GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED CITY OF GREENCASTLE PARKING GARAGE WALNUT STREET AND INDIANA STREET GREENCASTLE, INDIANA

Transcription

1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED CITY OF GREENCASTLE PARKING GARAGE WALNUT STREET AND INDIANA STREET GREENCASTLE, INDIANA CARDNO ATC PROJECT NO (REVISED) NOVEMBER 30, 2012 PREPARED FOR: WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 6602 EAST 75 TH STREET, SUITE 210 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA ATTENTION: MR. SCOTT C. DUFF, LEED AP PROJECT MANAGER

2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface Soil and Bedrock Conditions Ground Water DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS General Foundation Concepts Spread Footings Rammed Aggregate Piers Drilled Shaft Foundations Slab-on-Grade Floors Below-Grade Walls and Permanent Dewatering Pavement Site Grading and Surface Drainage GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Site Preparation Fill Compaction Spread Footing Excavations Drilled Shaft Installation Observations Construction Dewatering FIELD INVESTIGATION LABORATORY INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS OF STUDY 25 APPENDIX

4 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED CITY OF GREENCASTLE PARKING GARAGE WALNUT STREET AND INDIANA STREET GREENCASTLE, INDIANA CARDNO ATC PROJECT NO (REVISED) 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this study was to determine the general subsurface conditions at the project site by drilling fourteen test borings and to evaluate this data with respect to foundation concept and design for the proposed parking garage to be constructed southwest of the intersection of Walnut Street and Indiana Street in Greencastle, Indiana. Also included is an evaluation of the site with respect to potential construction problems and recommendations dealing with quality control during construction. 2.0 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Walker Parking Consultants is planning the construction of a parking garage structure on an approximately 0.5-acre site located southwest of the intersection of Walnut Street and Indiana Street in Greencastle, Indiana. The general location of the proposed construction site is shown in Figure 1 in the Appendix. The current topography within the proposed parking garage area slopes gently, and relatively uniformly, downward from the east side (about El 838.5) to the west side (current ground surface at about El 830.5) with a topographic relief of approximately 8 The ground surface in the west half of the proposed parking garage area is an asphalt-covered parking lot and the east half is a vacant grass covered lot, except for an existing building in the southeast corner of the site that will be razed. It is our understanding that a gas station formerly occupied most of the eastern portion of the site (i.e., that portion not currently occupied by a structure) and a hotel formerly occupied the western portion of the site, both of which have been demolished. It is reported that the underground storage tanks for the gas station have

5 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page 2 been removed. It is possible that there were earlier generations of urban development at this site. The general arrangement of the project site is shown on the Boring Plan, Figure 2 in the Appendix. It is our understanding that the new parking garage will be a cast-in-place, post-tensioned concrete structure that will have plan dimensions of 98 ft by 210 The majority of the garage will have a partially or fully below-grade level, except at the west end where the lowest level will match the street grade at about El The lowest floor level will vary throughout the garage area with the lowest level at about El 823 in the middle portion. The nominal spread footing bearing elevations will vary from approximately El (at the southeast corner) to El (in the central portion). The nominal footing bearing elevations are shown on the Foundation Plan (Sheet Number S-100), a copy of which is included in the Appendix. It is our understanding that the column loads are expected to range from approximately 100 kips/column to a maximum of less than 500 kips/column. For the purpose of this study, it has been assumed that the wall loads will not exceed about 10 kips/l No unusual loading conditions or settlement restrictions have been specified. 3.0 GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The general subsurface conditions were investigated by drilling fourteen test borings to depths ranging from 6.0 to 37.6 ft at the approximate locations shown on the Boring Plan (Figure 2 in the Appendix). The subsurface conditions disclosed by the field investigation are summarized in the following paragraphs. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered in each test boring are presented on the Test Boring Logs in the Appendix. The letters in parentheses following the soil descriptions are the soil classifications in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. It should be noted

6 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page 3 that the stratification lines shown on the soil boring logs represent approximate transitions between material types. In-situ stratum changes could occur gradually or at slightly different depths. 3.1 Subsurface Soil and Bedrock Conditions Boring Nos. B-1, B-4, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-7A, B-8, B-8A, B-9, B-9A and B-10 encountered asphalt pavement (3 to 6 thick) overlying aggregate base that extended to depths of approximately 0.8 to 1.0 Boring Nos. B-2, B-3 and B-11 encountered topsoil that ranged in thickness from approximately 0.3 to 0.4 ft at the surface. Underlying these surface materials, Boring Nos. B-1, B-4, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-8, B-8A, B-9, B-9A and B-10 revealed miscellaneous uncontrolled fill materials to depths of 3 to 16 ft below the existing ground surface. In Boring Nos. B-4, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-8, B-8A, B-9, B-9A and B-10 the fill consists of silty clay, sandy silty clay and/or gravelly sand that contains varying amounts of sand, gravel, wood, asphalt, brick and limestone fragments extending to depths of 3 to 16 ft below the existing ground surface. In Boring No. B-1, the fill was mainly limestone fragments and extended to a depth of about 6 Underlying the uncontrolled fill materials, or the surface materials in Boring Nos. B-2, B-3 and B-11, the test borings generally encountered primarily medium stiff to very stiff silty clay (CL), sandy silty clay (CL) and clay (CH) to depths ranging from 11.6 to 27.7 Boring Nos. B-4, B-8 and B-10 revealed a zone of gray, soft to medium stiff silty clay (CL) that contained organic material between depths of approximately 8.0 to 18.5 The gray silty clay within this depth range in Boring Nos. B-4, B-8 and B-10 was distinctly different from the glacially deposited soils encountered elsewhere on site. The consistency of the cohesive soils were estimated based on the results of the standard penetration test (ASTM D-1586).

7 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page 4 Although no sand or gravel layers or sand seams were noted within any of the soil samples obtained or in any of the test borings that were drilled for this project, our experience indicates that sand layers or thin sand seams are often interbedded within the cohesive glacial till soils such as those that underlie this site. Therefore, it is important to understand that saturated sand and gravel layers or sand seams may be encountered at various locations and depths at this site. In some cases, the granular sand and/or gravel layers may be under hydrostatic pressure. Auger refusal was encountered in Boring Nos. B-6, B-7, B-7A, B-9 and B-11 at depths ranging from 11.6 to 27.7 ft below the existing ground surface (which corresponds to auger refusal at approximately El 804 to El 816). Auger refusal is typically presumed to be on bedrock, however, it is possible that auger refusal can be encountered on a boulder (such as Boring No. B-2) or an obstruction (such as Boring No. B-1 where auger refusal was apparently encountered on an obstruction). Auger refusal is defined herein as the depth at which a conventional test drill rig could not advance the hollow-stem-augers farther. It is important to understand that auger refusal is not necessarily coincident with the bedrock surface since the augers can penetrate the upper weathered or fractured bedrock in some cases or can encounter refusal on objects within the overburden materials above the bedrock surface (such as on boulders, rubble, obstructions, concrete slabs, etc.). The bedrock was cored to depths of 9.9 and 9.7 ft below the auger refusal depths in Boring Nos. B-9 and B- 11, respectively. The rock cores generally revealed limestone bedrock within the depth zone cored. Detailed descriptions of the bedrock encountered in the rock cores are presented on the boring logs in the Appendix. Since cobbles and rock fragments were noted in Boring Nos. B-2, B-3, B-5 and B-11, it is likely that cobbles and boulders will be encountered in excavations at this site. Large obstructions could also be contained within miscellaneous uncontrolled fill materials such as those encountered in the upper 3 to 16 ft of Boring Nos. B-1, B-4, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-8, B-8A,

8 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page 5 B-9, B-9A and B-10. It is also possible that there may be buried obstructions associated with prior development - such as basement floors, footings, walls, cisterns, wells, etc. at the site, as this is commonly encountered at urban settings such as this. It is also possible that bedrock may be encountered above the proposed excavation depths. 3.2 Ground Water Ground water observations were made during the drilling operations by noting the depth of water on the drilling tools and in the open boreholes following withdrawal of the drilling augers. Free ground water was noted in Boring Nos. B-5, B-7, B-8, B-8A, B-9 and B-11 at depths ranging from 8.2 to 19.0 ft below the existing ground surface. No free ground water was noted in the other eight borings which were terminated at depths of 6 to 25 Short term ground water level readings made in test borings are not necessarily a reliable indication of the actual ground water level. Furthermore, perched ground water is often encountered within pockets of old miscellaneous fill and rubble and also within granular layers within the glacial till soils. In any case, fluctuations in the level of the ground water should be expected due to variations in rainfall and other factors and ground water may be encountered at varying depths and locations across the site. It is also important to note that the test borings were drilled during an extended period of below-normal precipitation. 4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The following design recommendations have been developed on the basis of the previously described project characteristics (Section 2.0) and subsurface conditions (Section 3.0). If there is any change in these project criteria, including project location on the site, proposed finish grade elevations, loading conditions, foundation bearing elevations, etc., a review should be made by this office.

9 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page 6 Based on geologic mapping and the results of the test borings, it is our opinion that the subsurface conditions at this site meet the criteria for Site Class C based on Sections and of the 2006 International Building Code. A Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods coefficient (S DS ) of 0.20 and a Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period coefficient (S D1 ) of 0.11 have been estimated based on Sections and of the 2006 International Building Code. 4.1 General Foundation Concepts The test borings that have been drilled for the geotechnical investigation for the proposed parking garage structure revealed extremely variable subsurface conditions across the project site that includes miscellaneous uncontrolled fill, rubble and debris, soft compressible natural silty clay soils along with firm natural glacial till soils and variable depths to bedrock. The miscellaneous uncontrolled fill materials (which includes bricks, wood, asphalt, gravel, limestone fragments, etc. along with soil) and the soft compressible natural soils are not suitable for support of conventional spread footings. The test borings that revealed unsuitable materials are generally located in the western portion of the project site (i.e., Boring Nos. B-1, B-4, B-6, B-7, B-8, B-8A, B-9, B-9A and B-10). The test borings that were drilled in the eastern portion of the project site (i.e., Boring Nos. B-2, B-3, B-5 and B-11) generally revealed firm natural silty clay glacial till soils, except for miscellaneous uncontrolled fill that was revealed in the upper 3 ft of Boring No. B-5. Although the test borings that were drilled in the eastern portion of the site typically did not reveal significant amounts of unsuitable materials, it is likely that some pockets or zones of unsuitable materials (such as uncontrolled fill and remnants from previous facilities) currently exist in the eastern portion of the site since this portion of the site was formerly occupied by a gasoline station that apparently had at least four separate underground storage tanks as well as a fueling island and a building. It is our

10 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page 7 understanding that the underground storage tanks have been removed and the tank pits have been backfilled. However, since it is generally not standard practice to use materials and compaction methods for backfilling underground storage tanks that are compatible with the support of heavily loaded structures, it must be assumed that a significant amount of the existing materials in the eastern portion of the site are not suitable for support of spread footings. Furthermore, our experience on other projects in older sections of cities indicates that remnants from prior generations of development (such as basement floor slabs, footings, walls, wells, cisterns, utility lines, etc.) may exist at various locations at this site. Based upon the currently planned bottom of spread footing elevations (see Foundation Plan in the Appendix for planned bottom of footing elevations) in conjunction with the test borings, it appears that at most column locations in the eastern portion of the site the spread footings at the planned elevations would likely bear on firm natural stiff to hard glacial till soils that appear to be suitable for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 5,000 lbs/sq.ft without the need for improvement (although some undercutting of existing soils may be required at some locations in order to reach the suitable bearing soils). However, in the western portion of the structure area, it will be necessary to either remove unsuitable soils to expose the stiff to hard glacial till soils that are suitable for support of the spread footings and to replace the unsuitable materials with well-compacted engineered fill, to improve the existing soils beneath these footings in-place (e.g., with Geopiers) or to support these columns on drilled shaft foundations that extend to bear on bedrock. In order to support the proposed parking garage structure on conventional spread footings without any in-place soil improvements or deep foundation system, it will be necessary to first remove all of the existing unsuitable materials to expose the natural stiff to hard silty clay glacial till soils and to replace the unsuitable materials with well-compacted

11 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page 8 engineered fill. The engineered fill should consist of INDOT No. 53 crushed limestone compacted to 100 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. This may require undercutting existing materials to a depth as great as approximately 20 ft below the existing ground surface at some footing locations in the western portion of the garage area (unsuitable soils were encountered in Boring No. B-4 to about El 811), and possibly deeper at isolated locations. This will also require the installation of a significant temporary retention system around the perimeter of the structure to protect the surrounding facilities in order to remove and replace the unsuitable materials where necessary. Undercutting and replacement (where necessary) appears to be feasible in the eastern portion of the garage area, and along most of the center column line (except for the far west end); however, this method will be more difficult to accomplish along the western half of the south column line, along the west column line and along the west end of the north column line. The estimated depths to suitable bearing soils at the test boring locations are shown in the following table:

12 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page 9 Boring No. Estimated Ground Surface Elevation Estimated Depth to Suitable Bearing Soils, ft Estimated Elevation at Top of Suitable Bearing Soils B NA NA B B B B B B B-7A 832 NA NA B B-8A B B-9A B B NA Suitable bearing soils not encountered within boring depth An economical alternative to complete removal and replacement of the unsuitable soils as described above is a proprietary in-place soil modification or improvement technique referred to as rammed aggregate piers (Geopiers ). The rammed aggregate piers may be used to modify the soft compressible natural silty clays and the uncontrolled fill materials and thus would allow for the use of conventional spread footings without complete removal and replacement of the existing unsuitable materials. This technique may be appropriate for the footings in the western portion of the garage area where removal and replacement of unsuitable soils may be difficult. Geopier rammed aggregate piers is a proprietary technique whereby dense-graded crushed limestone is placed in drilled holes in thin lifts and densified using a specially designed dynamic energy source. The result is a pre-stressing of the existing soil around the piers, inclusion of very stiff reinforced elements within the existing matrix materials and a partial transfer of foundation loads to the deeper, more competent stratum. After the in-place modification, spread footings can be used without

13 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page 10 undercutting and replacement of the existing unsuitable soils. Recommendations regarding Geopier rammed aggregate piers are presented in Section The proposed parking garage structure can also be supported on drilled shaft foundations that extend to bear in competent limestone bedrock. The top of the bedrock elevation is quite variable within the project limits and therefore the actual lengths of the drilled shafts will vary significantly across the site. It is important to note that drilled shaft foundation installation will be difficult in some locations due to remnants from previous structures. Furthermore, it is expected that saturated layers of granular soils or fill will be encountered where water is trapped within the sand or old miscellaneous fill materials. The use of drilled shaft foundations will require special inspection of the bedrock below the base of the drilled shaft tips to confirm that the shafts will bear upon the competent limestone bedrock. Recommendations regarding drilled shaft foundations are presented in Section Spread Footings Our findings show that spread footings that bear on the natural stiff to hard silty clay glacial till soils can be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 5,000 lbs/sq. A discussion regarding suitable bearing soils and estimated depths to suitable bearing soils is presented in Section 4.1. Where unsuitable materials (such as old miscellaneous fill, remnants from previous structures, soft natural soils, etc.) are encountered, they must be removed to expose the stiff to hard silty clay glacial till soils and replaced with INDOT No. 53 crushed limestone that is compacted to 100 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density, or lean concrete may be used to re-establish the footing bearing elevation. The base dimensions of the undercut excavations beneath spread footings should be made larger as described in Section 5.3 of this report. It is important that the soil at the base of each spread footing excavation be carefully observed and evaluated by a representative working under the direction of the geotechnical engineer-of-

14 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page 11 record as described in Section 5.3 to determine whether the actual bearing materials are consistent with those upon which the recommendations are based. All spread footings should be located at a depth of at least 3 ft below the final exterior grade for frost protection. Although the Indiana Building Code requires only 2.5 ft of foundation embedment below the exterior grade, our experience indicates that the actual frost depths at this location can occur deeper. Column and wall footings should be at least 2 ft wide for bearing capacity considerations. Care must be exercised when excavating near the existing buildings, streets, alleys, sidewalks, utility lines, etc. to protect the integrity of the existing features. Bracing or underpinning will be required where it is necessary to excavate below the bottom elevation of the existing features. Uplift forces on spread footings can be resisted by the weight of the footings and the backfill soil material that is placed over the footings. It is recommended that the backfill soil weight considered to resist uplift loads be limited to that immediately above and within the perimeter of the footings (unless a much higher factor of safety is used). A total soil unit weight of 110 lbs/cu. ft can be used for the backfill material placed above the footings, provided it is compacted as recommended in Section 5.2. It is also recommended that a factor of safety of at least 1.3 be used for calculating uplift resistance from the footings (provided only the weight of the footing and the soil immediately above it are used to resist uplift forces).

15 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page Rammed Aggregate Piers The Geopier rammed aggregate piers soil modification system has been used successfully in similar circumstances as discussed in Section 4.1, however, because the Geopier soil modification system is a proprietary design/build procedure that is designed by a registered engineer with the Geopier Foundation Company and installed by a specialty contractor, the Geopier design associate should be contacted regarding specific applicability to this project, development of the specific program to meet the project requirements (i.e., bearing capacity and settlement limitations) as well as costs and scheduling requirements. Spread footings that bear on modified or improved subgrade materials as described above can usually be designed for an allowable bearing pressure in the range of about 4,000 to 5,000 lbs/sq.ft while limiting settlement within required tolerances without the need for undercutting and replacing the existing materials or the use of deep foundations. The actual design bearing pressure must be determined by the Geopier design associate based on the specific criteria of the Geopier design system, the expected loading conditions and required settlement tolerances. 4.3 Drilled Shaft Foundations It appears that drilled shaft foundations are a suitable alternative for the support of the parking garage structure. Drilled shaft foundations that extend at least 1.5 ft into competent limestone bedrock that is free of voids or clay seams can be designed for an allowable end bearing pressure of 40 kips/sq. The drilled shafts should be a minimum of 3 ft in diameter and should be a minimum of 12 ft long. The top of the bedrock elevation is quite variable within the project limits and therefore the actual lengths of the drilled shafts will vary significantly across the site and it is expected that the drilled shaft tip elevations may vary from approximately El 825 to El 800, although longer and/or shorter drilled shaft lengths may be required at some locations.

16 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page 13 It is important to note that drilled shaft foundation installation will be difficult at some locations due to remnants from previous structures (auger refusal was encountered on an obstruction in Boring No. B-1) and it is likely obstructions that require removal will be encountered at some drilled shaft locations. Any remnants of previous construction that cause obstruction to the installation of a drilled shaft must be removed since it is essential that the drilled shaft foundations extend to bear in the competent limestone bedrock in order to achieve the design bearing pressure noted above. The bearing surface for the drilled shaft foundations should be made relatively level, which may require some additional rock removal in certain cases, depending on the configuration of the bedrock surface at the specific foundation location. Furthermore, it is expected that saturated layers will be encountered where water is trapped within old miscellaneous fill materials. Guidelines for inspection and verification of competent limestone bedrock for drilled shafts are provided in Section 5.4. Upon proper installation, the drilled shafts should experience only minimal settlement, generally less than ½ Differential settlement between a column supported on a drilled shaft and one supported on a spread footing may approach 1 A lateral shaft resistance of at least 6 kips/shaft for a 3 ft (or greater) diameter shaft that is at least 12 ft in length should be available (based on a lateral shaft head deflection of about ½ ). Based upon the allowable load described above, the minimum drilled shaft length and the results of LPILE analyses, the maximum bending moment and shear force within the drilled shafts are estimated to be 30 ft-kips and 16 kips, respectively. An uplift capacity of 20 kips/shaft can be used for a 3 ft diameter shaft that is at least 12 ft in length. The drilled shafts should be designed and constructed in accordance with ACI 336.3R Design and Construction of Drilled Piers. It is important that the drilled shaft foundations be installed by an experienced, competent drilled shaft contractor who will be responsible for properly installing the shafts in

17 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page 14 accordance with industry standards and generally accepted methods without causing deterioration of the subgrade conditions as well as protecting the integrity of the existing structures. The drilled shaft foundation excavations will require temporary steel casing to prevent caving. 4.4 Slab-on-Grade Floors It appears that it is possible to support the lower level slab-on-grade floors on the existing soils provided the slab subgrade is prepared and observed as described in Section 5.1 of this report and any clearly unsuitable fill materials (such as collapsible objects, pockets of debris and rubble, soft or loose soils, etc.) are removed and replaced with engineered fill. Based on the anticipated light floor slab loading, the cost of complete removal and replacement of the existing uncontrolled fill materials beneath the floor slab areas, modification or improvement of the existing soils or support of the floor slabs on deep foundations may not be justified in order to completely eliminate the relatively small risk of greater-than-normal floor slab settlement that could occur at some locations if the floor slab is constructed over the existing fill materials. However, the owner must recognize that there is some risk of greater-than-normal floor slab settlement in this case since uncontrolled fill materials are not as reliable as naturally deposited soils and the fill could contain compressible materials not detected by the test borings or revealed during construction. If this risk is unacceptable, all of the existing fill materials should be removed and replaced with engineered fill, the existing soils modified or improved in-place beneath the floor slab area (i.e., rammed aggregate piers) or the floor slab supported structurally on drilled shaft foundations. It is recommended that all floor slabs be "floating", that is, fully ground supported and not structurally connected to walls or foundations. This is to minimize the possibility of cracking and displacement of the floor slabs because of differential movements between the slab and the foundation. Although the movements are estimated to be within the tolerable

18 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page 15 limits for structural safety, such movements could be detrimental to the slabs if they were rigidly connected to the foundations. It is furthermore recommended that the slab-on-grade floors be supported on a 4 (minimum) layer of relatively clean granular material such as sand and gravel or crushed stone. This is to help distribute concentrated loads and equalize moisture conditions beneath the slab. Provided that a minimum of 4 of granular material is placed below the slab, a modulus of subgrade reaction (k 30 ) of 100 lbs/cu. can be used for design of the floor slabs. Recommendations for sub-floor drainage measures for below-grade portions of the parking structure are provided in Section Below-Grade Walls and Permanent Dewatering The lower level of the parking garage will be partially or fully below-grade and therefore retaining walls will be required to provide grade separation. The magnitude of the lateral earth pressure against the below-grade walls is dependent on the method of backfill placement, the type of backfill material used, drainage provisions and whether or not the wall is permitted to yield during and/or after placement of the backfill. When a wall is held rigidly against horizontal movement (such as a wall that is braced by the floors, structural framing and the other walls; as will be the case for most, if not all, of the walls on this project), the lateral earth pressure against the wall is greater than the "active" lateral earth pressure that is typically used in the design of free-standing retaining walls. Therefore, the below-grade walls for this project should be designed for the higher, "at-rest" lateral earth pressures (using an at-rest lateral earth pressure coefficient, K o ). A design illustration to aid in computing lateral earth pressures against below-grade walls is included as Figure 3 in the Appendix. It is recommended that only well-graded, free-draining granular material be used for backfill behind the below-grade walls within a zone defined by a plane extending upward and

19 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page 16 outward on a 1 to 1 slope from the base of the wall (as shown in Figure 3 in the Appendix). Provided that well-graded, free-draining granular materials are used for backfill behind the lower-level walls, a total soil unit weight of 130 lbs/cu.ft and a coefficient of lateral earth pressure at-rest (K o ) of 0.45 (i.e., an equivalent fluid pressure of 58 lbs/sq.ft/ft of depth) can be used to calculate the lateral earth pressure against the below-grade walls using Figure 3 in the Appendix. All heavy equipment, including heavy compaction equipment, should not be allowed closer to the wall (horizontal distance) than the vertical distance from the backfill surface to the bottom of the wall. The pressure diagram and method of computation illustrated in Figure 3 in the Appendix and described above presumes that there will be no hydrostatic pressure due to water buildup against the below-grade walls. Therefore, it is recommended that the below-grade walls be water-proofed and that a perforated drainage pipe be placed along the base of the walls to drain any surface water or ground water that might enter the backfill. It is also recommended that an 8 thick (minimum) layer of free-draining aggregate (e.g., Indiana Department of Transportation coarse aggregate size No. 5 or No. 8 crushed limestone) should be placed beneath the lower floor slab and that 4 (minimum) diameter perforated drain pipes (e.g., Contech A-2000 perforated PVC pipe) set in trenches below the drainage layer and filled with free-draining aggregate (INDOT No. 5 or No. 8 crushed limestone) should be installed beneath the slab-on-grade floor of the lower level of the parking garage to provide for drainage of water from beneath the floor. All of the drain pipes (including the subfloor drains and the perimeter drains around the base of the walls) should drain to a sump pit, from which water can be pumped, or to a suitable gravity outfall. It is imperative that the drainage material within the sub-floor drainage blanket and trenches be kept clean and free of debris. It is therefore recommended that the placement

20 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page 17 of the drainage system be completed just prior to installation of the slab so that the exposure to construction traffic is minimized. If it should become necessary to place the drainage material earlier than immediately before placing the floor, the drainage blanket should be inspected and any contaminated zones replaced. Figure 3 in the Appendix can also be used to calculate the active lateral earth pressure against free-standing retaining walls if any are used on this project. In this case, an active lateral earth pressure coefficient (K a ) of 0.30 and a total soil unit weight of 130 lbs/cu. (or an equivalent fluid pressure of 39 lbs/sq.ft/ft of depth) can be used provided that wellgraded granular backfill material is used behind these walls. A coefficient of friction between the base of the retaining wall footings and the foundation soils of 0.25 can be used to resist lateral forces. A factor of safety of at least 1.5 should be used relative to lateral resistance of the retaining wall footings. An allowable passive pressure (or allowable equivalent fluid pressure ) of 100 lbs/sq.ft times the depth below the ground surface (in feet) can be used for that portion of the wall footing that is below a depth of 2.5 ft below the final exterior grade (no portion of the footing above this depth should be used for lateral resistance). In order to safely use passive pressure to resist lateral forces on a wall foundation, it must be assured that that no future excavation will occur in the passive zone in front of the footing. 4.6 Pavement Details regarding site grading in pavement areas are not available at this time; however, depending upon grading requirements and seasonal conditions, it is likely that the pavement subgrade in some areas of the site will be wet, soft or yielding at the time of construction (particularly in cut areas). If at the time of construction the subgrade is found to be excessively wet, soft or yielding, it is recommended that the subgrade soils be stabilized by discing, aerating and recompacting. However, if it is not possible to improve the subgrade soils in this manner because of weather conditions, scheduling or other conditions (which is

21 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page 18 often the case), it is recommended that the subgrade soils be stabilized using mechanical stabilization (i.e., a geogrid with additional crushed limestone placed over the subgrade) or by removing and replacing the unsuitable soils with crushed limestone. The best method for stabilizing the pavement subgrade should be determined in the field at the time of construction based upon the actual field conditions in conjunction with the specific soil type encountered at the locations requiring stabilization, the size of the areas requiring stabilization and the construction schedule. The pavement subgrade surface should be uniformly sloped to facilitate drainage through the granular base and to avoid any ponding of water beneath the pavement. The storm water catch basins in pavement areas should be designed to allow water to drain from the aggregate base into the catch basins. At a minimum, subsurface trench drains should be included that extend out at least 20 ft from the catchbasins. Based on the results of classification tests and our experience with similar soils, a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 3 is recommended for use in pavement design for the clayey subgrade soils encountered at this site. The subgrade soils should be prepared and inspected as described in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of this report. 4.7 Site Grading and Surface Drainage Proper surface drainage should be provided at the site to minimize any increase in moisture content of the foundation soils and to prevent surcharging the perimeter drainage system. The exterior grade should be sloped away from the structure to prevent ponding of water or flow of surface water toward the structure.

22 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Since this investigation identified actual subsurface conditions only at the test boring locations, it was necessary for our geotechnical engineers to extrapolate these conditions in order to characterize the entire project site. Even under the best of circumstances, the conditions encountered during construction can be expected to vary somewhat from the test boring results and may, in the extreme case, differ to the extent that modifications to the foundation recommendations become necessary. Therefore, we recommend that Cardno ATC be retained as geotechnical consultant through the earth-related phases of this project to correlate actual soil conditions with test boring data, identify variations, conduct additional tests that may be needed and recommend solutions to earth-related problems that may develop. 5.1 Site Preparation All areas that will support floor slabs and pavements should be properly prepared. After rough grade has been established in cut areas and prior to placement of fill in all fill areas, the exposed subgrade should be carefully observed by the geotechnical engineer or a qualified soils technician working under the direction of the geotechnical engineer-of-record by probing and testing as needed. Any soft natural soils, organic material, unsuitable fill material (such as collapsible objects, degradable materials, concentration of rubble and debris, etc.) and any soils that have been softened or frozen, wet, loose or otherwise undesirable materials should be removed. The exposed subgrade should furthermore be evaluated by proofrolling with suitable equipment to check for pockets of soft material hidden beneath a thin crust of better soil. Any unsuitable materials thus exposed should be removed and replaced with well-compacted, engineered fill as outlined in Section 5.2.

23 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page 20 Boring Nos. B-2 and B-11 encountered bedrock at El and 825.4, respectively. Therefore, it is possible that rock will need to be removed at some locations. Although it might be possible to remove some of the upper weathered or fractured limestone by ripping or breaking with conventional excavation equipment, the majority of the bedrock is generally too hard to remove with conventional soil excavation equipment. The use of hoerams and jack hammers will be required to remove the bedrock. Care should be exercised during the grading operations at the site. Due to the nature of the near surface soils, the traffic of construction equipment may create pumping and general deterioration of the shallower soils, especially if excess surface water is present. The grading, therefore, should be done during a dry season, if at all possible. 5.2 Fill Compaction All engineered fill placed beneath spread footings should be limited to INDOT No. 53 crushed limestone compacted to at least 100 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. All other engineered fill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-698). The compaction should be accomplished by placing the fill in about 8 (or less) loose lifts and mechanically compacting each lift to at least the specified minimum dry density. Field density tests should be performed on each lift as necessary to document moisture conditions and the actual compaction that is being achieved. Compaction of any fill by flooding is not considered acceptable. This method will generally not achieve the desired compaction and the large quantities of water will tend to soften the foundation soils.

24 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page Spread Footing Excavations The soil at the base of each spread footing excavation should be observed and evaluated by a geotechnical engineer or a qualified soils technician working under the direction of the geotechnical engineer-of-record to determine that all old miscellaneous fill, wet or weak soil and otherwise undesirable materials (such as existing utilities, foundations, walls, slabs, pavement, cisterns, tanks, etc.) are removed at footing locations and that the footing will bear on satisfactory material as described in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. At the time of such observations, it will be necessary to make hand auger borings or use a hand penetration device in the base of the foundation excavation to determine whether the soils below the base are satisfactory for foundation support. The necessary depth of penetration will be established during inspection. Where undercutting is required to remove unsuitable materials, the proposed footing elevation may be re-established by backfilling after all undesirable materials have been removed. The undercut excavation beneath each footing should extend to suitable bearing soils as described in Section 4.2 and the dimensions of the excavation base should be determined by imaginary planes extending outward and downward on a 2 (vertical) to 1 (horizontal) slope from the base perimeter of the footing (see Figure 4 in the Appendix). The entire excavation should then be refilled with engineered fill. The engineered fill should be limited to Indiana Department of Transportation coarse aggregate size No. 53 crushed stone compacted to the minimum dry density recommended in Section 5.2; or lean concrete may be used. Special care should be exercised to remove any sloughed, loose or soft materials near the base of the excavation slopes. In addition, special care should be taken to "tie-in" the compacted fill with the excavation slopes with benches as necessary. This is to insure that no pockets of loose or soft materials will be left in place along the excavation slopes below the foundation bearing level.

25 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page 22 All existing facilities (such as buildings, utilities, streets, etc.) that will remain should be suitably protected from undermining due to excavation for the project. Depending on the relative depths and locations of the existing facilities and the excavation, bracing or underpinning will be needed to protect the existing facility. All federal, state and local safety regulations should be followed in this regard. Soils exposed in the bases of all satisfactory foundation excavations should be protected against any detrimental change in condition such as from disturbance, rain and freezing. Surface run-off water should be drained away from the excavation and not allowed to pond. If possible, all footing concrete should be placed the same day the excavation is made. If this is not practical, the footing excavations should be adequately protected. 5.4 Drilled Shaft Installation Observations The bedrock at the base of the drilled shaft excavations should be inspected by the geotechnical engineer or a qualified technician working under the direction of the geotechnical engineer to determine that all unsuitable materials are removed (such as soil, old fill, rubble, construction debris, loose or weathered bedrock, clay layers, boulders, etc.) and that the drilled shafts will bear at least 1.5 ft into competent limestone bedrock as prescribed in Section 4.3. The bearing surface for the drilled shaft foundations should be made relatively level. In addition to visually observing the bedrock surface to determine that all soil and loose rock has been removed to expose competent bedrock over the entire surface of the drilled shaft excavation area, the bedrock should also be probed to detect boulders, severely weathered bedrock and any voids or clay seams that may exist beneath the surface. An access hole that is at least 2 in diameter should be made by the contractor into the bedrock to a minimum distance of 5 ft or the diameter of the drilled shaft, whichever is greater. The test holes should be drilled in the presence of the geotechnical consultant so that any sudden drops in the drilling bit can be observed and noted. An L-shaped feeler probe should be used in the access hole to detect any voids or clay seams. If severely

26 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page 23 weathered bedrock, voids or unacceptable clay seams are encountered in the test hole, the bearing elevation should be extended below the voids or clay seams downward to reach sound bedrock, which should then be reinspected by probing in a test hole to the depth prescribed above. If unsuitable conditions are encountered at the base of a drilled shaft excavation, the drilled shaft excavation should be extended to a depth immediately beyond the bottom of such undesirable material and reinspected by probing the rock to a depth of 5 ft below the new base of the drilled sha The drilled shaft excavations must be temporarily cased since it is necessary for personnel to enter the shaft excavation for inspection. All local, state and federal safety regulations regarding confined space entry should be followed relative to entering the drilled shaft excavations. No open flame should be permitted on the site near the drilled shaft excavation and no personnel should be allowed to enter the excavation until proper safety precautions for confined space entry have been taken. Such precautions should include, but not limited to, proper personal protective equipment and monitoring of the excavations for explosive vapors and oxygen deficiency. Additional safety measures may be needed depending upon the specific conditions at the foundation location, the construction procedures employed and the applicable local, state and federal Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. 5.5 Construction Dewatering Depending on the seasonal conditions, some seepage of ground water into excavations should be expected. It is anticipated that seepage into an excavation can be handled by conventional dewatering methods such as by pumping from sumps.

27 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page FIELD INVESTIGATION Fourteen test borings were drilled at the approximate locations shown on the Boring Plan (Figure 2 in the Appendix). The borings were extended to depths ranging from 6.0 to 37.6 ft below the existing grade. Split-barrel samples were obtained by the Standard Penetration Test procedures (ASTM D-1586) at 2.5 to 5 ft intervals. The bedrock was cored in selected borings to depths of 9.7 to 9.9 ft below the auger refusal depths using dual tube N-series rock coring methods in general accordance with ASTM D Logs of all borings, which show visual descriptions of all soil strata encountered using the Unified Soil Classification System, have been included in numerical order in the Appendix. Ground water observations, sampling information and other pertinent field data and observations are also included. In addition, a "Field Classification System for Soil Exploration" document defining the terms and symbols used on the logs and explaining the Standard Penetration Test procedure is provided immediately following the boring logs. 7.0 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION The disturbed samples were inspected and classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and the boring logs were edited as necessary. To aid in classifying the soils and to determine general soil characteristics, natural moisture content tests, organic content tests, an unconfined compression test and hand calibrated penetrometer tests ( pocket penetrometer tests) were performed on selected samples. The results of these tests are included on the test boring logs and summary sheet in the Appendix.

28 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Cardno ATC Project No (Revised) Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage November 30, 2012 Walnut Street and Indiana Street, Greencastle, Indiana Page LIMITATIONS OF STUDY An inherent limitation of any geotechnical engineering study is that conclusions must be drawn on the basis of data collected at a limited number of discrete locations. The recommendations provided in this report were developed from the information obtained from the test borings that depict subsurface conditions only at these specific locations and at the particular time designated on the logs. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these boring locations. The nature and extent of variations between the borings may not become evident until the course of construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report after performing on-site observations during the excavation period and noting the characteristics of any variation. Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either express or implied. This company is not responsible for the independent conclusions, opinions or recommendations made by others based on the field exploration and laboratory test data presented in this report. The scope of our services does not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, ground water or surface water within or beyond the site studied.

29 APPENDIX Figure 1 - Vicinity Map Figure 2 - Boring Plan Figure 3 - Lateral Earth Pressure Against Below-Grade Wall Assuming Drained Backfill with No Hydrostatic Pressure Figure 4 - Design Illustration - Footings in Undercut Area Foundation Plan (Sheet No. S-100) Boring Logs (14) Field Classification System for Soil Exploration Unconfined Compression Test Result Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report

30

31

32

33

34

35 7988 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN (317) Fax (317) TEST BORING LOG CLIENT PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION Walker Parking Consultants Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage Walnut Street and Indiana Street Greencastle, Indiana BORING # JOB # B Date Started Date Completed Drill Foreman Inspector SOIL CLAIFICATION 4 Asphalt over 5 Aggregate base Light gray, limestone fragments with silty fine sand (FILL) Bottom of Test Boring at 6.0 ft DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION 7/10/12 7/10/12 R. Warren D. McIlwaine HSA SURFACE ELEVATION Hammer Wt. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube OD Elevation Depth, ft Depth Scale, ft 5 lbs. Sample No. 1 2 Sampler Graphics Recovery Graphics Groundwater Standard Penetration Test, Blows per 6 Increments Moisture Content, % TEST DATA Pocket Penetrometer PP-tsf Remarks Ground surface elevation provided by client Borehole plugged with concrete at completion Auger refusal at 6.0 ft - Driven Split Spoon ST - Pressed Shelby Tube CA - Continuous Flight Auger RC - Rock Core CU - Cuttings CT - Continuous Tube Depth to Groundwater Noted on Drilling Tools At Completion After hours Cave Depth None Dry 3.1 HSA - Hollow Stem Augers CFA - Continuous Flight Augers CA - Casing Advancer MD - Mud Drilling HA - Hand Auger Page 1 of 1

36 7988 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN (317) Fax (317) TEST BORING LOG CLIENT PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION Walker Parking Consultants Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage Walnut Street and Indiana Street Greencastle, Indiana BORING # JOB # B Date Started Date Completed Drill Foreman Inspector 5 Topsoil Brown, moist, medium stiff to very stiff SILTY CLAY (CL) with little sand and trace gravel -limestone fragments below 5.0 ft DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION 7/10/12 7/10/12 R. Warren D. McIlwaine HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION SURFACE ELEVATION Hammer Wt. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube OD Elevation Depth, ft Depth Scale, ft 5 lbs. Sample No Sampler Graphics Recovery Graphics Groundwater Standard Penetration Test, Blows per 6 Increments Moisture Content, % TEST DATA Pocket Penetrometer PP-tsf Remarks Ground surface elevation provided by client Borehole plugged with concrete at completion Brown, very moist, medium stiff CLAY (CH) with little sand Bottom of Test Boring at 16.0 ft /0.5' Attempted to core bedrock, went 10, then went back into soil. Auger refusal at 16.0 ft - Driven Split Spoon ST - Pressed Shelby Tube CA - Continuous Flight Auger RC - Rock Core CU - Cuttings CT - Continuous Tube Depth to Groundwater Noted on Drilling Tools At Completion After hours Cave Depth None Dry 14.5 HSA - Hollow Stem Augers CFA - Continuous Flight Augers CA - Casing Advancer MD - Mud Drilling HA - Hand Auger Page 1 of 1

37 7988 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN (317) Fax (317) TEST BORING LOG CLIENT PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION Walker Parking Consultants Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage Walnut Street and Indiana Street Greencastle, Indiana BORING # JOB # B Date Started Date Completed Drill Foreman Inspector 3 Topsoil DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION 7/10/12 7/10/12 R. Warren D. McIlwaine HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION SURFACE ELEVATION Light brown, slightly moist, very stiff SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL) with trace gravel Brown, moist, medium stiff to very stiff SILTY CLAY (CL) with little sand and trace gravel Hammer Wt. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube OD Elevation Depth, ft Depth Scale, ft 5 lbs. Sample No. 1 2 Sampler Graphics Recovery Graphics Groundwater Standard Penetration Test, Blows per 6 Increments Moisture Content, % 10.0 TEST DATA Pocket Penetrometer PP-tsf 4.25 Remarks Ground surface elevation provided by client Borehole plugged with concrete at completion /0.5' 4.5+ Brown, moist, very stiff SILTY CLAY (CL) with trace sand Bottom of Test Boring at 25.0 ft Driven Split Spoon ST - Pressed Shelby Tube CA - Continuous Flight Auger RC - Rock Core CU - Cuttings CT - Continuous Tube Depth to Groundwater Noted on Drilling Tools At Completion After hours Cave Depth None Dry 15.9 HSA - Hollow Stem Augers CFA - Continuous Flight Augers CA - Casing Advancer MD - Mud Drilling HA - Hand Auger Page 1 of 1

38 7988 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN (317) Fax (317) TEST BORING LOG CLIENT PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION Walker Parking Consultants Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage Walnut Street and Indiana Street Greencastle, Indiana BORING # JOB # B Date Started Date Completed Drill Foreman Inspector DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION 7/10/12 7/10/12 R. Warren D. McIlwaine HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION SURFACE ELEVATION Asphalt over 5 Aggregate base Hammer Wt. Brown, moist, silty clay with trace sand, asphalt and brick fragments (FILL) Gray and brown, moist, silty clay with trace brick fragments and organics (FILL) Gray, moist, soft to medium stiff SILTY CLAY (CL) with trace organics Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube OD Elevation Depth, ft Depth Scale, ft 5 10 lbs. Sample No Sampler Graphics Recovery Graphics Groundwater Standard Penetration Test, Blows per 6 Increments Moisture Content, % TEST DATA Pocket Penetrometer PP-tsf Remarks Ground surface elevation provided by client Borehole plugged with concrete at completion Sample No. 4: Unconfined Compressive Strength = 2,002 psf Dry Density = pcf Gray, slightly moist, very stiff to hard SILTY CLAY (CL) with trace sand and gravel Bottom of Test Boring at 25.0 ft Driven Split Spoon ST - Pressed Shelby Tube CA - Continuous Flight Auger RC - Rock Core CU - Cuttings CT - Continuous Tube Depth to Groundwater Noted on Drilling Tools At Completion After hours Cave Depth None Dry 12.5 HSA - Hollow Stem Augers CFA - Continuous Flight Augers CA - Casing Advancer MD - Mud Drilling HA - Hand Auger Page 1 of 1

39 7988 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN (317) Fax (317) TEST BORING LOG CLIENT PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION Walker Parking Consultants Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage Walnut Street and Indiana Street Greencastle, Indiana BORING # JOB # B Date Started Date Completed Drill Foreman Inspector DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION 7/10/12 7/10/12 R. Warren D. McIlwaine HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION SURFACE ELEVATION Asphalt over 6 Aggregate base Gray, slightly moist, silty clay with trace sand, gravel and limestone fragments (FILL) Hammer Wt. Hammer Drop Brown, moist to slightly moist, medium stiff to very stiff SILTY CLAY (CL) with little sand and trace gravel Spoon Sampler OD Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube OD Elevation Depth, ft Depth Scale, ft 5 lbs. Sample No Sampler Graphics Recovery Graphics Groundwater Standard Penetration Test, Blows per 6 Increments Moisture Content, % 20.9 TEST DATA Pocket Penetrometer PP-tsf Remarks Ground surface elevation provided by client Borehole plugged with concrete at completion Brown, very moist, very stiff SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL) with limestone fragments /0.5' Reddish brown and brown, moist, stiff CLAY (CH) with trace gravel Bottom of Test Boring at 25.0 ft Driven Split Spoon ST - Pressed Shelby Tube CA - Continuous Flight Auger RC - Rock Core CU - Cuttings CT - Continuous Tube Depth to Groundwater Noted on Drilling Tools At Completion After hours Cave Depth 19.0 Dry 15.7 HSA - Hollow Stem Augers CFA - Continuous Flight Augers CA - Casing Advancer MD - Mud Drilling HA - Hand Auger Page 1 of 1

40 7988 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN (317) Fax (317) TEST BORING LOG CLIENT PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION Walker Parking Consultants Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage Walnut Street and Indiana Street Greencastle, Indiana BORING # JOB # B Date Started Date Completed Drill Foreman Inspector DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION 8/14/12 8/14/12 R. Warren D. McIlwaine HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION SURFACE ELEVATION Asphalt over 6 Aggregate base Hammer Wt. Hammer Drop Gray and brown, moist, silty clay with trace sand and gravel (FILL) Brown, moist, very soft to soft SILTY CLAY (CL) with trace sand and gravel Spoon Sampler OD Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube OD Elevation Depth, ft Depth Scale, ft 5 lbs. Sample No. 1 2 Sampler Graphics Recovery Graphics Groundwater Standard Penetration Test, Blows per 6 Increments Moisture Content, % TEST DATA Pocket Penetrometer PP-tsf Remarks Ground surface elevation estimated from topographic map provided by client Borehole plugged with concrete at completion Brown, moist, very stiff to hard SILTY CLAY (CL) with little sand and trace gravel cobbles below 18.0 ft /0.4' Bottom of Test Boring at 22.7 ft /0.2' Auger refusal at 22.7 ft - Driven Split Spoon ST - Pressed Shelby Tube CA - Continuous Flight Auger RC - Rock Core CU - Cuttings CT - Continuous Tube Depth to Groundwater Noted on Drilling Tools At Completion After hours Cave Depth None Dry 21.0 HSA - Hollow Stem Augers CFA - Continuous Flight Augers CA - Casing Advancer MD - Mud Drilling HA - Hand Auger Page 1 of 1

41 7988 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN (317) Fax (317) TEST BORING LOG CLIENT PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION Walker Parking Consultants Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage Walnut Street and Indiana Street Greencastle, Indiana BORING # JOB # B Date Started Date Completed Drill Foreman Inspector DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION 8/14/12 8/14/12 R. Warren D. McIlwaine HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION SURFACE ELEVATION Asphalt over 6 Aggregate base Hammer Wt. Hammer Drop Brown and dark gray, moist, sandy silty clay with trace gravel and brick and wood fragments (FILL) Spoon Sampler OD Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube OD Elevation Depth, ft Depth Scale, ft 5 lbs. Sample No. 1 2 Sampler Graphics Recovery Graphics Groundwater Standard Penetration Test, Blows per 6 Increments Moisture Content, % TEST DATA Pocket Penetrometer PP-tsf Remarks Ground surface elevation estimated from topographic map provided by client Borehole plugged with concrete at completion Brown, moist, medium stiff to very stiff SILTY CLAY (CL) with little sand and trace gravel Bottom of Test Boring at 20.5 ft /0.3' 3.5 Auger refusal at 20.5 ft - Driven Split Spoon ST - Pressed Shelby Tube CA - Continuous Flight Auger RC - Rock Core CU - Cuttings CT - Continuous Tube Depth to Groundwater Noted on Drilling Tools At Completion After hours Cave Depth HSA - Hollow Stem Augers CFA - Continuous Flight Augers CA - Casing Advancer MD - Mud Drilling HA - Hand Auger Page 1 of 1

42 7988 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN (317) Fax (317) TEST BORING LOG CLIENT PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION Walker Parking Consultants Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage Walnut Street and Indiana Street Greencastle, Indiana BORING # JOB # B-7A Date Started Date Completed Drill Foreman Inspector DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION 8/14/12 8/14/12 R. Warren D. McIlwaine HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION SURFACE ELEVATION Asphalt over 6 Aggregate base Blank drilled to auger refusal at 16.0 ft Hammer Wt. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube OD Elevation Depth, ft Depth Scale, ft 5 lbs. Sample No. Sampler Graphics Recovery Graphics Groundwater Standard Penetration Test, Blows per 6 Increments Moisture Content, % TEST DATA Pocket Penetrometer PP-tsf Remarks Ground surface elevation estimated from topographic map provided by client Borehole plugged with concrete at completion 10 Bottom of Test Boring at 16.0 ft Auger refusal at 16.0 ft - Driven Split Spoon ST - Pressed Shelby Tube CA - Continuous Flight Auger RC - Rock Core CU - Cuttings CT - Continuous Tube Depth to Groundwater Noted on Drilling Tools At Completion After hours Cave Depth None Dry 15.0 HSA - Hollow Stem Augers CFA - Continuous Flight Augers CA - Casing Advancer MD - Mud Drilling HA - Hand Auger Page 1 of 1

43 7988 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN (317) Fax (317) TEST BORING LOG CLIENT PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION Walker Parking Consultants Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage Walnut Street and Indiana Street Greencastle, Indiana BORING # JOB # B Date Started Date Completed Drill Foreman Inspector DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION 8/14/12 8/14/12 R. Warren D. McIlwaine HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION SURFACE ELEVATION Asphalt over 6 Aggregate base Hammer Wt. Hammer Drop Dark gray and brown, moist, sandy silty clay with trace gravel and brick fragments (FILL) Gray, moist, silty clay with trace sand and gravel (FILL) Brown and gray, moist, very soft to soft SILTY CLAY (CL) with trace sand, gravel and organics Spoon Sampler OD Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube OD Elevation Depth, ft Depth Scale, ft 5 lbs. Sample No Sampler Graphics Recovery Graphics Groundwater Standard Penetration Test, Blows per 6 Increments Moisture Content, % TEST DATA Pocket Penetrometer PP-tsf Remarks Ground surface elevation estimated from topographic map provided by client Borehole plugged with concrete at completion Sample No. 4: Organic Content = 2.1% Brown, moist, stiff SILTY CLAY (CL) with little sand and trace gravel Gray, moist, hard to stiff SILTY CLAY (CL) with little sand and gravel Bottom of Test Boring at 25.0 ft Driven Split Spoon ST - Pressed Shelby Tube CA - Continuous Flight Auger RC - Rock Core CU - Cuttings CT - Continuous Tube Depth to Groundwater Noted on Drilling Tools At Completion After hours Cave Depth HSA - Hollow Stem Augers CFA - Continuous Flight Augers CA - Casing Advancer MD - Mud Drilling HA - Hand Auger Page 1 of 1

44 7988 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN (317) Fax (317) TEST BORING LOG CLIENT PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION Walker Parking Consultants Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage Walnut Street and Indiana Street Greencastle, Indiana BORING # JOB # B-8A Date Started Date Completed Drill Foreman Inspector DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION 8/15/12 8/15/12 R. Warren D. McIlwaine HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION SURFACE ELEVATION Asphalt over 6 Aggregate base Brown and gray, moist, sandy silty clay with trace gravel, crushed limestone and brick fragments (FILL) Gray, moist, very soft SILTY CLAY (CL) with little sand and trace gravel Hammer Wt. Hammer Drop Brown, moist, soft to very soft SILTY CLAY (CL) with little sand and trace gravel Spoon Sampler OD Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube OD Elevation Depth, ft Depth Scale, ft 5 10 lbs. Sample No Sampler Graphics Recovery Graphics Groundwater Standard Penetration Test, Blows per 6 Increments Moisture Content, % TEST DATA Pocket Penetrometer PP-tsf Remarks Ground surface elevation estimated from topographic map provided by client Borehole plugged with concrete at completion Brown, moist, stiff to very stiff SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL) with trace gravel Gray, moist, very stiff SILTY CLAY (CL) with trace sand and gravel Bottom of Test Boring at 25.0 ft Driven Split Spoon ST - Pressed Shelby Tube CA - Continuous Flight Auger RC - Rock Core CU - Cuttings CT - Continuous Tube Depth to Groundwater Noted on Drilling Tools At Completion After hours Cave Depth HSA - Hollow Stem Augers CFA - Continuous Flight Augers CA - Casing Advancer MD - Mud Drilling HA - Hand Auger Page 1 of 1

45 7988 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN (317) Fax (317) TEST BORING LOG CLIENT PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION Walker Parking Consultants Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage Walnut Street and Indiana Street Greencastle, Indiana BORING # JOB # B Date Started Date Completed Drill Foreman Inspector DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION 8/15/12 8/15/12 R. Warren D. McIlwaine HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION SURFACE ELEVATION Asphalt over 8 Aggregate base Hammer Wt. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube OD Dark gray and gray, slightly moist to moist, sandy silty clay with trace gravel, brick and wood fragments (FILL) Elevation Depth, ft Depth Scale, ft 5 lbs. Sample No. 1 2 Sampler Graphics Recovery Graphics Groundwater Standard Penetration Test, Blows per 6 Increments Moisture Content, % TEST DATA Pocket Penetrometer PP-tsf Remarks Ground surface elevation estimated from topographic map provided by client Borehole plugged with concrete at completion Gray, very moist, gravelly sand with rock fragments (FILL) Brick and crushed limestone fragments (FILL) Brown, slightly moist, hard to very stiff SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL) with trace gravel /0.3' Gray, moist, hard to very stiff SILTY CLAY (CL) with trace sand and gravel /0.4' Gray, limestone Bottom of Test Boring at 37.6 ft RC-1 RC-2 RC-3 RC RC RC Auger refusal at 27.7 ft RC-1 Rock cored from 27.7 ft to 30.8 ft Recovery = 100% RQD = 77% RC-2 Rock cored from 30.8 ft to 35.8 ft Recovery = 100% RQD = 96% RC-3 Rock cored from 35.8 ft to 37.6 ft Recovery = 94% RQD = 94% - Driven Split Spoon ST - Pressed Shelby Tube CA - Continuous Flight Auger RC - Rock Core CU - Cuttings CT - Continuous Tube Depth to Groundwater Noted on Drilling Tools At Completion After hours Cave Depth HSA - Hollow Stem Augers CFA - Continuous Flight Augers CA - Casing Advancer MD - Mud Drilling HA - Hand Auger Page 1 of 1

46 7988 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN (317) Fax (317) TEST BORING LOG CLIENT PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION Walker Parking Consultants Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage Walnut Street and Indiana Street Greencastle, Indiana BORING # JOB # B-9A Date Started Date Completed Drill Foreman Inspector DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION 8/16/12 8/16/12 R. Warren D. McIlwaine HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION SURFACE ELEVATION Asphalt over 6 Aggregate base Dark gray, moist, silty clay with trace sand, gravel, brick and wood fragments (FILL) Brown, slightly moist, sandy silty clay with crushed limestone (FILL) Hammer Wt. Brown, moist, soft SILTY CLAY (CL) with little sand and trace gravel Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube OD Elevation Depth, ft Depth Scale, ft 5 lbs. Sample No Sampler Graphics Recovery Graphics Groundwater Standard Penetration Test, Blows per 6 Increments Moisture Content, % TEST DATA Pocket Penetrometer PP-tsf Remarks Ground surface elevation estimated from topographic map provided by client Borehole plugged with concrete at completion Brown, moist, stiff to very stiff SILTY CLAY (CL) with little sand and trace gravel Bottom of Test Boring at 15.0 ft Driven Split Spoon ST - Pressed Shelby Tube CA - Continuous Flight Auger RC - Rock Core CU - Cuttings CT - Continuous Tube Depth to Groundwater Noted on Drilling Tools At Completion After hours Cave Depth None Dry 13.0 HSA - Hollow Stem Augers CFA - Continuous Flight Augers CA - Casing Advancer MD - Mud Drilling HA - Hand Auger Page 1 of 1

47 7988 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN (317) Fax (317) TEST BORING LOG CLIENT PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION Walker Parking Consultants Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage Walnut Street and Indiana Street Greencastle, Indiana BORING # JOB # B Date Started Date Completed Drill Foreman Inspector DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION 8/14/12 8/14/12 R. Warren D. McIlwaine HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION SURFACE ELEVATION Asphalt over 6 Aggregate base Hammer Wt. Hammer Drop Gray, moist, silty clay with trace sand, gravel and brick fragments (FILL) Gray, very moist, medium stiff to very soft SILTY CLAY (CL) with trace sand, gravel and organics Spoon Sampler OD Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube OD Elevation Depth, ft Depth Scale, ft 5 lbs. Sample No. 1 2 Sampler Graphics Recovery Graphics Groundwater Standard Penetration Test, Blows per 6 Increments Moisture Content, % TEST DATA Pocket Penetrometer PP-tsf 0.75 Remarks Ground surface elevation estimated from topographic map provided by client Borehole plugged with concrete at completion Sample No. 3: Organic Content = 2.4% Gray to brown, moist, stiff to very stiff SILTY CLAY (CL) with little sand and trace gravel Gray, moist, hard to very stiff SILTY CLAY (CL) with little sand and trace gravel Bottom of Test Boring at 25.0 ft Driven Split Spoon ST - Pressed Shelby Tube CA - Continuous Flight Auger RC - Rock Core CU - Cuttings CT - Continuous Tube Depth to Groundwater Noted on Drilling Tools At Completion After hours Cave Depth None Dry 21.0 HSA - Hollow Stem Augers CFA - Continuous Flight Augers CA - Casing Advancer MD - Mud Drilling HA - Hand Auger Page 1 of 1

48 7988 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN (317) Fax (317) TEST BORING LOG CLIENT PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION Walker Parking Consultants Proposed City of Greencastle Parking Garage Walnut Street and Indiana Street Greencastle, Indiana BORING # JOB # B Date Started Date Completed Drill Foreman Inspector 5 Topsoil DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION 8/16/12 8/16/12 R. Warren D. McIlwaine HSA SOIL CLAIFICATION SURFACE ELEVATION 837 Hammer Wt. Brown and gray, moist, stiff to very stiff SILTY CLAY (CL) with trace sand and gravel Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD Rock Core Dia. Shelby Tube OD Elevation Depth, ft Depth Scale, ft 5 lbs. Sample No. 1 2 Sampler Graphics Recovery Graphics Groundwater Standard Penetration Test, Blows per 6 Increments Moisture Content, % TEST DATA Pocket Penetrometer PP-tsf Remarks Ground surface elevation estimated from topographic map provided by client Borehole plugged with concrete at completion Gray, limestone Bottom of Test Boring at 21.3 ft RC-1 RC-2 RC-3 RC RC RC Auger refusal at 11.6 ft RC-1 Rock cored from 11.6 ft to 15.4 ft Recovery = 97% RQD = 89% RC-2 Rock cored from 15.4 ft to 19.3 ft Recovery = 100% RQD = 97% RC-3 Rock cored from 19.3 ft to 21.3 ft Recovery = 60% RQD = 55% - Driven Split Spoon ST - Pressed Shelby Tube CA - Continuous Flight Auger RC - Rock Core CU - Cuttings CT - Continuous Tube Depth to Groundwater Noted on Drilling Tools At Completion After hours Cave Depth None HSA - Hollow Stem Augers CFA - Continuous Flight Augers CA - Casing Advancer MD - Mud Drilling HA - Hand Auger Page 1 of 1

49 FIELD CLAIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION NON-COHESIVE SOILS (Silt, Sand, Gravel and Combinations) Density Particle Size Identification Very Loose - 5 blows/ft or less Boulders - 8 inch diameter or more Loose - 6 to 10 blows/ft Cobbles - 3 to 8 inch diameter Medium Dense - 11 to 30 blows/ft Gravel - Coarse - 1 to 3 inch Dense - 31 to 50 blows/ft Medium - ½ to 1 inch Very Dense - 51 blows/ft or more Fine - ¼ to ½ inch Sand - Coarse 2.00mm to ¼ inch (dia. of pencil lead) Relative Proportions Medium 0.42 to 2.00mm Descriptive Term Percent (dia. of broom straw) Trace 1-10 Fine to 0.42mm Little (dia. of human hair) Some Silt to 0.002mm And (cannot see particles) COHESIVE SOILS (Clay, Silt and Combinations) Consistency Plasticity Very Soft - 3 blows/ft or less Degree of Plasticity Plasticity Index Soft - 4 to 5 blows/ft None to slight 0-4 Medium Stiff - 6 to 10 blows/ft Slight 5-7 Stiff - 11 to 15 blows/ft Medium 8-22 Very Stiff - 16 to 30 blows/ft High to Very High over 22 Hard - 31 blows/ft or more Classification on the logs are made by visual inspection of samples. Standard Penetration Test Driving a 2.0" O.D. 1-3/8" I.D. sampler a distance of 1.0 foot into undisturbed soil with a 140 pound hammer free falling a distance of 30 inches. It is customary for ATC to drive the spoon 6 inches to seat into undisturbed soil, then perform the test. The number of hammer blows for seating the spoon and making the test are recorded for each 6 inches of penetration on the drill log (Example 6-8-9). The standard penetration test result can be obtained by adding the last two figures (i.e., = 17 blows/ft). (ASTM D ). Strata Changes In the column "Soil Descriptions" on the drill log the horizontal lines represent strata changes. A solid line ( ) represents an actually observed change. A dashed line ( ) represents an estimated change. Ground Water observations were made at the times indicated. Porosity of soil strata, weather conditions, site topography, etc., may cause changes in the water levels indicated on the logs. Revised 10/12

50

51

52