Geotechnical Engineering Report

Transcription

1 Geotechnical Engineering Report Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina March 31, 2014 Terracon Project No Prepared for: Renewable Water Resources Greenville, South Carolina Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Taylors, South Carolina

2

3 March 31, 2014 Renewable Water Resources 561 Mauldin Road Greenville, SC Attn: Mr. Brian Bishop, P.E. P: x 213 F: E: brianb@re-wa.org Re: Proposal for Geotechnical Investigation Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina Terracon Proposal No Dear Mr. Bishop: Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed the geotechnical engineering services for the above referenced project. This study was performed in general accordance with our Proposal No. P , dated February 25, This report presents the findings of the exploration to determine pertinent geotechnical conditions along the proposed sewer line and recommendations for the design and construction of the project. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us. Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc. Nitin Dudani, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Rex T. Brown, P.E. Senior Engineer Enclosures cc: 1 Client (PDF) 1xc: File Terracon Consultants, Inc Starita Road, Suite E Charlotte, North Carolina P [704] F [704] terracon.com

4

5 Geotechnical Engineering Report Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina March 31, 2014 Terracon Project No TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION PROJECT INFORMATION Site Location SUBSURFACE COITIONS Geology Typical Subsurface Profile Groundwater Conditions RECOMMEATIONS FOR DESIGN A CONSTRUCTION General Excavation Conditions General Excavation Conditions Trenchless Crossing Conditions General Backfilling Recommendations Material Types Compaction Requirements Construction Considerations Excavations Difficult Excavation GENERAL COMMENTS... 9 Appendix A Field Exploration Exhibit A-1 Site Location Plan Exhibit A-2 to A-10 Boring Location Plans Exhibit A-11 Field Exploration Description Exhibits A-12 to A-21 SPT Boring Logs Exhibit A-22 Laboratory Test Results Appendix B Supporting Documents Exhibit B-1 General Notes Exhibit B-2 Unified Soil Classification Systems ii

6

7 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RICHLA CREEK TRUNK SEWER GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA Terracon Project No March 31, INTRODUCTION A geotechnical engineering report has been completed for the proposed Richland Creek Trunk Sewer in Greenville, South Carolina. Nine (9) SPT borings, designated B-1 through B-9 were performed to depths of approximately 12.4 to 30 feet below the existing ground surface along the proposed sewer line. Logs of the borings, a vicinity map and boring location plans are included in Appendix A of this report. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to: subsurface soil conditions groundwater conditions earthwork depth to rock or Partially Weathered Bedrock 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Location Site Location ITEM Location Existing improvements Current ground cover Existing topography DESCRIPTION The proposed sewer line will start south of E. Washington Street (Greenville Zoo parking) and will terminate near the intersection of Stone Plaza Drive and Chick Spring Road in Greenville, SC. Existing ReWa sewer lines are installed in the vicinity of proposed line. Grass, small brush and pavement. Based on the Greenville County GIS system contour maps, in general the site elevation at the proposed sewer is sloping down towards the south direction Responsive Resourceful Reliable 1

8 Geotechnical Engineering Report Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina March 31, 2014 Terracon Project No Project Description ITEM Proposed Sewer Line DESCRIPTION The project will include approximately 14,000 feet of gravity sewer, ranging in size between 24 and 48 inches. It is anticipated that the new sewer will be constructed via open cut methods, except for the crossings of major highways. These crossings will be achieved by jacking and boring a steel casing. Should any of the above information or assumptions be inconsistent with the planned construction, please let us know so that we may make any necessary modifications to this proposal. 3.0 SUBSURFACE COITIONS 3.1 Geology The project site is located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province of South Carolina, an area underlain by ancient igneous and metamorphic rocks. The topography and relief of the Piedmont has developed from differential weathering of the igneous and metamorphic bedrock. The residual soils in this area are the product of in-place chemical weathering of rock. The typical residual soil profile consists of clayey soils near the surface where soil weathering is more advanced, underlain by sandy silts and silty sands that generally become harder with depth to the top of parent bedrock. The boundary between soil and rock is not sharply defined due to variations in weathering and the presence of soft rock. The transition zone is locally termed as partially weathered rock. Partially weathered rock is defined for engineering purposes as residual material that can be drilled with soil boring methods, but exhibits standard penetration test (SPT) N- values exceeding 100 blows per foot (bpf). The depth to partially weathered rock occurs at irregular depths due to variations in degree of weathering and variations in the material composition of the rock. Responsive Resourceful Reliable 2

9 Geotechnical Engineering Report Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina March 31, 2014 Terracon Project No Typical Subsurface Profile Based on the results of the SPT borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows: Description Approximate Depth to Bottom of Stratum (feet) Material Encountered SPT N value Surface Approx. 3 to 6 inches Topsoil N/A Stratum 1 3 to 12 in all borings except B-3 and B-7 Fill sandy silt, clayey sand, silty sand 2 to 19 Stratum 2 8 to 30 Stratum 3 9 ½ to 20 Residual soft to stiff, sandy clay and clayey silt. Loose to medium dense, silty/clayey sand. Partially Weathered Rock sampled as silty sand 2 to Stratum 4 Below 12 ½ to 24 ½ in boring B- 2, B-5, B-6 and B-7 Bedrock based on auger refusal and rock coring NA Specific conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for each of the borings can be found on the boring logs included in Appendix A of this report. The following table is a summary of the information with respect to the nine (9) soil test borings performed along the proposed sewer line. Boring Approx. Elevation (ft) 1 Depth (ft) 3 End of Boring Elev. (ft) 1 Approx. Water Elev. (ft) 1 Refusal Auger Refusal/To p of Rock (ft) 2 B No NE B NE Yes B No NE B No NE B Yes B Yes B NE Yes B-7A No NE B No NE B NE No NE Notes: 1 From Main Sea Level (MSL) Responsive Resourceful Reliable 3

10 Geotechnical Engineering Report Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina March 31, 2014 Terracon Project No Top of Rock is defined as the elevation at which Auger Refusal was encountered. 3 From the Top of Ground Elevation NE: Not Encountered 3.3 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was encountered in all soil test borings except B-2, B-6 and B-9 from 5 to 25 feet from the existing ground surface. The boreholes were backfilled at the termination of exploration, making subsequent water level readings unobtainable. Due to the low permeability of the soils encountered in the borings, a relatively long time may be necessary for a groundwater level to develop and stabilize in a borehole in these materials. Longer observations in piezometers or observation wells sealed from the influence of surface water are often required to define groundwater levels in materials of this type. Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. In addition, perched water could develop in sand seams and layers overlying lower permeability clay soils following periods of heavy or prolonged precipitation. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project. 4.0 RECOMMEATIONS FOR DESIGN A CONSTRUCTION 4.1 General Our evaluation and recommendations are based on the project information outlined previously and on the data obtained from the field testing program. If project plans are changed significantly, Terracon requests the opportunity to review our recommendations based on the new information and make necessary changes. 4.2 Excavation Conditions General Excavation Conditions The boring data indicate that the site soils to the anticipated excavation depths should generally be readily excavatable using moderate powered construction equipment. We anticipate that large earthwork equipment will be performing these tasks due to the depth of excavation to be made and volume of soil to be removed. Based on the summary table of Section 3.2 of this report, we anticipate that difficult excavations could be encountered in the Responsive Resourceful Reliable 4

11 Geotechnical Engineering Report Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina March 31, 2014 Terracon Project No surrounding areas of soil test borings B-2, B-5, B-6 and B-7. It is expected that rock will be encountered in these areas that will require blasting or impact hammering to excavate. Based on the estimated depth of the proposed sewer line and the groundwater level encountered, we anticipate that groundwater may be encountered in the areas of soil test borings B-1 to B-3, B-4, B-5, B-7A and B-8. If groundwater is encountered during construction, temporary dewatering will be required. Recommendations regarding groundwater control are discussed in the following sections of the report. We anticipate that the soils will become increasingly wet with depth. Based on the provided pipeline profile and the groundwater depths, the excavations will expose moist to wet subgrades. In the areas where these conditions are encountered, subgrade improvement measures may be needed to provide proper pipe support conditions. Typical bedding for the type of pipe being considered generally consists of 6 to 12 inches of #57 stone to provide a means of confining the exposed pipe subgrade. The actual depth of the stone should be determined in the field based on the conditions exposed by the excavation. All excavations should be sloped or braced as required by Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations to provide stability and safe working conditions. Temporary excavations will probably be required during grading operations. The grading contractor, by his contract, is usually responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope or bench the sides of the excavations as required, to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should comply with applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who controls the means, methods and sequencing of construction operations. Under no circumstances shall the information provided herein be interpreted to mean that Terracon is assuming any responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility shall neither be implied nor inferred Trenchless Crossing Conditions Trenchless crossings are expected at three (3) roadway crossings present along the three proposed alignments. It is expected the roadway crossings will typically be installed by bore and jack as the length of the trenchless sections are relatively short and the pit depths would likely not be deep. It is typical to install jacking pits at each end of boring and jacking section to provide access to excavate for the sleeves to install the pipelines. The contractor may consider supporting the excavation walls by temporary shoring, either fully or in some combination with sloping. Responsive Resourceful Reliable 5

12 Geotechnical Engineering Report Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina March 31, 2014 Terracon Project No Excavation support can be achieved by a number of methods, but most likely by driven sheet piles with either an internally braced system or tie-backs. The earth pressure magnitude and distribution on a tied-back or braced retaining structure differs from earth pressures calculated with equivalent fluid pressures for typical retaining walls. To account for the pressures of the retained earth, we recommend that the support system design assume that the soils behind the bracing system will apply a trapezoidal stress distribution based on the excavation depth and the soil s shear strength. The lateral pressures developed by heavy equipment, stored material, stockpiles soils, existing building foundations, etc., near the top of the excavation must be added to the lateral soil stresses to determine the horizontal loads which must be resisted. Based on the boring data and the assumed minimum invert depth, groundwater may be encountered in the trench bottom along the planned trench. If groundwater is encountered at or above the minimum pipe invert prior to construction, we offer the following recommendations. For all trenchless excavation pits, it may be possible to control the groundwater in this area from within the excavation using temporary drainage sumps to pump out the seeping water while the pipe is being installed where the groundwater surface will be penetrated by less than 2 feet using an open-graded stone (#57 stone or equal) at the bottom of the excavated trench to serve as a drainage medium. These materials would also provide bedding for the pipe and would probably not be in addition to the general bedding layer. Periodically, the contractor would need to excavate a sump pit within the trench to allow an area for water to collect and the pump to be set. Groundwater control should be provided until trench backfill is above the original static groundwater level. Where the groundwater will be penetrated by more than 2 feet, it should be anticipated that additional dewatering measures will be needed throughout the excavation and backfilling process. Infiltration of groundwater is expected to be rapid due to the sandy nature of the site soils and, as such, the inflow may be greater than can be controlled from within the excavation. Responsive Resourceful Reliable 6

13 Geotechnical Engineering Report Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina March 31, 2014 Terracon Project No General Backfilling Recommendations Material Types As a minimum, the engineered fill should meet the following material property requirements: Fill Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Location for Placement Imported Structural Fill SW and SM All locations and elevations On-Site Soils ML, SP,SM, and SC All locations and elevations Notes: 1. Controlled, compacted fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris. Frozen material should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. A sample of each material type should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for evaluation Compaction Requirements We recommend that the trench backfill be tested for moisture content and compaction during placement. Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved. Backfill soils should meet the following compaction requirements: ITEM Fill Lift Thickness Compaction Requirements 1 Moisture Content DESCRIPTION 8 inches or less in loose thickness when heavy, self-propelled compaction equipment is used. 4 inches when hand-guided equipment (i.e. jumping jack or plate compactor) is used. Roadways and Areas within the SCDOT rightsof-way: 95 percent of the material s maximum standard Proctor dry unit weight (ASTM D 698). Non-structural Areas: 90 percent of the material s maximum standard Proctor dry unit weight (ASTM D 698). As a minimum, the moisture content to be within ±3 percent of optimum moisture based on the material s maximum standard Proctor dry unit weight (ASTM D 698). Responsive Resourceful Reliable 7

14 Geotechnical Engineering Report Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina March 31, 2014 Terracon Project No ITEM DESCRIPTION 1. We recommend that engineered fill be tested for moisture content and compaction during placement. Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved. The geotechnical engineer should be retained during the construction phase of the project to observe backfill operations and to perform necessary tests. 4.4 Construction Considerations Excavations Excavations for the sewer line are anticipated to encounter groundwater and may require dewatering. Typical dewatering methods include drainage trenches to divert groundwater away from large open excavations and pumping groundwater from a low area within the excavation. We anticipate that a horizontal to vertical slope of 3:1 for construction slopes should provide stable excavations. Where excavations extend below the water table, the excavation sidewalls may slough or flow into the excavation. As such, the excavations may need temporary shoring if sidewalls cannot be sloped back sufficiently enough to provide a stable excavation. All excavations should comply with applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards Difficult Excavation Based on the results of our field exploration, difficult excavation in competent rocks should be expected along the placement of the sewer line in several sites. It is our opinion that a clear and appropriate definition of competent rock be included in the project specifications to reduce the potential for misunderstandings. A sample definition of rock for excavation specifications is provided below: Competent Rock is defined as any material that cannot be dislodged by a CAT 325 hydraulic backhoe, or equivalent without the use of drilling and blasting. Boulders or masses of rock exceeding ½ cubic yard in volume shall also be considered rock excavation. This classification does not include materials such as loose rock, concrete, or other materials that can be removed by means other than drilling and blasting, but which for any reason, such as economic reasons, the Contractor chooses to remove by drilling and blasting. Responsive Resourceful Reliable 8

15 Geotechnical Engineering Report Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina March 31, 2014 Terracon Project No GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon should be retained to provide testing and observation during excavation and other construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated location and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur across the site, or due to the modifying effects of weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. Responsive Resourceful Reliable 9

16

17 APPEIX A FIELD EXPLORATION

18

19 PROJECT SITE Image Courtesy of Google Earth TM Project Manager: Drawn by: NJ Checked by: Approved by: Project No Scale: N.T.S. File Name: Date: 04/17/ Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina PH. (864) FAX. (864) SITE LOCATION PLAN Exhibit RICHLA CREEK TRUNK SEWER GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA A-1

20 LEGE: SPT BORING (APPROX. LOCATION) NOTES: 1. THE EXPLORATION POINTS WERE LOCATED IN THE FIELD BY TERRACON ENGINEER USING GPS COORDINATES OBTAINED USING OVERLAY OF SITE PLAN ON GOOGLE EARTH SOFTWARE. 2. THE BORING LOCATION PLAN PREPARED BASED ON AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE DRAWING PROVIDED BY RENEWABLE WATER RESOURCES TITLED RICHLA CREEK TRUNK SEWER, PLAN & PROFILE STA TO STA , DRAWING NO. 100-C-001, DATED 03/05/2014. B-1 DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, A IS NOT INTEED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES Project Manager: Drawn by: Checked by: Approved by: NJ Project No Scale: N.T.S. File Name: Date: 04/17/ Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina PH. (864) FAX. (864) BORING LOCATION PLAN RICHLA CREEK TRUNK SEWER GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA Exhibit A-2

21 LEGE: SPT BORING (APPROX. LOCATION) NOTES: 1. THE EXPLORATION POINTS WERE LOCATED IN THE FIELD BY TERRACON ENGINEER USING GPS COORDINATES OBTAINED USING OVERLAY OF SITE PLAN ON GOOGLE EARTH SOFTWARE. 2. THE BORING LOCATION PLAN PREPARED BASED ON AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE DRAWING PROVIDED BY RENEWABLE WATER RESOURCES TITLED RICHLA CREEK TRUNK SEWER, PLAN & PROFILE STA TO STA , DRAWING NO. 100-C-001, DATED 03/05/2014. B-2 DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, A IS NOT INTEED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES Project Manager: Drawn by: Checked by: Approved by: NJ Project No Scale: N.T.S. File Name: Date: 04/17/ Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina PH. (864) FAX. (864) BORING LOCATION PLAN RICHLA CREEK TRUNK SEWER GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA Exhibit A-3

22 NOTES: 1. THE EXPLORATION POINTS WERE LOCATED IN THE FIELD BY TERRACON ENGINEER USING GPS COORDINATES OBTAINED USING OVERLAY OF SITE PLAN ON GOOGLE EARTH SOFTWARE. 2. THE BORING LOCATION PLAN PREPARED BASED ON AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE DRAWING PROVIDED BY RENEWABLE WATER RESOURCES TITLED RICHLA CREEK TRUNK SEWER, PLAN & PROFILE STA TO STA , DRAWING NO. 100-C-002, DATED 03/05/2014. LEGE: SPT BORING (APPROX. LOCATION) B-3 DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, A IS NOT INTEED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES Project Manager: Drawn by: Checked by: Approved by: NJ Project No Scale: N.T.S. File Name: Date: 04/17/ Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina PH. (864) FAX. (864) BORING LOCATION PLAN RICHLA CREEK TRUNK SEWER GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA Exhibit A-4

23 LEGE: SPT BORING (APPROX. LOCATION) NOTES: 1. THE EXPLORATION POINTS WERE LOCATED IN THE FIELD BY TERRACON ENGINEER USING GPS COORDINATES OBTAINED USING OVERLAY OF SITE PLAN ON GOOGLE EARTH SOFTWARE. 2. THE BORING LOCATION PLAN PREPARED BASED ON AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE DRAWING PROVIDED BY RENEWABLE WATER RESOURCES TITLED RICHLA CREEK TRUNK SEWER, PLAN & PROFILE STA TO STA , DRAWING NO. 100-C-002, DATED 03/05/2014. B-4 DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, A IS NOT INTEED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES Project Manager: Drawn by: Checked by: Approved by: NJ Project No Scale: N.T.S. File Name: Date: 04/17/ Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina PH. (864) FAX. (864) BORING LOCATION PLAN RICHLA CREEK TRUNK SEWER GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA Exhibit A-5

24 LEGE: SPT BORING (APPROX. LOCATION) NOTES: 1. THE EXPLORATION POINTS WERE LOCATED IN THE FIELD BY TERRACON ENGINEER USING GPS COORDINATES OBTAINED USING OVERLAY OF SITE PLAN ON GOOGLE EARTH SOFTWARE. 2. THE BORING LOCATION PLAN PREPARED BASED ON AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE DRAWING PROVIDED BY RENEWABLE WATER RESOURCES TITLED RICHLA CREEK TRUNK SEWER, PLAN & PROFILE STA TO STA , DRAWING NO. 100-C-003, DATED 03/05/2014. B-5 DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, A IS NOT INTEED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES Project Manager: Drawn by: Checked by: Approved by: NJ Project No Scale: N.T.S. File Name: Date: 04/17/ Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina PH. (864) FAX. (864) BORING LOCATION PLAN RICHLA CREEK TRUNK SEWER GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA Exhibit A-6

25 NOTES: 1. THE EXPLORATION POINTS WERE LOCATED IN THE FIELD BY TERRACON ENGINEER USING GPS COORDINATES OBTAINED USING OVERLAY OF SITE PLAN ON GOOGLE EARTH SOFTWARE. 2. THE BORING LOCATION PLAN PREPARED BASED ON AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE DRAWING PROVIDED BY RENEWABLE WATER RESOURCES TITLED RICHLA CREEK TRUNK SEWER, PLAN & PROFILE STA TO STA , DRAWING NO. 100-C-004, DATED 03/05/2014. LEGE: SPT BORING (APPROX. LOCATION) B-6 DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, A IS NOT INTEED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES Project Manager: Drawn by: Checked by: Approved by: NJ Project No Scale: N.T.S. File Name: Date: 04/17/ Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina PH. (864) FAX. (864) BORING LOCATION PLAN RICHLA CREEK TRUNK SEWER GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA Exhibit A-7

26 NOTES: 1. THE EXPLORATION POINTS WERE LOCATED IN THE FIELD BY TERRACON ENGINEER USING GPS COORDINATES OBTAINED USING OVERLAY OF SITE PLAN ON GOOGLE EARTH SOFTWARE. 2. THE BORING LOCATION PLAN PREPARED BASED ON AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE DRAWING PROVIDED BY RENEWABLE WATER RESOURCES TITLED RICHLA CREEK TRUNK SEWER, PLAN & PROFILE STA TO STA , DRAWING NO. 100-C-006, DATED 03/05/2014. LEGE: SPT BORING (APPROX. LOCATION) B-7A B-7 DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, A IS NOT INTEED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES Project Manager: Drawn by: Checked by: Approved by: NJ Project No Scale: N.T.S. File Name: Date: 04/17/ Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina PH. (864) FAX. (864) BORING LOCATION PLAN RICHLA CREEK TRUNK SEWER GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA Exhibit A-8

27 LEGE: SPT BORING (APPROX. LOCATION) NOTES: 1. THE EXPLORATION POINTS WERE LOCATED IN THE FIELD BY TERRACON ENGINEER USING GPS COORDINATES OBTAINED USING OVERLAY OF SITE PLAN ON GOOGLE EARTH SOFTWARE. 2. THE BORING LOCATION PLAN PREPARED BASED ON AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE DRAWING PROVIDED BY RENEWABLE WATER RESOURCES TITLED RICHLA CREEK TRUNK SEWER, PLAN & PROFILE STA TO STA , DRAWING NO. 100-C-007, DATED 03/05/2014. B-8 DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, A IS NOT INTEED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES Project Manager: Drawn by: Checked by: Approved by: NJ Project No Scale: N.T.S. File Name: Date: 04/17/ Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina PH. (864) FAX. (864) BORING LOCATION PLAN RICHLA CREEK TRUNK SEWER GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA Exhibit A-9

28 NOTES: 1. THE EXPLORATION POINTS WERE LOCATED IN THE FIELD BY TERRACON ENGINEER USING GPS COORDINATES OBTAINED USING OVERLAY OF SITE PLAN ON GOOGLE EARTH SOFTWARE. 2. THE BORING LOCATION PLAN PREPARED BASED ON AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE DRAWING PROVIDED BY RENEWABLE WATER RESOURCES TITLED RICHLA CREEK TRUNK SEWER, PLAN & PROFILE STA TO STA , DRAWING NO. 100-C-009, DATED 03/06/2014. LEGE: SPT BORING (APPROX. LOCATION) B-9 DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, A IS NOT INTEED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES Project Manager: Drawn by: Checked by: Approved by: NJ Project No Scale: N.T.S. File Name: Date: 04/17/ Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina PH. (864) FAX. (864) BORING LOCATION PLAN RICHLA CREEK TRUNK SEWER GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA Exhibit A-10

29 Geotechnical Engineering Report Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina March 31, 2014 Terracon Project No Field Exploration Description The boring locations were laid out on the site by Terracon personnel and were measured from available site features. The soil test borings were not surveyed and its locations are approximated. The borings were drilled with an ATV-mounted rotary drill rig using hollow stem auger and rotary wash boring procedures to advance the boreholes. Soil samples were obtained by the split-barrel sampling procedure. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, the number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler the last 12 inches of the typical total 18-inch penetration by means of a 140-pound hammer with a free fall of 30 inches, is the standard penetration resistance value (N). This value is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. The sampling depths and penetration distance, plus the standard penetration resistance values are shown on the boring logs. A safety hammer was used to advance the split-barrel sampler in the borings performed on this site. The safety hammer is operated by lifting and dropping the hammer using a cathead rope attached to the hammer. Some of the borings were advanced to auger refusal. Refusal materials are materials that cannot be penetrated with the soil drilling methods employed. Refusal, thus indicated, may result from hard cemented soil, soft weathered rock, coarse gravel or boulders, thin rock seams or the upper surface of sound continuous rock. Core drilling procedures are required to determine the character and continuity of refusal materials. The samples were tagged for identification, sealed to reduce moisture loss, and taken to our laboratory for further visual examination and classification. Information provided on the boring logs attached to this report includes soil descriptions, consistency evaluations, boring depths, sampling intervals, and groundwater conditions. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings prior to the drill crew leaving the site. A field log of each boring was prepared by our Senior Geotechnical Field Technician. These logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as the driller s interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs included with this report represent the engineer's interpretation of the field logs. The soil samples were tagged for identification and sealed to reduce moisture loss, and were taken to our laboratory for further examination and classification. Information provided on the boring logs attached to this report includes soil descriptions, consistency evaluations, boring depths, sampling intervals, and groundwater conditions. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings prior to the drill crew leaving the site. Exhibit A-11

30

31 PROJECT: Richland Creek Trunk Sewer BORING LOG NO. B-1 Renewable Water Resources CLIENT: Greenville, SC Page 1 of 1 THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO LOG-DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF PAGE GPJ TEMPLATE UPDATE GPJ 4/22/14 SITE: GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION DEPTH inches of Topsoil FILL - SILTY SA (SM), with mica, fine grained, red brown, loose See Exhibit A-2 FILL - SAY SILT (ML), with organics, brown, medium stiff FILL - SAY SILT (ML), red brown, soft RESIDUAL - SAY CLAY (CL), with mica, red, soft SILTY SA (SM), fine to medium grained, tan gray, loose to medium dense Boring Terminated at 30 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Advancement Method: 2.25" hollow stem auger Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS After Boring DEPTH (Ft.) See Exhibit A-11 for description of field procedures See Appendix B for explanation of symbols and abbreviations Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS N= N= N= N= N= N= N= N=18 SS-1 SS-2 SS-3 SS-4 SS-5 SS-6 SS-7 SS-8 Hammer Type: Safety Hammer Notes: Boring Started: 3/14/2014 Drill Rig: 975 Project No.: SAMPLE NUMBER RQD WATER CONTENT (%) Driller: JP Boring Completed: 3/14/2014 Exhibit: A-12 ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI PERCENT FINES 16

32 PROJECT: Richland Creek Trunk Sewer BORING LOG NO. B-2 Renewable Water Resources CLIENT: Greenville, SC Page 1 of 1 THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO LOG-DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF PAGE GPJ TEMPLATE UPDATE GPJ 4/22/14 SITE: GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION DEPTH inches of Topsoil FILL - SILTY SA (SM), with mica, fine grained, red brown, loose See Exhibit A-2 FILL - SAY SILT (ML), with organics, brown, soft RESIDUAL - CLAYEY SILT (ML), with mica, red brown, soft PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK - sampled as CLAYEY SA (SC), fine to medium grained, red yellow, very dense, with rock fragments METAMORPHOSED GRANITE GNEISS SCHIST, close fracture spacing, very thin to thin bedding, slight to moderate weathering, medium hard to hard Coring Terminated at 19.5 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Advancement Method: Wash Rotary and NQ2 Core Barrel Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina Abandonment Method: Borings left open for water table analysis. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS No free water observed DEPTH (Ft.) 59.2 See Exhibit A-11 for description of field procedures See Appendix B for explanation of symbols and abbreviations WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS 3534 Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina SAMPLE TYPE RECOVERY (%) FIELD TEST RESULTS N= N= N=3 N=62/10" SS-1 SS-2 SS-3 SS-4 SS-5 Hammer Type: Safety Hammer Notes: Boring Started: 3/19/2014 Drill Rig: 915 Project No.: SAMPLE NUMBER RQD 27.1% WATER CONTENT (%) Boring Completed: 3/19/2014 Driller: JP Exhibit: A-13 ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI PERCENT FINES

33 PROJECT: Richland Creek Trunk Sewer BORING LOG NO. B-3 Renewable Water Resources CLIENT: Greenville, SC Page 1 of 1 SITE: GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina See Exhibit A-2 DEPTH inches of Topsoil RESIDUAL - SILTY SA (SM), with mica, fine to coarse grained, brown yellow, medium dense to dense DEPTH (Ft.) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS N=11 SAMPLE NUMBER SS-1 RQD WATER CONTENT (%) 16 ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI PERCENT FINES N=10 SS THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO LOG-DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF PAGE GPJ TEMPLATE UPDATE GPJ 4/22/ SILTY SA (SM), with mica, fine to medium grained, light brown, medium dense PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK- sampled as SILTY SA (SM), fine to medium grained, brown white, very dense, with rock fragments SILTY SA (SM), with mica, fine to medium grained, light brown, medium dense Boring Terminated at 25 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Advancement Method: 2.25" hollow stem auger Abandonment Method: Borings left open for water table analysis. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS After Casing Removal See Exhibit A-11 for description of field procedures See Appendix B for explanation of symbols and abbreviations Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina N= N= N=16 N=50/4" N=15 SS-3 SS-4 SS-5 SS-6 SS-7 Hammer Type: Safety Hammer Notes: Boring Started: 3/19/2014 Drill Rig: 915 Project No.: Boring Completed: 3/19/2014 Driller: JP Exhibit: A-14

34 PROJECT: Richland Creek Trunk Sewer BORING LOG NO. B-4 Renewable Water Resources CLIENT: Greenville, SC Page 1 of 1 THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO LOG-DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF PAGE GPJ TEMPLATE UPDATE GPJ 4/22/14 SITE: GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION DEPTH inches of Topsoil FILL - SILTY SA (SM), with gravel, fine grained, brown, loose See Exhibit A-2 RESIDUAL - SAY CLAY (CL), with mica, tan red, medium stiff SILTY SA (SM), fine to medium grained, yellow brown, loose to medium dense SILTY SA (SM), fine to medium grained, red brown, very dense Boring Terminated at 15 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Advancement Method: 2.25" hollow stem auger Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS After Boring DEPTH (Ft.) See Exhibit A-11 for description of field procedures See Appendix B for explanation of symbols and abbreviations Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS N= N= N= N= N=52 SS-1 SS-2 SS-3 SS-4 SS-5 Hammer Type: Safety Hammer Notes: Boring Started: 3/14/2014 Drill Rig: 975 Project No.: SAMPLE NUMBER RQD WATER CONTENT (%) Driller: JP Boring Completed: 3/14/2014 Exhibit: A-15 ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI PERCENT FINES

35 PROJECT: Richland Creek Trunk Sewer BORING LOG NO. B-5 Renewable Water Resources CLIENT: Greenville, SC Page 1 of 1 SITE: GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION DEPTH inches of Asphalt FILL - SILTY SA (SM), with gravel, fine grained, brown, medium dense 3.0 Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina See Exhibit A-2 RESIDUAL - SILTY SA (SM), fine to medium grained, yellow brown, loose to medium dense DEPTH (Ft.) 5 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE RECOVERY (%) FIELD TEST RESULTS N= N=3 SAMPLE NUMBER SS-1 SS-2 RQD WATER CONTENT (%) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI PERCENT FINES THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO LOG-DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF PAGE GPJ TEMPLATE UPDATE GPJ 4/22/ PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK - sampled as SILTY SA (SM), fine to coarse grained, brown gray, very dense, with rock fragments METAMORPHOSED GRANITE GNEISS SCHIST, close fracture spacing, very thin bedding, moderately weathered, hard Coring Terminated at 17.5 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Advancement Method: Wash Rotary and NQ2 Core Barrel Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS After Boring Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina 98.3 See Exhibit A-11 for description of field procedures See Appendix B for explanation of symbols and abbreviations N=15 N=55/11" SS-3 SS-4 SS-5 Hammer Type: Safety Hammer Notes: Boring Started: 3/19/2014 Drill Rig: 915 Project No.: % Boring Completed: 3/19/2014 Driller: JP Exhibit: A-16

36 PROJECT: Richland Creek Trunk Sewer BORING LOG NO. B-6 Renewable Water Resources CLIENT: Greenville, SC Page 1 of 1 SITE: GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina See Exhibit A-2 DEPTH inches of Topsoil FILL - SILTY SA (SM), with mica, fine grained, red brown, medium dense, with rock fragments DEPTH (Ft.) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS N=19 SAMPLE NUMBER SS-1 RQD WATER CONTENT (%) 18 ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI PERCENT FINES THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO LOG-DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF PAGE GPJ TEMPLATE UPDATE GPJ 4/22/ RESIDUAL - SILTY SA (SM), with mica, fine to medium grained, tan white, very loose to loose, with rock fragments SILTY SA (SM), with mica, fine to coarse grained, brown yellow, very dense, with rock fragments SILTY SA (SM), with mica, fine to medium grained, tan yellow, medium dense, with rock fragments Auger refusal at 28.4 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Advancement Method: 2.25" hollow stem auger Abandonment Method: Borings left open for water table analysis. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS After Boring See Exhibit A-11 for description of field procedures See Appendix B for explanation of symbols and abbreviations Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina N= N= N= N=3 N=83/17" N=27 SS-2 SS-3 SS-4 SS-5 SS-6 SS-7 Hammer Type: Safety Hammer Notes: Boring Started: 3/14/2014 Drill Rig: 975 Project No.: Boring Completed: 3/14/2014 Driller: JP Exhibit: A-17

37 PROJECT: Richland Creek Trunk Sewer BORING LOG NO. B-7 Renewable Water Resources CLIENT: Greenville, SC Page 1 of 1 SITE: GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina See Exhibit A-2 DEPTH inches of Asphalt RESIDUAL - SILTY SA (SM), with mica, fine grained, red brown, medium dense, with rock fragments DEPTH (Ft.) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS N=22 SAMPLE NUMBER SS-1 RQD WATER CONTENT (%) 6 ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI PERCENT FINES N=15 SS-2 10 THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO LOG-DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF PAGE GPJ TEMPLATE UPDATE GPJ 4/22/ Auger refusal at 12.4 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Advancement Method: 2.25" hollow stem auger Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS No free water observed See Exhibit A-11 for description of field procedures See Appendix B for explanation of symbols and abbreviations Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina N= N=21 SS-3 SS-4 Hammer Type: Safety Hammer Notes: Boring Started: 3/14/2014 Drill Rig: 975 Project No.: Boring Completed: 3/14/2014 Driller: JP Exhibit: A-18

38 BORING LOG NO. B-7A PROJECT: Richland Creek Trunk Sewer CLIENT: Renewable Water Resources Greenville, SC Page 1 of 1 SITE: GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina See Exhibit A-2 DEPTH FILL - SILTY SA (SM), with gravel, fine to medium grained, brown to dark brown, loose to medium dense DEPTH (Ft.) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS N=21 SAMPLE NUMBER SS-1 RQD WATER CONTENT (%) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI PERCENT FINES N=9 SS-2 THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO LOG-DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF PAGE GPJ TEMPLATE UPDATE GPJ 4/22/ RESIDUAL - PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK - sampled as SILTY SA (SM), fine to coarse grained, gray brown, very dense, with rock fragments Boring Terminated at 20 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Advancement Method: 2.25" hollow stem auger Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS After Boring See Exhibit A-11 for description of field procedures See Appendix B for explanation of symbols and abbreviations Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina N= N=4 N= 50/3" N= 50/2" SS-3 SS-4 SS-5 SS-6 Hammer Type: Safety Hammer Notes: Boring Started: 3/25/2014 Drill Rig: 975 Project No.: Boring Completed: 3/25/2014 Driller: JP Exhibit: A-19

39 PROJECT: Richland Creek Trunk Sewer BORING LOG NO. B-8 Renewable Water Resources CLIENT: Greenville, SC Page 1 of 1 SITE: GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina See Exhibit A-2 DEPTH inches of Topsoil FILL - SILTY SA (SM), with organics and gravel, fine grained, brown, very loose to loose DEPTH (Ft.) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS N=5 SAMPLE NUMBER SS-1 RQD WATER CONTENT (%) 18 ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI PERCENT FINES THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO LOG-DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF PAGE GPJ TEMPLATE UPDATE GPJ 4/22/ RESIDUAL - SAY CLAY (CL), with mica, yellow, medium stiff CLAYEY SA (SC), with mica, fine to medium grained, yellow gray, loose SILTY SA (SM), with mica, fine to medium grained, gray, very loose Boring Terminated at 15 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Advancement Method: 2.25" hollow stem auger Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS After Boring See Exhibit A-11 for description of field procedures See Appendix B for explanation of symbols and abbreviations Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina N= N= N= N=3 SS-2 SS-3 SS-4 SS-5 Hammer Type: Safety Hammer Notes: Boring Started: 3/14/2014 Drill Rig: 975 Project No.: Boring Completed: 3/14/2014 Driller: JP Exhibit: A-20

40 PROJECT: Richland Creek Trunk Sewer BORING LOG NO. B-9 Renewable Water Resources CLIENT: Greenville, SC Page 1 of 1 THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO LOG-DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF PAGE GPJ TEMPLATE UPDATE GPJ 4/22/14 SITE: GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION DEPTH inches of Topsoil FILL - CLAYEY SA (SC), with organics and gravel, fine grained, brown, loose See Exhibit A-2 RESIDUAL - SAY SILT (MH), with organics, red brown, stiff SILTY SA (SM), with mica, fine to medium grained, red brown, loose to medium dense Boring Terminated at 15 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Advancement Method: 2.25" hollow stem auger Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS No free water observed DEPTH (Ft.) See Exhibit A-11 for description of field procedures See Appendix B for explanation of symbols and abbreviations Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS N= N= N= N= N=12 SS-1 SS-2 SS-3 SS-4 SS-5 Hammer Type: Safety Hammer Notes: Boring Started: 3/14/2014 Drill Rig: 975 Project No.: SAMPLE NUMBER RQD WATER CONTENT (%) Driller: JP Boring Completed: 3/14/2014 Exhibit: A-21 ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI PERCENT FINES

41 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS /4 1/ / HYDROMETER LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT GRAIN SIZE RPT GPJ TERRACON_STD_TEMPLATE.GDT 4/22/14 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT D 60 D 30 D 10 C C C U COBBLES 100 BORING ID B-1 B-3 B-6 coarse GRAIN SIZE GRAVEL COEFFICIENTS PROJECT: Richland Creek Trunk Sewer SITE: Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina 10 fine coarse SIEVE (size) GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS medium SA % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SA PERCENT FINER 3534 Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina fine 0.1 % SILT 0.01 % FINES % CLAY USCS REMARKS SILT OR CLAY SOIL DESCRIPTION PROJECT NUMBER: CLIENT: Renewable Water Resources Greenville, SC EXHIBIT: B PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT

42 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS /4 1/ / HYDROMETER LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT GRAIN SIZE RPT GPJ TERRACON_STD_TEMPLATE.GDT 4/22/14 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT D 60 D 30 D 10 C C C U COBBLES BORING ID B-7A coarse GRAIN SIZE COEFFICIENTS GRAVEL PROJECT: Richland Creek Trunk Sewer SITE: Richland Creek Trunk Sewer Greenville, South Carolina 10 fine coarse SIEVE (size) 1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS medium SA % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SA PERCENT FINER 3534 Rutherford Road Taylors, South Carolina fine 0.1 % SILT 0.01 % FINES % CLAY USCS 21.2 REMARKS SILT OR CLAY SOIL DESCRIPTION PROJECT NUMBER: CLIENT: Renewable Water Resources Greenville, SC EXHIBIT: B PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT