GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY. MERIWETHER LEWIS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE BUILDING Houston/Stewart County Industrial Park AG & E FILE NUMBER:

Transcription

1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY MERIWETHER LEWIS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE BUILDING Houston/Stewart County Industrial Park AG & E FILE NUMBER: Prepared By American Geotechnical & Environmental, Inc. P. O. Box Franklin, Tennessee (61) Prepared for Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative c/o CT Consultants, Inc. 11 Kenwood Road Cincinnati OH 44 May 4, 017

2 May 4, 017 Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative c/o Mr. Brian Sabla CT Consultants, Inc. 11 Kenwood Road Cincinnati OH 44 RE: Geotechnical Engineering Study Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative Building Houston/Stewart County Industrial Park Dear Mr. Sabla: In compliance with your recent request, we have completed the final geotechnical engineering study for the above referenced project. It is our pleasure to transmit our written report of the results of this study. This report represents the results of our findings, an engineering interpretation of these findings with respect to the available project characteristics, and recommendations to aid design and construction of foundations, floor slabs, and other earth related phases of the project. If you should have any questions concerning this or any other matter, please feel free to contact us at your convenience. It has been a pleasure working with you on this project. Respectfully Submitted, AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Robert T. Stickney, P.E. President Enclosure P. O. Box Franklin, TN (61) agande@comcast.net

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION SITE & PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface Profile Groundwater Conditions CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Building Foundation Recommendations Floor Slabs Asphalt Pavement RECOMMENDED EARTHWORK PROCEDURES Site Preparation Excavation Fill and Compaction LIMITATIONS OF STUDY...14

4 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY MERIWETHER LEWIS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE BUILDING Houston/Stewart County Industrial Park AG & E File Number INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering study for the Proposed Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative Building to be built within the Houston/Stewart County Industrial Park in Cumberland City, Tennessee. This study was performed for the engineer, Robert Warren Associates, in accordance with our written proposal dated August 16, 016. The scope of geotechnical services provided for this project includes the following: Performing a field study of the subsurface soil by the drilling of twelve (1) exploratory test borings and, The review of available geologic and soil survey maps of the general region, and Performing appropriate laboratory tests of selected samples obtained from this site. The purpose of this study was to determine the types of subsoils present at the proposed site and to evaluate their suitability for support of the proposed building foundations. Included with these services are comments and recommendations relative to the design and construction of the building foundations, floor slabs and pavements for this project. American Geotechnical & Environmental, Inc. 1

5 .0 SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed project is planned for construction on the southeastern corner of the intersection of State Route 149 and Industrial Park Road as shown in Figure 1. The attached photographs show the project site to be grass covered with a growth of trees within the drainage way that flows through the southwestern quarter of the building lot and along a portion of the property line along State Route 149. The topography of the site can best be described as gently rolling with a general slope to the wooded drainage way in the western side of the lot. The total relief across the entire property is on the order of 0 to 30 feet. Preliminary design plans indicate the proposed project will include the construction of an office building and warehouse on the 4 acre site. The building will be a pre-engineered structure that will cover 8,000 square feet and up to stories tall. The proposed Finish Floor Elevation of 43.0 will require up to 8 feet of fill and 1 foot of cut to prepare the building pad. Maximum column and wall loads for the building have been estimated to not exceed 30 kips and kips per lineal foot respectively. Also included in this project are parking lots, access roads, storage yards and stormwater detention basins in the southwestern quarter of the lot. American Geotechnical & Environmental, Inc.

6 3.0 GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Using standard rotary drill equipment, AG & E drilled twelve (1) exploratory test borings for this study. These test borings were performed within the proposed construction area as shown on Figure 1. After completion of our field study, the soil samples were returned to our soil mechanics laboratory for analysis and testing. The elevations noted on Figure in the Appendix, the Subsurface Fence Diagram, are interpolated from the topographic survey included in Figure 1. The subsurface soil profile and groundwater conditions are described in detail on the boring logs in the Appendix to this report, but in general terms consist of the following. 3.1 Subsurface Profile The surface of the proposed construction site is covered with a layer of topsoil that ranges from 0.1 to 0.3 feet thick. Borings No. 1 to then encountered fill materials that range in depth from 8.0 to more than 1.0 feet below the existing ground surface. The fill materials are a miscellaneous mixture of brown and reddish brown silty clay with chert fragments and limestone rock that ranges in size from a few inches to the large boulders of a few feet wide that can be seen on the ground surface. The clay portions of the fill exhibits a moist to very moist condition with moisture contents that range from 18 to 37 percent. The consistency of this fill is also variable with Standard Penetration Test Values (N-Values) of 3 to 4 blows per foot. Borings No., 9, and encountered auger refusal on large boulders of rock at depths of 8.0 to 1.0 feet. Boring No. was terminated at the planned exploration depth of 1.0 feet within the fill materials. The natural soils at the remaining test borings include yellowish red to reddish brown and dark reddish brown silty clay soils with variable amounts of sand and chert fragments. These soils exhibit a medium stiff consistency with N-Values of 4 to 9 blows per foot. American Geotechnical & Environmental, Inc. 3

7 Laboratory tests performed on selected samples indicate the soils have a moist to very moist natural water content with a moisture content range of 1 to 37 percent. The natural soils have a moderate plasticity as evidenced by Atterberg Limits test performed on Sample No. at Boring No. 4 and Sample No. and Boring No. 1. The respective results of these tests are a Liquid Limit of 47 and 36 percent and a Plastic Limit of 6 and percent. The classification of these soils by the Unified Soil Classification System is CL, a low plasticity clay. Published geologic information indicates the property is within the Wells Creek Crater which has a very complex geology because of the uplifting from the crater impact. The geologic map has identified the bedrock beneath this site as the Wayne Group formation of the Silurian Period. The mapping of the Wayne Group includes the Lego, Waldron, and Laurel formations. 3. Groundwater Conditions Observations concerning groundwater were made during and at completion of the test boring operations. No groundwater was noted on the drilling tools with all open boreholes being dry at completion of the drilling operations. In fine-grained soils such as those present at this site, the true static groundwater level can only be determined by observations of cased holes or monitoring wells. While the true groundwater level is subject to normal seasonal variations in precipitation and surface runoff amounts, based on the above observations and soil coloration, we believe it to exist well below the depth of any anticipated excavations. Any water encountered during the construction of this project will be the result of water bearing pervious seams in the fill, and/or a perched water table condition. Conventional dewatering methods such as pumping from sumps should prove to be adequate for any excavation for this site. American Geotechnical & Environmental, Inc. 4

8 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon our analysis of the soil conditions, the preliminary design details, and the design assumptions previously outlined, the following conclusions and recommendations were developed. If the project characteristics are changed from those assumed herein, our recommendations should be reviewed to see if any modifications are needed. 4.1 Building Foundation Recommendations The proposed Finish Floor Elevation of 43.0 will require up to 8 feet of fill and 1 foot of cut to prepare the building pad. The existing fill materials exhibit a wide range of strength as illustrated with the N-Values. The N-Values range from 3 to 4 blows per foot. The moisture content of the clay portion of the fill also has a wide range of 17 to 37 percent. While the fill materials at some locations may possess sufficient bearing capacity to support light loads, their compressibility properties are less than ideal because of the uncontrolled manner in which they were placed and the types of materials involved. Ordinarily, successful spread footing construction can be achieved on loose soils by spreading or enlarging the footings to reduce the bearing. However, because this fill is variable in its composition, depth and engineering properties, there is a possibility that even at low bearing values, excessive settlements of the fill and any structures supported by it might occur. Further, it is reasonable to assume that the settlements of individual footings will not necessarily be the same because of the variable nature of the fill, and this could set up differential movements within the structure. Several foundation types were considered for this project including drilled piers and standard footings placed by varying methods. However, because of the scope of this project, we do not feel drilled piers will be economical for the subsurface conditions noted. We therefore recommend the structure be placed on a specially designed American Geotechnical & Environmental, Inc.

9 shallow footing foundation system constructed by undercutting and backfilling the existing uncontrolled fill as follows. We recommend one of the following undercut and backfill options for the preparation of this site to support the proposed building. Option 1 Undercut and Backfill During the Site Grading We presume the site grading will use the existing fill materials to grade the site as required in the site grading plan. Any shortage of material will include clay soils delivered from off site. In order to provide uniform support that will limit the differential settlements to less than 0.7 inches, we recommend the foundations for the building be undercut to a depth of.0 feet below the design bottom of footing elevation. The undercut excavation will need to extend a minimum distance of.0 feet from each edge of the footing. Should the exposed fill materials at the planned undercut depth be too wet or soft to allow for the proper placement and compaction of the backfill soils, we recommend the undercut depth be increased to 6.0 to 6. feet. This will allow the placement of about 1. feet of surge stone that can be tracked into place and stabilize soils sufficiently to allow the proper compaction of the clay fill materials. The clay fill materials can then be placed and compacted to the desired grades for the construction of the building. Please note the existing fill on this site contains numerous limestone boulders. Any rock larger than 6 inches will need to be removed from any fill placed as a structural fill beneath the new building. The moisture content of these fill materials may also require some drying before proper compaction can be achieved. American Geotechnical & Environmental, Inc. 6

10 After the proper placement and compaction of the backfill materials, we recommend the building foundations be dimensioned for a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of,00 pounds per square foot (psf) for isolated column footings and conventional wall or strip footings. The Site Class Definition from Chapter 0 of ASCE 7 is Site Class D. All exterior footings in the building should be placed at a minimum depth of 1. feet or greater below finished exterior grade for frost protection. Interior footings may be placed at a nominal depth provided they rest on firm engineered fill as recommended above. Option Undercut and Backfill the Foundations The second option to consider will be to undercut and backfill the existing fill soils as a part of the foundation construction after the site grading is complete. We recommend the uncontrolled fill materials be undercut to a minimum depth of times the foundation width below the design footing elevation and backfilled with a crushed limestone aggregate such as crusher run. The undercut excavation should also be expanded on a 1 horizontal to vertical slope outside the foundation dimensions as shown in Figure = in the Appendix. The foundation can then be dimensioned for as recommended above. American Geotechnical & Environmental, Inc. 7

11 4. Floor Slabs The fill materials in their current condition may be suitable for the support of the floor slab loads. We do recommend, however, that any limestone boulders over one foot in size be removed to a depth of 1.0 feet below the proposed subgrade elevation for the floor slabs-on-grade. As recommend in Section.== the exposed floor slab subgrade is to be properly proofrolled with a fully loaded tandem axle dump truck to identify any areas of soft soil. Any soft soils identified in the proofroll test can then be undercut and properly backfilled. The slabs for this project should be dimensioned using a modulus of subgrade reaction equal to 0 pounds per cubic inch (pci) and should be appropriately reinforced to support the proposed loads. Furthermore, we recommend the floor slabs be "floating", that is, fully ground supported and structurally independent of any building footings or walls. This is to minimize the possibility of cracking and displacement of the floor slabs because of the differential movements between the slab and the foundation. The floor slabs for the building should be supported on a 4 inch compacted layer of free draining, granular subbase material. The purpose of this layer is to help distribute concentrated loads and equalize moisture conditions beneath the slab. If the final grade is within or above the depth of any topsoil, loose or miscellaneous fill material, or loose natural soil, we recommend these undesirable materials be removed from the slab areas prior to placing of the slabs or any compacted fills to support the slabs. All excavations and filling should be conducted in accordance with our enclosed recommendations in Section.0. American Geotechnical & Environmental, Inc. 8

12 4.3 Asphalt Pavement The test boring data indicates the majority of the existing fill material on the site will be suitable as subgrade materials for flexible type pavements with proper preparation. Unsuitable materials include any topsoil or pockets of wet soil and any limestone boulders that may extend above the pavement subgrade elevation. After the stripping of the surface vegetation and rough grading, the exposed subgrade should be properly prepared in accordance with our recommendations prior to placement of any fill or stone base course. This proofroll testing will be critical in identifying the presence of any soft surface soils where the site grading requires less than feet of cut. Pavement thickness design is dependent upon the anticipated traffic conditions during the life of the pavement, subgrade and paving material characteristics, and climatic conditions of the region. The actual pavement performance is highly dependent upon proper preparation and compaction of the fill and subgrade soils, and the types of soils used. A California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 3 has been estimated for the existing subsoils. The recommended values stated herein are dependent upon the proper placement and compaction of the fill and the testing of the subgrade conditions prior to construction of the pavement section. If higher quality materials, such as a well graded aggregate, are placed as fill and properly compacted, greater subgrade strength values can be considered in the design of the pavement section. The following pavement section is based upon the assumption that the pavement will be constructed on a non-modified subgrade or engineered fill. The traffic volume will consist of automobile traffic in the Standard Pavement Section and less than trucks per day in the Heavy Duty Pavement Section areas. We recommend the minimum pavement section be designed as noted in the following tables. If additional truck traffic is expected, then we recommend further analyses be performed to better define the pavement design life and subgrade conditions. American Geotechnical & Environmental, Inc. 9

13 STANDARD PAVEMENT SECTION Material Thickness (in) TDOT Section Grading Aggregate Base C or D Asphalt Binder B Modified Asphalt Surface D or E Total Pavement Section = 9.0 HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT SECTION Material Thickness (in) TDOT Section Grading Aggregate Base C or D Asphalt Binder. 307 B Modified Asphalt Surface D or E Total Pavement Section = 14.0 Asphalt concrete aggregates and base course materials should conform to the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) "Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction", Section for Aggregate Base Course material, Section for Hot Mix Asphalt Base Course (Asphalt Binder), and Section for Surface Course. Frequently, the refuse corral and loading dock for a project such as this one is serviced by relatively large, heavily loaded trucks. In areas where a vehicle such as semi-trailer trucks are anticipated, it may be advisable to increase the design values given above to minimize fatigue stress and rutting of the flexible pavement system. As an alternate, a rigid (concrete) pavement can be considered for specific areas such as the refuse corral or loading dock. We recommend the concrete pavement section for the refuse corral have a minimum concrete thickness of 8.0 inches. We also recommend the concrete slabs be supported by a minimum of 4 inches of free draining gravel base as described for the flexible American Geotechnical & Environmental, Inc.

14 pavement system. The concrete can be un-reinforced with a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi and air-entrained. An alternate design for the refuse corral is a minimum concrete thickness of 6.0 inches with No. bars spaced 1 inches on center both ways..0 RECOMMENDED EARTHWORK PROCEDURES.1 Site Preparation All vegetation, topsoil and other organic material or miscellaneous fill and debris should be removed from the construction areas prior to the building or placing of fills. After the completion of the stripping operations and preparation of any proposed fill area, the exposed subgrade areas should be proofrolled. Proofrolling is best achieved during reasonably dry weather using a loaded tandem axle, rubber tire dump truck, or similar approved vehicle, traversing the site in two perpendicular directions. The unsuitable zones identified through this proofroll test should then be replaced with approved fill materials as described in this report.. Excavation We do not anticipate any difficulty will be experienced in excavating the fill materials on this site with conventional equipment and methods. Some of the limestone boulders may be very large and these will require larger equipment to move them. All final grade excavations and fills should be limited to a horizontal to 1 vertical slope. Also, all excavations should be properly braced or laid back to meet applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. Specifically, OSHA classifies the fill soils as Type C soils. OSHA regulations require the sideslopes of any excavation to be properly braced or laid back on a sideslope of 1. horizontal to 1 vertical (1.:1). American Geotechnical & Environmental, Inc. 11

15 We recommend all footing excavations be tested by the geotechnical engineer or his representative to be sure that any excessively loose, soft or otherwise unsuitable materials are removed and that the subgrade soils are satisfactory for foundation support. At the time of testing, it may be necessary to make hand auger borings or to conduct pocket penetrometer or other tests in the base of the foundation excavation. The necessary depth of testing will be established in the field. If possible, all footing concrete should be poured the same day the excavation is made. If this is not practical, the soils exposed in the base of all excavations should be protected against any detrimental change in conditions such as from disturbance, rain, and freezing. Surface run-off water should be drained away from all excavations and not allowed to pond..3 Fill and Compaction Once the subgrade has been properly prepared, fill may be placed in order to attain the desired final grades. In general, any non-organic soils, such as the soils present at this site, can be used for structural fill. Suitable fill materials for structural fills should consist of a cohesive soil with a Plasticity Index less than 30 and a maximum particle size of 4 inches. The clayey fill should be placed in lifts of uniform thickness. The lift thickness should not exceed that which can be properly compacted throughout its entire depth with the equipment available, usually no more than 6 inches. We recommend that structural fills supporting footings, floor slabs and pavements be compacted to 9 percent of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-698). The moisture content of the fill soils should be within plus or minus 3 percent of the optimum moisture content. Density tests shall be performed with a minimum of one test per 6 inch lift per,000 to,000 square feet with a minimum of two tests regardless of the square footage. The fill placement should be observed and documented be a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Fill pads should be constructed so that American Geotechnical & Environmental, Inc. 1

16 the compacted surface extends horizontally beyond the outside footing edges at least feet. For proper and timely construction of the fills, the soils should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content as determined by the specified Proctor test. The moisture content of the fill soils should be within plus or minus 3 percent of the optimum moisture content. Suitable equipment for either aerating or adding water to the fill materials should be available as the soil moisture and weather conditions dictate. We recommend this firm be retained to perform continuous review of any construction of the soils related phases of this project. Otherwise, we assume no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or our recommendations. As a part of this review, field density tests should be performed as frequently as necessary to assist in the evaluation of the fill with respect to the above recommendations. American Geotechnical & Environmental, Inc. 13

17 6.0 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY Our recommendations for this report were developed utilizing subsurface information obtained from the test borings performed. At this time, we would like to point out that exploratory test borings only depict the subsurface conditions at the specific location and time at which they were made. The subsurface conditions at other locations on the site may differ from those occurring at the test boring locations; however, only minor variations that can readily be evaluated and adjusted for during construction are expected. The conclusions and recommendations herein have been based upon the available subsurface information and the assumptions previously stated and the preliminary design details furnished by the architect of the proposed project. We recommend that we be given the opportunity to review the final design plans and specification as they relate to the recommendations presented in this report. The purpose of this review is to determine that the conclusions and recommendations presented herein have been properly incorporated into the final design. Any revision in the plans for the proposed structure from those anticipated in this report should also be brought to the attention of the geotechnical engineer so that he may determine whether any changes in the foundation recommendations are necessary. Unanticipated conditions encountered during construction of the project should be reported to this office in order to provide timely recommendations to solve the problems encountered. The scope of our services does not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence of absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater or surface water within or beyond the site studied. Any statements in this report or on the test boring logs regarding odors, staining of soils or other unusual conditions observed are strictly for the information of our client. Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practice. This company is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations made by others based upon the data included here American Geotechnical & Environmental, Inc. 14

18 APPENDIX Photographs Figure 1 - Boring Location Plan Figure - Subsurface Fence Diagram Logs of Test Boring Field Classification System for Soil Exploration Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report

19 View of the Project Site from the northwest property corner View of the Project Site from Boring No. 8, looking to the northeast PHOTOGRAPHS Meriwether Lewis Cooperative Bldg PROJECT NO.: Cumberland City, Tennessee

20 View of the area for the proposed stormwater detention View of the area for the proposed stormwater detention PHOTOGRAPHS Meriwether Lewis Cooperative Bldg PROJECT NO.: Cumberland City, Tennessee

21

22 , Blow Cnt 1 WC Blow 18 Cnt Blow Cnt WC Blow WC Cnt WC Blow Cnt 0 6 Blow Cnt 7 WC WC Blow Cnt Blow Cnt 7 WC 0 8 WC Blow Cnt 9 WC Blow 36 Cnt WC , Boring North East Elev Depth NOTE - Fence diagram graphics match the graphics shown on the boring logs. DISTANCES: Beginning Ending VIEWING ANGLES (degrees): Horizontal 0.0 Vertical 0.0 Position Left, Front Right, Front Left, Back Right, Back North East SUBSURFACE FENCE DIAGRAM BORINGS NO. 1 TO Meriwether Lewis Cooperative Building Cumberland City, Tennessee PROJECT # DATE FIGURE May 17

23 merican eotechnical and nvironmental, Inc. LOG OF TEST BORING Client Project Location Boring # Architect/Engineer Job # Project Name Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative Meriwether Lewis Cooperative Building Cumberland City, Tennessee Drawn By Approved By TEST DATA Date Started Drill Foreman /1/16 /1/16 SOUTH BROS. Date Completed Hammer Drop Inspector Boring Method DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION Hammer Wt. Spoon Sampler O.D. Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube O.D. SURFACE ELEVATION STRATUM SCALE lbs. LITH- OLOGY SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE TYPE Standard Penetration Test N. Blows/Ft. Unconfined Compressive Strength Pocket Penetrometer Natural Dry Density lbs/cu. ft. Water Content % Atterberg Limits LL - Liquid Limit PL - Plastic Limit Topsoil FILL - Brown silty clay with a random mixture of limestone boulders, chert, and sand, moist, medium stiff to stiff Yellowish red and brown silty clay, with trace chert and sand, very moist, soft. (Possible Fill) Brownish red sandy silty clay, moist, medium stiff. Test boring discontinued at 1.0 feet SAMPLER TYPE - DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON ST - PREED SHELBY TUBE CA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER RC - ROCK CORE GROUND WATER AT COMPLETION Dry AFTER WATER ON RODS BORING METHOD HSA - HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC - DRIVING CASING RW - ROTARY WASH

24 merican eotechnical and nvironmental, Inc. LOG OF TEST BORING Client Project Location Boring # Architect/Engineer Job # Project Name Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative Meriwether Lewis Cooperative Building Cumberland City, Tennessee Drawn By Approved By TEST DATA Date Started Drill Foreman /1/16 /1/16 SOUTH BROS. Date Completed Hammer Drop Inspector Boring Method DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION Hammer Wt. Spoon Sampler O.D. Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube O.D. SURFACE ELEVATION STRATUM SCALE lbs. LITH- OLOGY SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE TYPE Standard Penetration Test N. Blows/Ft. Unconfined Compressive Strength Pocket Penetrometer Natural Dry Density lbs/cu. ft. Water Content % Atterberg Limits LL - Liquid Limit PL - Plastic Limit Topsoil FILL - Brown silty clay with a random mixture of limestone boulders, chert, and sand, moist to very moist, medium stiff to stiff Test boring discontinued at 8.0 feet at auger refusal SAMPLER TYPE - DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON ST - PREED SHELBY TUBE CA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER RC - ROCK CORE GROUND WATER AT COMPLETION Dry AFTER WATER ON RODS BORING METHOD HSA - HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC - DRIVING CASING RW - ROTARY WASH

25 merican eotechnical and nvironmental, Inc. LOG OF TEST BORING Client Project Location Boring # Architect/Engineer Job # Project Name Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative Meriwether Lewis Cooperative Building Cumberland City, Tennessee Drawn By Approved By TEST DATA Date Started Drill Foreman /1/16 /1/16 SOUTH BROS. Date Completed Hammer Drop Inspector Boring Method DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION Hammer Wt. Spoon Sampler O.D. Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube O.D. SURFACE ELEVATION STRATUM SCALE lbs. LITH- OLOGY SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE TYPE Standard Penetration Test N. Blows/Ft. Unconfined Compressive Strength Pocket Penetrometer Natural Dry Density lbs/cu. ft. Water Content % Atterberg Limits LL - Liquid Limit PL - Plastic Limit Topsoil FILL - Brown silty clay with a random mixture of limestone boulders, chert, and sand, moist, medium stiff to stiff with Topsoil in Sample No. 3 Yellowish red to reddish brown silty clay, with trace sand, moist, medium stiff Test boring discontinued at 1.0 feet SAMPLER TYPE - DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON ST - PREED SHELBY TUBE CA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER RC - ROCK CORE GROUND WATER AT COMPLETION Dry AFTER WATER ON RODS BORING METHOD HSA - HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC - DRIVING CASING RW - ROTARY WASH

26 merican eotechnical and nvironmental, Inc. LOG OF TEST BORING Client Project Location Boring # Architect/Engineer Job # Project Name Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative Meriwether Lewis Cooperative Building Cumberland City, Tennessee Drawn By Approved By TEST DATA Date Started Drill Foreman /1/16 /1/16 SOUTH BROS. Date Completed Hammer Drop Inspector Boring Method DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION Hammer Wt. Spoon Sampler O.D. Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube O.D. SURFACE ELEVATION STRATUM SCALE lbs. LITH- OLOGY SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE TYPE Standard Penetration Test N. Blows/Ft. Unconfined Compressive Strength Pocket Penetrometer Natural Dry Density lbs/cu. ft. Water Content % Atterberg Limits LL - Liquid Limit PL - Plastic Limit Topsoil FILL - Brown silty clay with a random mixture of limestone boulders, chert, and sand, moist, medium stiff to stiff Reddish brown cherty silty clay, moist, stiff Yellowish red silty clay, with some sand, moist, medium stiff. Test boring discontinued at 1.0 feet LL=47 PL=6 0 SAMPLER TYPE - DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON ST - PREED SHELBY TUBE CA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER RC - ROCK CORE GROUND WATER AT COMPLETION Dry AFTER WATER ON RODS BORING METHOD HSA - HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC - DRIVING CASING RW - ROTARY WASH

27 merican eotechnical and nvironmental, Inc. LOG OF TEST BORING Client Project Location Boring # Architect/Engineer Job # Project Name Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative Meriwether Lewis Cooperative Building Cumberland City, Tennessee Drawn By Approved By TEST DATA Date Started Drill Foreman /1/16 /1/16 SOUTH BROS. Date Completed Hammer Drop Inspector Boring Method DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION Hammer Wt. Spoon Sampler O.D. Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube O.D. SURFACE ELEVATION STRATUM SCALE lbs. LITH- OLOGY SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE TYPE Standard Penetration Test N. Blows/Ft. Unconfined Compressive Strength Pocket Penetrometer Natural Dry Density lbs/cu. ft. Water Content % Atterberg Limits LL - Liquid Limit PL - Plastic Limit Topsoil FILL - Brown and reddish brown silty clay with a random mixture of limestone boulders, chert, and sand, moist, medium stiff to stiff /0.6' Very moist below 8. feet Test boring discontinued at 1.0 feet SAMPLER TYPE - DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON ST - PREED SHELBY TUBE CA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER RC - ROCK CORE GROUND WATER AT COMPLETION Dry AFTER WATER ON RODS BORING METHOD HSA - HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC - DRIVING CASING RW - ROTARY WASH

28 merican eotechnical and nvironmental, Inc. LOG OF TEST BORING Client Project Location Boring # Architect/Engineer Job # Project Name Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative Meriwether Lewis Cooperative Building Cumberland City, Tennessee Drawn By Approved By TEST DATA Date Started Drill Foreman /1/16 /1/16 SOUTH BROS. Date Completed Hammer Drop Inspector Boring Method DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION Hammer Wt. Spoon Sampler O.D. Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube O.D. SURFACE ELEVATION STRATUM SCALE lbs. LITH- OLOGY SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE TYPE Standard Penetration Test N. Blows/Ft. Unconfined Compressive Strength Pocket Penetrometer Natural Dry Density lbs/cu. ft. Water Content % Atterberg Limits LL - Liquid Limit PL - Plastic Limit Topsoil FILL - Brown silty clay with a random mixture of limestone boulders, chert, and sand, moist, medium stiff to soft Dark reddish brown silty clay, with trace sand, very moist, medium stiff Yellowish red to reddish brown silty clay, with trade chert, moist, medium stiff. Test boring discontinued at 1.0 feet SAMPLER TYPE - DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON ST - PREED SHELBY TUBE CA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER RC - ROCK CORE GROUND WATER AT COMPLETION Dry AFTER WATER ON RODS BORING METHOD HSA - HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC - DRIVING CASING RW - ROTARY WASH

29 merican eotechnical and nvironmental, Inc. LOG OF TEST BORING Client Project Location Boring # Architect/Engineer Job # Project Name Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative Meriwether Lewis Cooperative Building Cumberland City, Tennessee Drawn By Approved By TEST DATA Date Started Drill Foreman /1/16 /1/16 SOUTH BROS. Date Completed Hammer Drop Inspector Boring Method DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION Hammer Wt. Spoon Sampler O.D. Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube O.D. SURFACE ELEVATION STRATUM SCALE lbs. LITH- OLOGY SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE TYPE Standard Penetration Test N. Blows/Ft. Unconfined Compressive Strength Pocket Penetrometer Natural Dry Density lbs/cu. ft. Water Content % Atterberg Limits LL - Liquid Limit PL - Plastic Limit Topsoil FILL - Brown silty clay with a random mixture of limestone boulders, chert, and sand, moist, medium stiff to soft Dark reddish brown silty clay, with trace sand, very moist, medium stiff to soft Test boring discontinued at 1.0 feet SAMPLER TYPE - DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON ST - PREED SHELBY TUBE CA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER RC - ROCK CORE GROUND WATER AT COMPLETION Dry AFTER WATER ON RODS BORING METHOD HSA - HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC - DRIVING CASING RW - ROTARY WASH

30 merican eotechnical and nvironmental, Inc. LOG OF TEST BORING Client Project Location Boring # Architect/Engineer Job # Project Name Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative Meriwether Lewis Cooperative Building Cumberland City, Tennessee Drawn By Approved By TEST DATA Date Started Drill Foreman /1/16 /1/16 SOUTH BROS. Date Completed Hammer Drop Inspector Boring Method DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION Hammer Wt. Spoon Sampler O.D. Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube O.D. SURFACE ELEVATION STRATUM SCALE lbs. LITH- OLOGY SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE TYPE Standard Penetration Test N. Blows/Ft. Unconfined Compressive Strength Pocket Penetrometer Natural Dry Density lbs/cu. ft. Water Content % Atterberg Limits LL - Liquid Limit PL - Plastic Limit Topsoil FILL - Brown silty clay with a random mixture of limestone boulders, chert, and sand, moist, medium stiff to soft Test boring discontinued at.0 feet at auger refusal on a limestone boulder. An offset boring was located feet to the north and found auger refusal at a depth of 3.0 feet /0.3' SAMPLER TYPE - DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON ST - PREED SHELBY TUBE CA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER RC - ROCK CORE GROUND WATER AT COMPLETION Dry AFTER WATER ON RODS BORING METHOD HSA - HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC - DRIVING CASING RW - ROTARY WASH

31 merican eotechnical and nvironmental, Inc. LOG OF TEST BORING Client Project Location Boring # Architect/Engineer Job # Project Name Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative Meriwether Lewis Cooperative Building Cumberland City, Tennessee Drawn By Approved By TEST DATA Date Started Drill Foreman /1/16 /1/16 SOUTH BROS. Date Completed Hammer Drop Inspector Boring Method DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION Hammer Wt. Spoon Sampler O.D. Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube O.D. SURFACE ELEVATION STRATUM SCALE lbs. LITH- OLOGY SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE TYPE Standard Penetration Test N. Blows/Ft. Unconfined Compressive Strength Pocket Penetrometer Natural Dry Density lbs/cu. ft. Water Content % Atterberg Limits LL - Liquid Limit PL - Plastic Limit Topsoil FILL - Yellowish red and reddish brown silty clay with some chert and limestone rock fragments, chert, and sand, very moist grading to moist, medium stiff to stiff Test boring discontinued at 8.0 feet at auger refusal on a limestone rock boulder SAMPLER TYPE - DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON ST - PREED SHELBY TUBE CA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER RC - ROCK CORE GROUND WATER AT COMPLETION Dry AFTER WATER ON RODS BORING METHOD HSA - HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC - DRIVING CASING RW - ROTARY WASH

32 merican eotechnical and nvironmental, Inc. LOG OF TEST BORING Client Project Location Boring # Architect/Engineer Job # Project Name Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative Meriwether Lewis Cooperative Building Cumberland City, Tennessee Drawn By Approved By TEST DATA Date Started Drill Foreman /1/16 /1/16 SOUTH BROS. Date Completed Hammer Drop Inspector Boring Method DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION Hammer Wt. Spoon Sampler O.D. Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube O.D. SURFACE ELEVATION STRATUM SCALE lbs. LITH- OLOGY SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE TYPE Standard Penetration Test N. Blows/Ft. Unconfined Compressive Strength Pocket Penetrometer Natural Dry Density lbs/cu. ft. Water Content % Atterberg Limits LL - Liquid Limit PL - Plastic Limit Topsoil FILL - Yellowish red and reddish brown silty clay with some chert and limestone rock fragments, chert, and sand, very moist grading to moist, soft to medium stiff Test boring discontinued at 1.0 feet at auger refusal on a limestone rock boulder SAMPLER TYPE - DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON ST - PREED SHELBY TUBE CA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER RC - ROCK CORE GROUND WATER AT COMPLETION Dry AFTER WATER ON RODS BORING METHOD HSA - HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC - DRIVING CASING RW - ROTARY WASH

33 merican eotechnical and nvironmental, Inc. LOG OF TEST BORING Client Project Location Boring # Architect/Engineer Job # Project Name Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative Meriwether Lewis Cooperative Building Cumberland City, Tennessee Drawn By Approved By TEST DATA Date Started Drill Foreman /1/16 /1/16 SOUTH BROS. Date Completed Hammer Drop Inspector Boring Method DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION Hammer Wt. Spoon Sampler O.D. Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube O.D. SURFACE ELEVATION STRATUM SCALE lbs. LITH- OLOGY SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE TYPE Standard Penetration Test N. Blows/Ft. Unconfined Compressive Strength Pocket Penetrometer Natural Dry Density lbs/cu. ft. Water Content % Atterberg Limits LL - Liquid Limit PL - Plastic Limit Topsoil Dark reddish brown silty clay, with trace chert, moist, medium stiff Test boring discontinued at.0 feet Solid PVC pipe was set to a depth of.0 feet for future infiltration testing 1 0 SAMPLER TYPE - DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON ST - PREED SHELBY TUBE CA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER RC - ROCK CORE GROUND WATER AT COMPLETION Dry AFTER WATER ON RODS BORING METHOD HSA - HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC - DRIVING CASING RW - ROTARY WASH

34 merican eotechnical and nvironmental, Inc. LOG OF TEST BORING Client Project Location Boring # Architect/Engineer Job # Project Name Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative Meriwether Lewis Cooperative Building Cumberland City, Tennessee Drawn By Approved By TEST DATA Date Started Drill Foreman /1/16 /1/16 SOUTH BROS. Date Completed Hammer Drop Inspector Boring Method DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION Hammer Wt. Spoon Sampler O.D. Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube O.D. SURFACE ELEVATION STRATUM SCALE lbs. LITH- OLOGY SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE TYPE Standard Penetration Test N. Blows/Ft. Unconfined Compressive Strength Pocket Penetrometer Natural Dry Density lbs/cu. ft. Water Content % Atterberg Limits LL - Liquid Limit PL - Plastic Limit Topsoil Dark reddish brown silty clay, with trace chert, moist, medium stiff Test boring discontinued at.0 feet LL=36 PL= Solid PVC pipe was set to a depth of.0 feet for future infiltration testing 1 0 SAMPLER TYPE - DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON ST - PREED SHELBY TUBE CA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER RC - ROCK CORE GROUND WATER AT COMPLETION Dry AFTER WATER ON RODS BORING METHOD HSA - HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC - DRIVING CASING RW - ROTARY WASH

35

36

37