SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION

Transcription

1 Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Proposed Courtyard Marriott Phenix City, Alabama BHATE Project Number: October 9, 2012 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION Prepared for: Mr. Rinkesh Patel Ram Riverfront Hospitality, LLC 1034 Veterans Parkway Columbus, Georgia Prepared by: BHATE Geosciences Corporation, Inc. 217 Fifth Avenue South Birmingham, Alabama

2 Bhate Geosciences Corporation Geotechnical, Materials, Environmental Engineers 217 th Avenue South Birmingham, Alabama 3212 Phone: (20) Fax: (20) Web: October 9, 2012 Mr. Rinkesh Patel Ram Riverfront Hospitality, LLC 1034 Veterans Parkway Columbus, Georgia Subject: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Proposed Courtyard Marriott Phenix City, Alabama BHATE Project Number: Dear Mr. Patel: Bhate Geosciences Corporation (BHATE) has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation of the subject site. Our services were performed in general accordance with the scope of services outlined in our Proposal Number G2 dated September 19, The purpose of our study was to determine general subsurface conditions at specific soil boring locations, and to gather information on which to base our evaluation regarding site preparation and building foundation considerations. As the design of this project progresses, we suggest that our office be contacted regarding geotechnical design, earthwork specifications and construction documents so that we may provide additional input related to site-specific subsurface conditions. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please call us. Respectfully submitted, BHATE GEOSCIENCES CORPORATION Drew Thornbury, P.E. Project Engineer Uday R. Bhate, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer QUALITY SERVICE EXCELLENCE

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE GEOLOGY FIELD EXPLORATION FIELD EXPLORATION SOIL TEST BORINGS LABORATORY TESTING SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS OLD UNCONTROLLED FILL WITH ORGANICS LOW TERRACE DEPOSITS COASTAL DEPOSITS GROUNDWATER SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING CONSIDERATIONS GENERAL SITE PREPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UNCONTROLLED FILL PROOFROLLING STRUCTURAL FILL LIMITED SPACE BACKFILLING SITE DRAINAGE BUILDING FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS FLOOR SLAB SUBGRADE CONSIDERATIONS PAVEMENT SUBGRADE CONSIDERATIONS SUBGRADE DRAINAGE SUBGRADE AND PAVEMENT PROTECTION FROM CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC AND DISTURBANCE CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING GENERAL REMARKS AND LIMITATIONS APPENDIX BORING LOCATION PLAN LOGS OF BORING IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

4 1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed Courtyard Marriott is located on a 2.0 acre lot at the northeast corner of 3 rd Avenue and 14 th Street in a commercial area of downtown Phenix City, Alabama. The Chattahoochee River borders the site to the east. Portions of 1 th Street and 2 nd Ave extend through the middle of the property. The location of the site can be seen in Figure 1 below. Based on older satellite images, it appears the northern portions used to have a residential housing project. At the time of exploration, the site was relatively clear with light grass; however, a number of mature trees were scattered in the southern portion of the site. A plan showing existing grades was not provided at the time of exploration; however, it appears the grades slope from west to east. The elevation change appears to be approximately. Site SITE 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 Aerial Site Location Based on information provided by you, the proposed construction will consists of a single 4-story wood framed hotel structure. A parking lot consisting of 102 parking spaces is proposed north and west of the proposed hotel. Based on conversations Gary Frank with Architectural Group III, we understand the following: A few feet of fill is expected at the site. Grading plans were not provided at the time of this evaluation. The design loads will consist of a maximum exterior wall load of 3,700 lbs/linear foot and a maximum isolated column load of 80 Kips. 1

5 2.0 SITE GEOLOGY The Geologic Map of Russell County, Alabama dated 1962 indicates that the subject site is underlain by Alluvial and Low Terrace Deposits. The Alluvial and Low Terrace Deposits are underlain by the Tuscaloosa Group undifferentiated which is coastal plain formation. The Alluvial and Low Terrace Deposits typically consists of very pale orange to grayish orange, fine to coarse, quartz sand containing clay lenses and gravel. The gravel is composed mainly of quartz pebbles. The low terrace deposits where present, generally range in thickness from to 0 feet. The Tuscaloosa Group mainly consists of light gray to moderate reddish orange, clayey, gravelly, fine to very coarse sand. Massive mottled sandy clay, local wood and leaf beds, and thin beds of indurated sandstone are also encountered. 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION On September 28, 2012, Bhate Geosciences Corporation performed a subsurface exploration at the proposed site. In order to evaluate the subsurface conditions beneath the proposed building area, the exploration consisted of six (6) exploratory borings in the proposed building area and four (4) exploratory borings in the parking areas. Borings located within the building area, designated B-1 through B-6, were extended to a depth of 20 feet or auger refusal. Borings located within the parking areas, designated P-1 through P-4, were extended to a depth of feet. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Boring Location Plan in the Appendix. The soil boring locations were determined in the field by making measurements from existing site features shown on the site plan provided to us. The boring locations, as shown on the boring location plan in the Appendix, should be considered approximate and may deviate somewhat from the actual locations. Conditions encountered at the boring locations represent conditions at the specific test locations at the time of exploration. Conditions at other locations or at other times could differ from those observed and reported herein. 3.2 SOIL TEST BORINGS Within each soil test boring, split-tube sampling and Standard Penetration tests (SPT) were performed in accordance with ASTM D186. The soil test borings were advanced by mechanically twisting continuous, hollow-stem auger flights into the ground. In the soil test borings, soil samples were obtained with a standard 2-inch O.D., 1.4-inch I.D., split-tube sampler. The sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings and then driven one additional foot with blows of a mechanical hammer. The number of blows (N) required to drive the sampler the final foot of penetration is the standard penetration resistance. The penetration resistance, when properly evaluated, is an index to the soil s strength, density, and ability to support foundations. Representative portions of the samples obtained from the split-tube sampler were sealed in airtight containers and transported to our laboratory. In the laboratory, the geotechnical engineer classified the samples. The Logs of Boring in the Appendix indicate the soil descriptions and penetration resistances. Results from laboratory testing are also shown on the logs. 2

6 4.0 LABORATORY TESTING In addition to the field exploration, a laboratory-testing program was conducted to obtain data regarding the engineering characteristics of subsurface materials. Results of laboratory testing may be found in the attached boring logs. Natural moisture contents (ASTM D2216) were determined on selected soil samples. The natural moisture content is the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the weight of water in a given amount of soil to the weight of solid particles. The results of the natural moisture content tests performed on the selected soil samples ranged from 2.7 to 41.9 percent. Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318) tests were performed on a selected soil sample to determine how the soil characteristics change upon variations in moisture content. The soil Plasticity Index (PI) is representative of these characteristics and is the difference between the Liquid Limit (LL) and the Plastic Limit (PL). The plasticity index of the soil tested was 0 indicating a non-plastic soil. Standard test method for amount of materials in soil finer than the No. 200 sieve (ASTM D ) was performed on selected soil samples. Of the samples tested, the percentage of soils finer than a No. 200 sieve ranged from 14.0 to 46.8 percent..0 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The general surface and subsurface conditions encountered and their pertinent characteristics are described in the following subsections. Details of the subsurface conditions encountered by the soil test borings are shown on the Logs of Boring in the Appendix. Conditions represented by the Logs of Boring should be considered applicable only at the soil test boring locations and it should be assumed that the subsurface conditions might be different at other locations or at other times..1 SURFACE CONDITIONS At the time of our exploration, the site mainly consisted of light grassy areas; however, a number of mature trees were scattered though out the southern portion of the site. The topsoil encountered ranged from to 6 in thickness. Topsoil and root systems from mature trees should be expected to reach depths of up to 24 in thickness. 1 th Street, which is an asphalt roadway, is bisecting the property on the northern portion of the building. The thickness of the asphalt and base is unknown at this time. Based on the survey plan, it appears a number of utilities including power, water, and storm water are located in close proximity to the location of 1 th Street..2 OLD UNCONTROLLED FILL WITH ORGANICS Previously placed what appears to be uncontrolled fill was encountered at all borings except B-1, B-4, and B-6. The depth of fill ranged from 3 to.. Borings P-1, P-3, and P-4 in the parking area encountered fill to a boring termination depth of.. Some portions of the fill appeared to be relatively clean and reasonably densified, at several locations the fill material was very low consistency with organics and would be unsuitable for structural support or pavement subgrade. It appears that the existing fill condition and composition will be variable over the site. 3

7 .3 LOW TERRACE DEPOSITS Soils classified as low terrace deposits were encountered below the fill or topsoil in all borings except P-1, P-3, and P-4, which were terminated prior to extending through the fill layer. The low terrace deposits encountered within the building pad extended to depths ranging from 12 to 18. The deposits generally consisted of medium dense, red brown sand with little amounts of rounded pebbles. SPT N-values ranged from 7 to over 0 blows per foot; however, typical values ranged from 12 to 30. The percent passing the #200 sieve ranged from 14.0 to 22.1 percent, and the moisture content ranged from 2.6 to 11.4, indicating a sandy soil. Generally, it appeared loose; moist sand was encountered at the bottom depths of the low terrace deposits between the low terrace and coastal deposit interfaces. The loose sand is likely due to the presence of water resting on top of the coastal deposit interface..4 COASTAL DEPOSITS Soils classified as coastal deposits were encountered below the low terrace deposits in all borings located within the building pad and extended to a boring termination depth of 20. The deposits generally consisted of very stiff, mottled gray, white, and light brown, micaceous silt. As stated previously, soft, very moist soil was encountered at the low terrace/ coastal deposit interface.. GROUNDWATER Groundwater was encountered at boring locations B-2, B-3, B-4, and B- from depths ranging from 14 to 19. The presence or absence of groundwater during our exploration does not necessarily mean that water will or will not be present at a later time or at other locations. Groundwater levels vary depending on weather, season, and location. The groundwater typically becomes perched at the various soil interfaces, often creating a soft soil layer. 4

8 6.0 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING CONSIDERATIONS No site grading plan was made available to us at the time of this report. Based on conversations Gary Frank with Architectural Group III, a few feet of fill is expected at the site. 6.1 GENERAL SITE PREPARATION Site preparation should include stripping all surface debris, topsoil, asphalt, vegetation, and soil containing organic matter to a depth where uniform, stable subgrade conditions are encountered. At the time of our exploration, the site mainly consisted of light grassy areas; however, a number of mature trees were scattered though out the southern portion of the site. The topsoil encountered should be anticipated to be 6 in thickness. Topsoil systems from mature trees should be expected to reach depths of up to 24 in thickness. The thickness of the asphalt and base beneath 1 th Street is unknown; however, the existing base course beneath the asphalt may be left in place. 6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UNCONTROLLED FILL Variable consistency fill with some organics was encountered within all of the parking borings and a few borings within the building pad. Low consistency fill can be revealed by proofrolling with a loaded dump truck or heavy, pneumatic tire mounted construction equipment. Based on the consistency of the fill, we offer the following regarding stabilization procedures for low consistency fill: Building Area: Traces of organics were encountered within the fill zone. Any fill with excessive organics will need to be completely undercut and replaced with properly compacted engineered fill. Any loose fill encountered within the building pad will need to be either moisture conditioned and recompacted or undercut and replaced with properly compacted engineered fill. Parking Areas: Any low consistency fill encountered can be stabilized by undercutting and replacing or moisture conditioning and recompacted to a depth of 24 below final subgrade elevation. The low consistency fill within P-3 appeared to be wet, and will likely require undercutting and replacing. In areas of the parking lot that require over 24 of fill to reach final subgrade, it may be possible to place the new fill provided that the existing subgrade is sufficiently stable to commence filling and achieve compaction. We recommend the geotechnical engineer observe any low consistency soils to determine the proper stabilization measures. 6.3 PROOFROLLING Following preparation of the subgrade, areas that are at final grade or that are to receive engineered fill should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. Such an evaluation will probably include proofrolling with a loaded dump truck or other heavy, pneumatic tiremounted construction equipment in order to reveal areas containing soft or loose upper soil. The geotechnical engineer can then determine the amount of undercutting or type of stabilization that will be necessary to prepare a suitable subgrade. Based on the presence of undocumented fill, stabilization methods will likely be necessary, and we recommend the contract documents address the potential for undercutting and replacing and moisture conditioning and recompacting.

9 6.4 STRUCTURAL FILL Prior to fill placement, the areas to receive fill should be thoroughly proofrolled by a loaded dump truck in the presence of the geotechnical engineer. Engineered fill at the site should be virtually free of organic matter and other deleterious materials and should be low plasticity (LL less than 4, PI less than 2 and a maximum dry density greater than 10 pcf). Based on our observation of the soil boring samples, it appears that portions of the onsite soils can be re-used as structural fill provided they are properly moisture conditioned to ±2 percent of optimum as determined by ASTM D698, virtually free of organic matter and not contain large rock fragments. On-site undercut soils with high organic content, such as buried topsoil, should not be reused in engineered fill. Soils that are removed due to high moisture content that can be moisture conditioned may be reusable in engineered fill provided they can be compacted as specified and meet the suitable soil characteristics. A sufficient number of field density tests should be performed during filling to indicate whether the fill is in general compliance with the project specifications. A commonly used testing frequency is one test per lift of compacted fill per 2,00 square feet of fill area. Lift thickness of general fill should be limited to 8 inches loose measure and compacted to 98% of its Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) maximum dry density. Backfilling in limited access areas, such as utility trenches, should have a lift thickness limited to 6 inches loose measure. Structural fill should be compacted to a minimum 98 percent of the maximum dry density obtained by a Standard Proctor Test. Fill moisture content should typically be in the range of ±2 percent of optimum as determined by ASTM D698. Mass fills should be placed in maximum 8-inch loose lifts. Where filling must occur over sloped surfaces, the fill lifts must be benched into the existing ground to prevent the formation of a potential slip plane and permit placement of horizontal lifts. We recommend that the grading contractor provide (well in advance of the start of site grading) BHATE with representative samples of proposed borrow soil (on-site or off site) so that tests can be performed to confirm compliance with the above structural fill recommendations. In general, soils with higher maximum dry densities and lower liquid limits and plasticity indices have better structural characteristics, are easier to moisture condition and compact, and will perform better than soils with lower maximum dry densities or higher liquid limits and plasticity indices. Consequently, all fill materials that meet the above criteria are not necessarily equal. 6. LIMITED SPACE BACKFILLING Backfilling around storm drains and within utility trenches must be performed in a controlled manner to prevent settlement of the fill and cracking of floor slabs and pavements supported by the backfill. The same level of care must be exercised when backfilling around below-grade structures such as retaining walls, manholes, junction boxes, etc. Backfilling around such structures typically involves placing and compacting fill in relatively confined spaces where manually operated equipment must be utilized for effective compaction of fill. We recommend limited spaces be backfilled with acceptable fill in six-inch lifts and densified by mechanical compactors to the project requirements. Should seepage occur in utility trenches, it may be necessary to floor the trench with open-graded crushed stone (compacted in lifts) to provide a dry working surface. Systematic compaction of limited space backfill will be required even if crushed stone backfill is used. 6

10 6.6 SITE DRAINAGE Site grading plans should include positive drainage away from structures, and the contractor should provide drainage during the construction period. Surface water should be diverted permanently away from the surface improvements. It may be necessary to install interceptor ditches to collect and divert surface water away from the construction area. Excessive twisting and turning of construction equipment over the subgrade after periods of rain will have the potential of disturbing the subgrade soils and may cause the need for subsurface remediation. Preparing/protecting the exposed subgrades prior to rain events will be particularly important to prevent ponding of surface water. 7.0 BUILDING FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS Based on structural information providing by Architecture Group III, we understand the design loads will consist of a maximum exterior wall load of 3,700 lbs/linear foot and a maximum isolated column load of 80 Kips. Considering the structural loads and the existing soils encountered under the proposed building footprint, it is our opinion spread and strip footings bearing on the low terrace deposits will be an appropriate foundation system for the building phase. The borings indicated that the low terrace deposits would be present at a depth of approximately 3 below the existing ground surface. The use of spread footings is based on the assumption that all low consistency, fill is undercut and replaced by properly compacted, non-plastic engineered fill or moisture conditioned and recompacted. Foundations bearing on the low terrace deposits can be designed for a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 2,00 psf. Additionally, we recommend that the following items be incorporated into the building foundation design: Minimum footing dimensions of 18 inches are recommended for continuous strip footings. Column footings should have a minimum dimension of 24 inches. Pockets of organic or low consistency soils encountered during footing excavation should be fully penetrated to reach high consistency soils for proper bearing. Footing overexcavation can be backfilled with lean concrete. We suggest that the construction budget include an allowance for foundation trench overexcavation and backfilling with lean concrete to the planned footing bearing level. It is recommended that all footing bearing surfaces be compacted by a manually operated piston type tamper or vibratory plate compactor prior to placement of the reinforcing steel and observation by the geotechnical engineer. We suggest that bearing surface compaction be addressed in the foundation notes. Soil exposed in the base of all satisfactory foundation trenches should be protected against any detrimental change in conditions such as disturbance from rain, frost, or flooding. Surface runoff water should be drained away from the excavations and not be allowed to pond during construction. If possible, all footing concrete should be placed during the same day the excavation is made. If this is not possible, then the footing excavation and bearing surface should be adequately protected. In some cases use of a thin, concrete mud mat is beneficial in protecting foundation bearing surfaces. 7

11 Roof drainage should be routed away from the structure by positive drainage. Roof runoff should be directed away from the foundation areas and discharged a minimum of away from the foundations with a positive slope away from the building. Limiting water intrusion around the building perimeter will be important. Applying hardscape such as sidewalks adjacent to the building s exterior walls is preferred to landscaped areas that require regular irrigation. 8.0 FLOOR SLAB SUBGRADE CONSIDERATIONS Controlled, compacted, engineered fill or high consistency on-site soil (improved as necessary) should provide suitable support for floor slabs on grade provided the contractor adheres to the site preparation and grading recommendations provided in this report. The slab is assumed to experience light duty loads; therefore, we recommend that the sub-slab leveling course consist of a minimum of 4 inches of properly compacted crushed stone such as ALDOT #7. The granular leveling course will also function as a capillary break to reduce the potential for water migrating toward the slab. We recommend that slightly prior to placement of the sub-slab gravel layer, a BHATE geotechnical engineer evaluate the floor slab subgrade. The evaluation may include proofrolling with a loaded dump truck or other heavy, pneumatic-tire mounted construction equipment. Should proofrolling reveal subgrade that deflects significantly, the area containing the loose or soft soil should be improved to a non-yielding/stable condition. The use of a vapor retarder directly beneath the slab should be at the discretion of the project architect, who can determine the potential impact of water vapor (passing through the slab) on floor finishes and adhesives. Our geotechnical evaluation did not include any evaluation for determining the potential for mold growth inside the building due to the observed subsurface conditions and the site development plan. On most projects, there is some delay between initial grading and the time when the contractor is ready to construct the slab-on-grade. Exposure to weather, construction traffic, etc., can destroy the integrity of subgrade soil, particularly in view of the moisture sensitive soil that we encountered during the exploration. We suggest that provisions be included in the project specifications for the contractor to restore the floor slab subgrade soils to an acceptable condition prior to the construction of floor slabs. Subgrade restoration can be challenging (and a source of controversy) if the gravel sub-slab layer is placed early in the construction process, rainwater becomes trapped in the gravel, and construction traffic contributes to rutting of the nearly completed pad. Based on our experience, wide joint spacing is a common reason for floor slab cracking. We recommend that joint spacing and construction follow Portland Cement Association (PCA) and ACI guidelines. Any crack control steel (including wire mesh) included in the slab should be permanently supported in its proper position in the slab during concrete placement to gain maximum benefit. 8

12 9.0 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE CONSIDERATIONS Pavement section design was beyond our proposed scope of services. However, we have provided the following general comments regarding preparation of pavement subgrade. Because the performance and durability of the pavement primarily depends on the support provided by the underlying subgrade material, use of proper soils, compaction and subgrade preparation are the most important element in pavement design and construction. For flexible (asphaltic concrete) pavements, bases and sub-bases provide uniformity of support and strength to distribute the load to the underlying soil over an area greater than the contact area of the tire. The weaker the underlying soil, the greater is the required area of load distribution and greater the required pavement thickness. High plasticity soils have detrimental volume change characteristics due to changes in soil moisture content. Silts are susceptible to rutting and pumping upon saturation and may remain susceptible to pumping due to capillary action after paving. Any moisture sensitive soils encountered should be modified by stabilizing agents or undercutting and replacement with better materials. Problems often occur when such soils are present in pockets and also when transitioning from cuts to fills. We recommend that all subgrade soil composed of fill be compacted to a minimum 98% of the soil's Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) maximum dry density, at a moisture content within ±2% of optimum. All crushed stone base courses should be compacted to at least 98% of ASTM D17 (Modified Proctor). Pavement construction should generally follow ALDOT requirements. Immediately prior to pavement construction, the geotechnical engineer should evaluate the subgrade exposed in areas to be paved. The evaluation will include proofrolling of the exposed subgrade with a loaded dump truck or similar pneumatic tire-mounted equipment. Proofrolling would serve to densify the upper soils and reveal areas containing soft or loose soil where undercutting or reconditioning of the subgrade soils may be required. 9.1 SUBGRADE DRAINAGE Pavements fail for many reasons ranging from improper construction, design or materials. However, one very important cause of failure lies in the drainage of the subgrade. Poor drainage, according to AASHTO accounts for 60% of all pavement failures. The material under the structural element (asphaltic concrete or PCC) is usually a dense graded granular base. Such bases are not usually free draining and can become saturated. Saturation of the subgrade and granular base leads to a reduction in load bearing strength and the potential for deformation. Water penetration under the pavement can occur from various sources as follows: a. Ingress via cracks and joints or from unpaved permeable adjoining areas. b. Water pooling at the edges of the pavement and curbs and entering the base. c. Excessive runoff from landscape planters or lawn areas. d. Utility lines under the paving. e. Lack of slope on pavement causing pooling on the surface. Poorly drained subgrades can cause a layer of water to form at the base/subgrade interface forming mud slurry. The sensitivity of the subgrade to changes in moisture content depends on its composition. Sandy soils are the least affected since they have good drainage properties. For silty soils, significant reduction in strength can occur. For clay, both the volume and strength will change for the worse with water. Installation of edge drains, interceptor drains and longitudinal drains should be considered in pavement design. 9

13 9.2 SUBGRADE AND PAVEMENT PROTECTION FROM CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC AND DISTURBANCE Often after the subgrade has been moisture conditioned and prepared, construction traffic and inclement weather cause disturbance of the subgrade and strength loss. It is essential that the subgrade be restored just prior to placement of the granular base course. Further, the base materials should not be left unprotected. Pavements exposed to construction traffic will experience premature failure CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend that BHATE be retained to provide a comprehensive construction materials testing program to assist the owner in determining whether certain aspects of construction are carried out in general conformance with the project specific plans and specifications. Such a program includes testing of construction materials, such as compacted fill, asphalt and concrete, and engineering observations and testing during earthwork and foundation construction. In addition, IBC 2009 requires that Special Inspection services be conducted during the construction process. Observation and testing during the earthwork and foundation construction phases is particularly important because assumptions and recommendations have been made based on data obtained from a limited number of soil test borings. Confirmation by the design geotechnical engineer that actual subsurface conditions are comparable to the assumed conditions is an essential part of the subsurface evaluation. Failure to engage the geotechnical engineer during the earthwork and building foundation phases of the project will result in an incomplete geotechnical evaluation being conducted and could increase the owner s risk. 10

14 11.0 GENERAL REMARKS AND LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Rinkesh Patel with Ram Riverfront Hospitality, LLC for specific application to the subject project and is nontransferable without prior consent from BHATE Geosciences. All recommendations contained in this report have been made in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices in the area where the services were performed. No other warranties are implied or expressed. At the time this report was prepared, the final site-grading plan had not been completed, and consequently the report may not address all geotechnical related design issues. In addition, the analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based, in part, upon the data obtained from a limited number of borings. The nature and extent of variations in soil conditions between the borings may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it may be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. We emphasize that this report was for design purposes only and may not be sufficient to prepare an accurate bid. Contractors reviewing this report should acknowledge that the discussions and recommendations contained herein are for design/information purposes. A more comprehensive exploration/testing program would be required to assist the contractor in preparing final pad preparation, grading, and foundation design/construction budgets. In no case should this report be utilized as a substitute for a development-specific earthwork specification. The information contained in this report is not intended, nor is sufficient, for the design of segmental retaining walls. Segmental wall designers/builders should perform independent analysis to determine all necessary soil characteristics (including soil shear strength, bearing capacity, and global stability) for use in wall design. Also, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services performed in connection with the geotechnical engineer s study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold prevention. It is important that the geotechnical engineer be provided the opportunity to review the final geotechnical related plans and specifications to verify that the recommendations in this report are properly interpreted and incorporated in the design. It will be the client s responsibility to furnish the final grading and foundation plans to BHATE for the necessary review. If the geotechnical engineer is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, he can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of these recommendations. 11

15 APPENDIX

16

17 LOG OF BORING CONTRACTED WITH: Ram Riverfront Hospitality, LLC PROJECT NAME: Courtyard Marriott BORING NO.: B-1 PROJECT LOCATION: Phenix City, Alabama JOB NO.: SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE: 9/28/12 SAMPLE DATA DEPTH (ft) 0 GRAPHIC LOG 6" TOPSOIL MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/6" N-VALUE MOISTURE (%) LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) PPqu (tsf) WATER LEVEL REMARKS Medium-dense, red-brown SAND, with traces of organics and little amounts of rock fragments with little amounts of rounded pebbles same same Red to dark brown SAND, moist, with traces of rock fragments and clay (LOW TERRACE DEPOSITS) Red-brown, micaceous SILT 20 (COASTAL DEPOSITS) Boring terminated at 20. feet GNE 2 30 Split Spoon GNE = Ground Water Not Encountered = Water Table Time of Boring = Delayed Water Table Level = Hole Cave In Depth 217 Fifth Avenue South Birmingham, Alabama 3212 Phone: Fax:

18 LOG OF BORING CONTRACTED WITH: Ram Riverfront Hospitality, LLC PROJECT NAME: Courtyard Marriott BORING NO.: B-2 PROJECT LOCATION: Phenix City, Alabama JOB NO.: SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE: 9/28/12 SAMPLE DATA DEPTH (ft) 0 GRAPHIC LOG MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 6" TOPSOIL NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/6" N-VALUE MOISTURE (%) LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) PPqu (tsf) WATER LEVEL REMARKS Medium-dense, red-brown SAND, with little mica (FILL) % passing #200 sieve Medium-dense, red-brown SAND, with little amounts of rock fragments Red-brown SAND, with trace rock fragments same Loose, red-brown SAND, moist (LOW TERRACE DEPOSITS) Soft, gray, micaceous SILT with some sand (COASTAL DEPOSITS) Boring terminated at 20. feet Split Spoon GNE = Ground Water Not Encountered = Water Table Time of Boring = Delayed Water Table Level = Hole Cave In Depth 217 Fifth Avenue South Birmingham, Alabama 3212 Phone: Fax:

19 LOG OF BORING CONTRACTED WITH: Ram Riverfront Hospitality, LLC PROJECT NAME: Courtyard Marriott BORING NO.: B-3 PROJECT LOCATION: Phenix City, Alabama JOB NO.: SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE: 9/28/01 SAMPLE DATA DEPTH (ft) 0 GRAPHIC LOG 6" TOPSOIL MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/6" N-VALUE MOISTURE (%) LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) PPqu (tsf) WATER LEVEL REMARKS Very loose, brown, clayey SAND, with trace organics (FILL) Medium-dense, red-brown SAND, with trace organics with trace rock fragments same loose (LOW TERRACE DEPOSITS) Light gray to light brown, sandy SILT, with little mica same (COASTAL DEPOSIT) Boring terminated at 20. feet Split Spoon GNE = Ground Water Not Encountered = Water Table Time of Boring = Delayed Water Table Level = Hole Cave In Depth 217 Fifth Avenue South Birmingham, Alabama 3212 Phone: Fax:

20 LOG OF BORING CONTRACTED WITH: Ram Riverfront Hospitality, LLC PROJECT NAME: Courtyard Marriott BORING NO.: B-4 PROJECT LOCATION: Phenix City, Alabama JOB NO.: SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE: 9/28/12 SAMPLE DATA DEPTH (ft) 0 GRAPHIC LOG 6" TOPSOIL MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/6" N-VALUE MOISTURE (%) LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) PPqu (tsf) WATER LEVEL REMARKS Medium-dense, red-brown SAND, with trace organics trace rock fragments same same (LOW TERRACE DEPOSITS) 1 Light brown, silty CLAY Light brown to black mottled, micaceous SILT (COASTAL DEPOSITS) Boring terminated at 20. feet Split Spoon GNE = Ground Water Not Encountered = Water Table Time of Boring = Delayed Water Table Level = Hole Cave In Depth 217 Fifth Avenue South Birmingham, Alabama 3212 Phone: Fax:

21 LOG OF BORING CONTRACTED WITH: Ram Riverfront Hospitality, LLC PROJECT NAME: Courtyard Marriott BORING NO.: B- PROJECT LOCATION: Phenix City, Alabama JOB NO.: SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE: 9/28/12 SAMPLE DATA DEPTH (ft) 0 GRAPHIC LOG 6" TOPSOIL MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/6" N-VALUE MOISTURE (%) LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) PPqu (tsf) WATER LEVEL REMARKS Medium, red-brown, clayey SAND, with trace organics and rock fragments (FILL) 1 0/4-x-x x* 8.4 Medium, red-brown SAND, with trace rock fragments Brown SAND 2 3 0/4-x-x x* *N-Values exaggerated due to the presence of rock fragments 10...same Brown and dark brown, coarse SAND, moist (LOW TERRACE DEPOSITS) Light brown mottled with white, silty SAND 20 (COASTAL DEPOSITS) Boring terminated at 20. feet Split Spoon GNE = Ground Water Not Encountered = Water Table Time of Boring = Delayed Water Table Level = Hole Cave In Depth 217 Fifth Avenue South Birmingham, Alabama 3212 Phone: Fax:

22 LOG OF BORING CONTRACTED WITH: Ram Riverfront Hospitality, LLC PROJECT NAME: Courtyard Marriott BORING NO.: B-6 PROJECT LOCATION: Phenix City, Alabama JOB NO.: SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE: 9/28/12 SAMPLE DATA DEPTH (ft) 0 GRAPHIC LOG 6" TOPSOIL MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/6" N-VALUE MOISTURE (%) LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) PPqu (tsf) WATER LEVEL REMARKS Medium-dense, red-brown, clayey SAND, with trace organics % passing #200 sieve Red to light brown SAND, with trace organics Light brown, silty SAND red-brown (LOW TERRACE DEPOSIT) 1 White mottled with light brown, silty SAND sandy SILT (COASTAL DEPOSIT) Boring terminated at 20. feet GNE 2 30 Split Spoon GNE = Ground Water Not Encountered = Water Table Time of Boring = Delayed Water Table Level = Hole Cave In Depth 217 Fifth Avenue South Birmingham, Alabama 3212 Phone: Fax:

23 LOG OF BORING CONTRACTED WITH: Ram Riverfront Hospitality, LLC PROJECT NAME: Courtyard Marriott BORING NO.: P-1 PROJECT LOCATION: Phenix City, Alabama JOB NO.: SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE: 9/28/12 SAMPLE DATA DEPTH (ft) 0 GRAPHIC LOG 6" TOPSOIL MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/6" N-VALUE MOISTURE (%) LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) PPqu (tsf) WATER LEVEL REMARKS Red-brown, clayey SAND, with trace organics with trace rock fragments Boring terminated at. feet (FILL) GNE Split Spoon GNE = Ground Water Not Encountered = Water Table Time of Boring = Delayed Water Table Level = Hole Cave In Depth 217 Fifth Avenue South Birmingham, Alabama 3212 Phone: Fax:

24 LOG OF BORING CONTRACTED WITH: Ram Riverfront Hospitality, LLC PROJECT NAME: Courtyard Marriott BORING NO.: P-2 PROJECT LOCATION: Phenix City, Alabama JOB NO.: SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE: 9/28/12 SAMPLE DATA DEPTH (ft) 0 GRAPHIC LOG 6" TOPSOIL MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/6" N-VALUE MOISTURE (%) LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) PPqu (tsf) WATER LEVEL REMARKS Medium, red-brown, clayey SAND, with trace rock fragments (FILL) Red-brown SAND (LOW TERRACE DEPOSITS) Boring terminated at. feet GNE Split Spoon GNE = Ground Water Not Encountered = Water Table Time of Boring = Delayed Water Table Level = Hole Cave In Depth 217 Fifth Avenue South Birmingham, Alabama 3212 Phone: Fax:

25 LOG OF BORING CONTRACTED WITH: Ram Riverfront Hospitality, LLC PROJECT NAME: Courtyard Marriott BORING NO.: P-3 PROJECT LOCATION: Phenix City, Alabama JOB NO.: SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE: 9/28/12 SAMPLE DATA DEPTH (ft) 0 GRAPHIC LOG 6" TOPSOIL MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/6" N-VALUE MOISTURE (%) LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) PPqu (tsf) WATER LEVEL REMARKS Loose, black, clayey SAND Soft, red-brown, sandy CLAY % passing #200 sieve USCS = NP...moist Boring terminated at. feet (FILL) 2 WOH GNE Split Spoon GNE = Ground Water Not Encountered = Water Table Time of Boring = Delayed Water Table Level = Hole Cave In Depth 217 Fifth Avenue South Birmingham, Alabama 3212 Phone: Fax:

26 LOG OF BORING CONTRACTED WITH: Ram Riverfront Hospitality, LLC PROJECT NAME: Courtyard Marriott BORING NO.: P-4 PROJECT LOCATION: Phenix City, Alabama JOB NO.: SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE: 9/28/12 SAMPLE DATA DEPTH (ft) 0 GRAPHIC LOG 6" TOPSOIL MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/6" N-VALUE MOISTURE (%) LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) PPqu (tsf) WATER LEVEL REMARKS Very stiff, red-brown, sandy CLAY, with little mica same Boring terminated at. feet (FILL) GNE Split Spoon GNE = Ground Water Not Encountered = Water Table Time of Boring = Delayed Water Table Level = Hole Cave In Depth 217 Fifth Avenue South Birmingham, Alabama 3212 Phone: Fax:

27

28