SN
a,
O
maa�
x �
av
m�
o
a
7 �
a% C
VI
to
LAOOt
U
In
'-'r
lr
U
U to
to to
toIn
CD
u,
�. ^
J
to
t0�
tpir tOirrn�rn
N
A
1-3
W
N
j O
M
d
CD
M
r
O
4) m
C]
V.
01
01
6i Ot
�
Ol
W W
W W
W
A
W
W
0
o (<
rn O.
0o
r W'vrJ
A�NAN:-.
4W .PAa?A
O�
iy ,� d
't9 �
t/r
Vr
W
N_
to to
N
Gn
N
to
In Ut
In
In
lr
In
to
p O t9
nl
Ju,rnAoo
J
w ?
W
Ocob
OOY
O`y-'
JO.
Ot
•�•O,rn
o
� [Co G
� � 7
a)
c D
3 co
�m
m
Q
CD

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2487)
Major Divisions
Group
Typical Names
Laboratory Classification Criteria
Svmbols
Well -graded gravels, gravel -
N
GW
sand mixtures, little or no
C = D60/Dio greater than 4
6 c
fines
o
C' _ (D30f/(DioxD6o) between 1 and 3
O
oPoorly
c
graded gravels,
0 N
v
GP
gravel -sand mixtures, little or
m
Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
ai
v
no fines
°1
a�
N N
N
Q7
N
!� M N
O U
O
U
U)
»- o
2
o
N C
d
N
ai
m
g
GMa
Silty gravels, gravel -sand
v,
Atterberg limits below "A" line
-a
matures
or P.I. less than 4
Above line
i7
N
tai
3
u
N A
betweenA4 and are
a, P
`—°
N a ,�
m o N
borderline cases requiring
Z
o.
� u
� .o
use of dual symbols
S. m
N «
g
m Q
O c
Clayey gravels, gravel -sand-
a) O E
N Z �'
-d
Atterberg limits below "A" line
c
¢
GC
clay mixtures
or P 1. less than 7
�a
2
�'
SW
Well -graded sands, gravelly
o N �
Cu = D60/D10 greater than 6
o
o
c o
sands, little or no fines
a>
C. = (D3o)z/(DioxD6o) between 1 and 3
V
m
N `p y
j 0 ' U N
graded sands, gravelly
Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW
O a)
m N
al • � =
v J
D1 N
o ER � N
M
'k:Poorly
a>
SP
sands, little or no fines
c� iv
m
m4 v
n o
o
0
o 0 �(9mo
0
co
'mac
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures
m °?
Atterberg limits above "A" line
wSMa
w E
c'i
c P m
or P.I. less than 4
Limits plotting in CL -ML
Lw
u
Q- m a o
zone with P.I. between 4
E
o o 2
and 7 are borderline
0 o
?
nv
C
O
o a o 0
C .0 N d
N M
cases requiring use of
dual symbols
V) o.
a
SC
Clayey sands, sand -clay
E a m E Z N
8 o o w v o
Atterberg limits above "A" line
mixtures
0 o m J n
with P I greater than 7
Inorganic silts and very fine
ML
sands, rock flour, silty or
Plasticity Chart
Nclayey
fine sands, or clayey
m
silts with slight Plasticity
>
L) N
I 60 I
Inorganic clays of low to
05`
Co ~
E
CL
medium plasticity, gravelly
I
0
0
w
Co
= a
clays, sandy clays, silty clays,
lean clays
50
Organic silts and organic silty
Z
OL
clays of low plasticity40
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
Cl,
MH
diatomaceous fine sandy or
j
c
soils, elastic silts30NInorganic
KI
Nsilty
clays of high
° 20iCH
JE
fat claysE
_plasticity,
�10
OhlOrganic
clays of medium toy1L
z
high plasticity, organic silts
0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
:E c u,
�, M o
Pt
Peat and other highly organic
Li uid Limit
I G
_ 0 wsods
i
a Division of GM and SM groups into subdivisions of d and u are for roads and airfields only. Subdivision is based on Atterberg limits; suffix d used when
L.L. is 28 or less and the P i is 6 or less; the suffix u used when L.L. is greater than 28
b Borderline classifications, used for soils possessing characteristics of two groups, are designated by combinations of group symbols. For example
GW-GC,well-graded gravel -sand mixture with clay binder. (From Table 2.16 - Winterkorn and Fang, 1975)

REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS
Drilling Sampling Symbols
SS
Split Spoon Sampler
ST
Shelby Tube Sampler
RC
Rock Core, NX, BX, AX
PM
Pressuremeter
DC
Dutch Cone Penetrometer
RD
Rock Bit Drilling
BS
Bulk Sample of Cuttings
PA
Power Auger (no sample)
HSA
Hollow Stem Auger
WS
Wash sample
REG
Rock Sample Recovery %
RQD
Rock Quality Designation %
Correlation of Penetration Resistances to Soil Properties
Standard Penetration (blows/ft) refers to the blows per foot of a 140 lb, hammer falling 30
inches on a 2 -inch OD split -spoon sampler, as specified in ASTM D 1586. The blow count is
commonly referred to as the N -value.
A. Non -Cohesive Soils (Silt, Sand, Gravel and Combinations)
Density Relative Properties
Under 4 blows/ft Very Loose Adjective Form 12% to 49%
5 to 10 blows/ft Loose With 5% to 12%
11 to 30 blows/ft Medium Dense
31 to 50 blows/ft Dense
Over 51 blows/ft Very Dense
B. Cohesive Soils (Clay, Silt, and Combinations)
Particle Size Identification
Boulders
Plasticity
8 inches or larger
Cobbles
Comp. Strength
3 to 8 inches
Gravel
Coarse
1 to 3 inches
QP (tso
Medium
'/2 to 1 inch
Under 2
Fine
%to'/ inch
Sand
Coarse
2.00 mm to % inch (dia. of lead pencil)
Soft
Medium
0.42 to 2.00 mm (dia. of broom straw)
5-7
Fine
0.074 to 0.42 mm (dia. of human hair)
Silt and Clay
Medium
0.0 to 0.074 mm articles cannot be seen
B. Cohesive Soils (Clay, Silt, and Combinations)
111. Water Level Measurement Symbols
WL Water Level BCR Before Casing Removal DCI Dry Cave -In
WS While Sampling ACR After Casing Removal WCl Wet Cave -In
WD While Drilling V Est. Groundwater Level ® Est. Seasonal High GWT
The 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 a granular
soil. In clay and plastic silts, the accurate determination of water levels may require several days for
the water level to stabilize. In such cases, additional methods of measurement are generally applied.
Unconfined
Degree of
Plasticity
Blowslft
Consistency
Comp. Strength
Plasticity
Index
QP (tso
Under 2
Very Soft
Under 0.25
None to slight
0-4
3 to 4
Soft
0.25-0.49
Slight
5-7
5 to 8
Medium Stiff
0.50-0.99
Medium
8-22
9 to 15
Stiff
1.00-1.99
High to Very High
Over 22
16 to 30
Very Stiff
2.00-3.00
31 to 50
Hard
4.00-8.00
Over 51
Very Hard
Over 8.00
111. Water Level Measurement Symbols
WL Water Level BCR Before Casing Removal DCI Dry Cave -In
WS While Sampling ACR After Casing Removal WCl Wet Cave -In
WD While Drilling V Est. Groundwater Level ® Est. Seasonal High GWT
The 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 a granular
soil. In clay and plastic silts, the accurate determination of water levels may require several days for
the water level to stabilize. In such cases, additional methods of measurement are generally applied.

r—geolechnicol Engineering Report—)
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the spe-
cific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study con-
ducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construc-
tion contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geot-
echnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engi-
neering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one
except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report
without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who pre-
pared it. And no one—not even you—should apply the report for
any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on
A Unique Set of Project Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -spe-
cific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors
include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management pref-
erences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and
configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other
planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads,
parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical
engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates other-
wise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
• not prepared for you,
• not prepared for your project,
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing
geotechnical engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when
it's changed from a parking garage to an office
building, or from a light industrial plant to a
refrigerated warehouse,
• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or
weight of the proposed structure;
• composition of the design team, or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer
of project changes—even minor ones—and request an
assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot
accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur
because their reports do not consider developments of which
they were not informed.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that
existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a
geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have
been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events,
such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural
events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-
tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before apply-
ing the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount
of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are
Professional Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those
points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are
taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data
and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion
about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sub-
surface conditions may differ --sometimes significantly --from
those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engi-
neer who developed your report to provide construction obser-
vation is the most effective method of managing the risks asso-
ciated with unanticipated conditions.

A Report's Recommendations Are Not final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations Included
In your report. Those recommendations are not final, because
geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment
and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recom-
mendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions
revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who
developed your report cannot assume responsibility or lability for
the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform
construction observation.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject
To Misinterpretation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower
that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with
appropriate members of the design team after submitting the
report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications.
Contractois can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering
report Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer
participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by
providing construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs
based upon their Interpretation of field logs and laboratory
data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a
geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for
inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photo-
graphic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Contractors a Complete
Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they
can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface condi-
tions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help
prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotech-
nical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written let-
ter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report
was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the
report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the
geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee
may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain
the specific types of Information they need or prefer, A prebld
conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have suffi-
cient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in
a position to give contractors the best information available to
you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial
responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not
recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than
other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has
created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappoint-
ments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce such risks, geot-
echnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory
provisions In their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations",
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engi-
neers responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize
their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions
closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should
respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a
geoenvironmental study differ significantly from those used to
perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical
engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmen-
tal findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the
likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regu-
lated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have
led to numerous project failures, If you have not yet obtained
your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical
consultant for nsk management guidance. Do not rely on an
environmental report prepared for someone else.
Rely on Your Geotechnical Engineer for
Additional Assistance
Membership In ASFE exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide
array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine ben-
efit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with
your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
PROFESSIONAL
FIRMS FEIN HE G O SCCIENCES
8811 Colesville Road Suite G106 Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 301-589-2017
email: [e-mail] www.asfe.org
copyright 1998 by ASFE. Inc. Unless ASFE grants written permission to do so, duplication of this document by any means whatsoever is expressly prohibited.
Re use of the wording in this document, in whole or in part, also is expressly prohibited, and may be done only with the express permission of ASFE or for purposes
of review or scholarly research.
IiGER06983 5M