shepherd university dormitory hepherdstown, west …

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

SHEPHERD UNIVERSITY DORMITORY

SHEPHERDSTOWN, WEST VIRGINIA

TRIAD PROJECT NO. 07-15-0145

PREPARED FOR:

MR. RONALD A. MISLOWSKY, P.E.PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC.

117 EAST PICCADILLY STREET

WINCHESTER, VA 22601

PREPARED BY:

200 AVIATION DRIVE

WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602WWW.TRIADENG.COM

OCTOBER 26, 2015

TRIAD Listens, Designs & Delivers

October 26, 2015

Mr. Ronald A. Mislowsky, P.E.Pennoni Associates, Inc.117 East Piccadilly StreetWinchester, VA 22601

RE: Report for Preliminary Geotechnical ExplorationShepherd University DormitoryShepherdstown, West VirginiaTriad Project No. 07-15-0145

Dear Mr. Mislowsky:

Triad Engineering, Inc. (Triad) has completed the preliminary geotechnical explorationat the proposed Shepherd University Dormitory in Shepherdstown, West Virginia. Thepurpose of this study was to explore and evaluate the parcel for a preliminary allowablebearing capacity and identify any geotechnical concerns. The scope of work for thisproject was completed in substantial conformance with proposal dated July 30, 2015and authorized by signing and returning the Professional Services Agreement onSeptember 18, 2015.

The geotechnical exploration was performed to evaluate the subsurface conditionspresent at the proposed Shepherd University Dormitory for the limited purposes ofpreparing preliminary recommendations for geotechnical aspects of the project. It isemphasized that subsurface conditions may vary dramatically between borings, andTriad makes no representations as to subsurface conditions other than thoseencountered at the specific boring locations.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Pennoni Associates, Inc. forspecific application to the preliminary evaluation of the proposed Shepherd UniversityDormitory in Shepherdstown, West Virginia. Triad’s responsibilities and liabilities arelimited to our Client and apply only to their use of our report for the purposes describedabove. To observe compliance with design concepts and specifications, and to facilitatedesign changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipatedprior to construction, it is recommended that Triad be retained to provide continuousengineering and testing services during the earthwork and foundation constructionphases of the work.

Pennoni Associates Inc. October 26, 2015Triad Project No. 07-15-0145 Page 2

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services during the design phase of theproject. If you should have any questions concerning this report, or if you require anyadditional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC.

Raymond A. Strother II, P.E.Project Engineer

Randy L. Moulton, P.E.Principal Engineer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageFOREWORD................................................................................................................... 1

SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................. 1

GEOLOGIC SETTING..................................................................................................... 2General................................................................................................................. 2Development in Karst Areas................................................................................. 3

FIELD EXPLORATION.................................................................................................... 4

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 4

LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................... 5

DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS........................................................ 6Topsoil .................................................................................................................. 6Site Preparation.................................................................................................... 6Excavations .......................................................................................................... 6Old Fill Material..................................................................................................... 6Re-use of Material from Cut Areas for New Fill .................................................... 7New Controlled Fill ............................................................................................... 7Structural Foundation ........................................................................................... 7Structural Floor Slabs and Below Grade Walls..................................................... 8Suggested Building Location ................................................................................ 9Karst Features...................................................................................................... 9Recommendations for the Detailed Exploration.................................................. 10

APPENDIX A

Site Vicinity Plan ........................................................................................ Figure No. A-1Test Location Plan...................................................................................... Figure No. A-2

APPENDIX B

Key to Identification of Soil and Weathered Rock Samples............................Figure No. 1Logs of Test Borings ......................................................................................... B-1 to B-7

APPENDIX C

Results of Laboratory Testing ....................................................... Figure Nos. C-1 to C-3

i

REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

SHEPHERD UNIVERSITY DORMITORYSHEPHERDSTOWN, WEST VIRGINIA


FOREWORD

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Pennoni Associates, Inc. forspecific application to the preliminary evaluation of the proposed Shepherd UniversityDormitory in Shepherdstown, West Virginia. The work has been performed inaccordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No otherwarranty, expressed or implied, is made.

This report should not be used for estimation of construction quantities and/or costs,and contractors should conduct their own investigation of site conditions for thesepurposes. Please note that Triad is not responsible for any claims, damages or liabilityassociated with any other party’s interpretation of the data or re-use of these data orengineering analyses without the express written authorization of Triad. Additionally,this report must be read in its entirety. Individual sections of this report may cause thereader to draw incorrect conclusions if considered in isolation from each other.

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based, in part, uponour field observations and data obtained from the borings at the site. The nature andextent of variations may not become evident until construction. If variations then appearevident, it may be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations presented herein.Similarly, in the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the plannedfacility, the conclusions and recommendations contained herein shall not be consideredvalid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions are modified or verified inwriting by Triad.

It is recommended that we be provided the opportunity to review the final grading plan,overall foundation design, and specifications so that earthwork and foundationrecommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented. If we are not affordedthe privilege of making this review, we will not assume responsibility formisinterpretation of our recommendations, as our recommendations are strictly limitedto conditions represented to Triad at the time this report was issued.

SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Based on the provided information, the site planned for new dormitory consists of anapproximate 2-acre parcel situated on the northern side of Campus Drive at the existingShepherd University in Shepherdstown, West Virginia. The approximate location of thesubject property is illustrated on Figure No. A-1. Based on our site reconnaissance andprovided topographic map, the parcel contains existing elevated recreation areas in the


northern and eastern portions of the site. The site is relatively flat to gently sloping andgenerally slopes to the south and west. The site includes mostly open grassy terrainwith some areas that contain landscaping, concrete walkways and an asphaltmaintenance road. Marked on-site utilities consisting of buried communication, waterand electric lines were noted extending in various directions throughout the subjectarea. The general alignments of the utilities are delineated on the attached BoringLocation Plan, labeled Figure No. A-2 in Appendix A.

The main focus of this exploration was to generally explore the planned constructionarea to help determine the most appropriate location for the new dormitory and providepreliminary design and construction recommendations for the project. As such, detailedbuilding information was not available at the time this report was prepared. However,we understand that the project will include construction of a 3 to 4 story dormitorystructure. We assume that the structure will include conventional wood or metal framingwith continuous wall foundations, interior column foundations and a slab-on-grade.Structural loads have not been provided. However, we estimate that maximumcontinuous wall and column loads will be in the range of 3 to 4 kips per lineal foot and200 to 400 kips, respectively. The structural engineer of record should verify thatthe assumed maximum wall and column loads are consistent with the actualdesign loads for the project. We assume that the project will also include pavedaccess roads and parking areas. Existing topography at the site generally ranges from420 to 440 Mean Sea Level (MSL). As mentioned previously, proposed grades havenot been developed at this time. However, based on our knowledge of the plannedconstruction, we anticipate that maximum cuts and fills necessary to achieve designgrades will be on the order of 10 feet or less.

GEOLOGIC SETTING

General

According to the Geologic Map of West Virginia (1968), the site is underlain by bedrockunits of the Conococheague Formation of Cambrian age. Conococheague Formation isgenerally described as predominantly algal and mechanically deposited limestone withinterbeds of aphanitic limestone and dolomite. The Shepherdstown Anticline is locatedapproximately 1,000 feet west of the site and it extends in a general southwest tonortheast direction. However, bedrock information approximately 400 feet east of thesite indicates that the bedrock strike extends in a general south to north orientation witha dip angle of 61 degrees to the east. Residual soils, which have developed fromweathering of the underlying limestone bedrock, are comprised primarily of low to highplasticity silty clays or clayey silts with various amounts of sand and rock fragments.

The carbonate rock formations at the site and the general geographic area aremoderately solution-prone, highly calcareous and weather differentially to produce apinnacled or "sawtooth" top of rock profile. The degree of weathering or solutioningwithin the bedrock is controlled by joint orientation and frequency. Where jointsintersect or are highly fractured, subsequent solutioning is intensified creating low areasand seams that are generally filled with residual clay soils. Conversely, more


competent high areas represent slightly too non-weathered rock units that are oftencoarse grained and only slightly solution prone.

Development in Karst Areas

The project site is underlain by carbonate sedimentary bedrock which results in karstterrain. Karst terrain is characterized by caves, internal drainage, lack of surfacestreams and topographic features such as sinkholes. These features are the result ofthe dissolution of soluble bedrock, such as limestone or dolomite, by groundwater. Asgroundwater enters fractures and bedding planes in soluble carbonate bedrock, it slowlydissolves the rock and enlarges the fractures. This results in the formation ofsolutioning channels or underground streams or ravines. Since water is the primarycause of the dissolution, the potential for sinkhole formation within SWM areas isincreased due to the intensified water infiltration in these areas.

Based on our reconnaissance of the site, we did not observe any surface features thatwould suggest any active or apparent sinkholes are present at the site. However,previous construction at the site may have disturbed existing site features that mayhave existed. It is common in this geographic region to have sinkholes develop duringconstruction. Repair methods for sinkholes and other solutioning features varydepending on the size and depth of the feature and the type of proposed construction atthe location of the feature. It is important to note that there will always be some risk thatan owner must accept when developing in karst areas. These risks can includegroundwater contamination, subsidence and flooding. In all these instances, water isthe primary cause of the problem. Geophysical studies combined with additional drillingcan be performed to help further identify any potential concerns and qualitative level ofrisks associated with potential sinkhole development within the site, if desired. Althoughthe geophysical work will help better define these risks, it is important to understand thatthe quantitative level of these risks cannot be clearly defined since they are partiallycontrolled by nature.

During construction, alterations in the ground surface, particularly in cut areas, duringconstruction can impact the natural drainage within the site, and solutioning featurescan develop. Also, normal blasting required to remove hard rock can create micro-fractures within the bedrock that will allow greater surface water infiltration into areasthat may not normally receive water and, in turn, disturb old solutioning features and/orpossibly create new features. Construction measures that can be implemented to helpsignificantly reduce the risk of subsidence include implementing proper site drainageboth during and after construction and containerizing all downspouts and routing themto discharge away from the structures. Stormwater management ponds will have ahigher potential risk of solutioning feature development as a result of increasedconcentrations of runoff water.


FIELD EXPLORATION

The field exploration for the project included drilling seven (7) test borings throughoutthe area proposed for the new dormitory. The approximate boring locations are shownon Figure No. A-2. The test locations were selected by Triad and were established inthe field based on prominent site features to provide broad coverage across theproposed construction area. Surface elevations were interpolated utilizing thetopographic contours on the provided plan.

The test borings included Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) and split barrel sampling(ASTM D 1586) at regular intervals to the planned termination depth or auger refusal onhard rock. Auger refusal was encountered in all the borings at depths ranging from 7 to26 feet below existing grade or elevations ranging from 399 to 423 MSL. However,numerous rock outcrops were observed around boring B-2, and auger refusal wasencountered at shallow depths in offset locations in the vicinity of boring B-1. Pleaserefer to the remarks section of the boring logs for specific auger refusal and offsetinformation for borings B-1 and B-2. Pocket penetrometer readings were taken on allthe soil samples at the time of drilling, and the results exhibited unconfined strengthsranging from 0.25 to 4.5 tons per square foot (tsf).

An engineering geologist from our office was present full time during the drilling to directthe drill crew, log all recovered soil samples, and observe groundwater and rockconditions. The recovered soil samples were transported to our laboratory for furthertesting. Detailed descriptions of materials encountered in the test borings are containedon the attached logs. Figure No. 1 contains a description of the classification systemand terminology utilized.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The materials encountered in the borings are generally described below. Stratificationlines indicated on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between materialtypes, and the actual transitions may be gradual.

Surface Materials: Approximately 4 to 6 inches of topsoil was encountered atthe surface of the borings. The topsoil generally consisted of light to dark brownorganic clay and/or silt with an appreciable surface root mat.

Old/Possible Fill: Old/possible fill was encountered in all of the borings. Theold fill appeared to extend to depths ranging from 7 to 26 feet below existinggrades. The old/possible fill generally consisted of brown, orange and tan clayeysilt and lean/fat clay with variable amounts of sand and rock fragments andclayey sand. Based on SPT N-values varying from WOH/18” to over 50 blowsper foot, the fill exhibited a very soft consistency to a very dense relative density.N-values in excess of 50 blows per foot were obtained at auger refusal depth inboring B-7. Soils exhibiting very soft to soft soils were isolated to 2.5 to 4 feet inboring B-1 and 13.5 to 29.5 feet in boring B-5. The majority of the fill exhibited


stiff to very stiff consistencies. Pocket penetrometer readings within the fillexhibited unconfined strengths ranging from 0.5 to 4.5 tsf.

Although the majority of the fill exhibited stiff to very stiff consistencies,unsuitable old fill has been encountered throughout other areas of the campusduring previous projects. In addition, some of the SPT N-values were elevateddue to the presence of rock fragments. These effects were apparent whenobtaining low pocket penetrometer readings from samples which exhibited fairlyhigh N-values. Therefore, unsuitable old fill not identified during the preliminaryexploration may be present at the site.

Residuum: Residuum was encountered in borings B-3 and B-4 below the oldfill, and it extended to auger refusal on hard rock at depths ranging from 17 feetand 24.5 feet below existing grade, respectively. It should be noted that possibleresiduum was encountered at the other boring locations. The residuumconsisted of brown sandy clay with varying amounts of silt and rock fragments.Based on SPT N-values varying from 6 to over 50 blows per foot, the residuumexhibited a medium stiff consistency to a very dense relative density. The N-value in excess of 50 blows per foot was obtained at the top of hard rock inboring B-5. The majority of the residuum or possible residuum exhibited mediumstiff to stiff consistencies. Pocket penetrometer readings within the residuumranged from 0.5 to 1.75 tsf.

Groundwater Observations: The borings were checked for the presence ofgroundwater both during and upon completion of the drilling. A staticgroundwater level was not detected in any of the borings during or uponcompletion of the drilling. It is important to note that fluctuations in perched waterand groundwater levels may occur due to variations in environmental conditions,surface drainage and other factors which may not have been evident at the timemeasurements were made and reported herein.

LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with appropriate ASTM Standard testmethods. Detailed results of the laboratory tests are contained in Appendix C. Asummary of the test results is presented below.

TEST TYPE TEST RESULTS

Natural Moisture Contents 13.9 % to 40.4 %

Atterberg Limits: Liquid LimitPlasticity Index

30 to 5410 to 32

Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve 89 and 98 %

USCS Soil Classification CL and CH


DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the field exploration, it is our opinion that the property isgenerally suitable for development including structure and asphalt parking and accessdrives. However, there are issues which will affect design and construction, and theseare outlined herein:

1) Topsoil: Topsoil was present at the ground surface of all the test locations, andthe thickness of topsoil varied from 4 to 6 inches. Thicker topsoil zones can beanticipated adjacent to large root balls and landscaped areas of the site.

2) Site Preparation: The majority of the site is open with manicured grass cover.As mentioned previously, existing recreation areas along with concrete walkwaysand an asphalt access drive are located in the subject area. Depending on thefinal location of the planned dormitory, demolition and removal of all or part ofthese items may be required as part of the project. Therefore, site preparationwill involve removal of topsoil, mass clearing and grubbing and demolition ofsome of the existing courts and access drives/walkways. Demolition shouldinclude complete removal of all concrete, asphalt and any other deleteriousmaterials within any planned structure or roadway footprints. All demolitiondebris should be disposed of in strict accordance with local health guidelines.

3) Excavations: In general, the in-situ soils can be effectively removed byconventional excavation techniques utilizing tracked loaders and dozers. Due tothe geology of the site, the top of rock surface is quite variable, and assessingearth and rock removal volumes in cut areas is extremely difficult and impractical.Accordingly, excavations should be completed on an unclassified basis, wherethe contractor will assume the risk of determining the percentage of rock in theoverall excavations. Contractors should be required to submit unit prices forunanticipated unsuitable materials, should they be encountered during theproject. Rock removal techniques such as hoe-ram chipping or hydraulic splittingwill be required for effective removal of hard rock within the site. Due to the closeproximity of existing structures, roadways, utilities and students; we recommendthat blasting be strictly prohibited for the project. Rock produced from the rockexcavations can be used as new fill provided certain construction procedures areobserved. These procedures include maintaining the maximum particle size ofthe rock, prohibiting nesting of boulders, and mixing sufficient amounts of soilfines with the rock to fill in open voids between the rock particles.

4) Old Fill Material: As indicated previously, old fill was encountered in all theborings extending to approximate depths of 7 to 26 feet below existing grades.Based on results of the borings, the old fill materials exhibited very soft to verystiff conditions. The old fill appeared to be generally free of deleterious orotherwise unsuitable materials. Based on our previous experience at theShepherd Campus, particular attention should be paid to further evaluating thesuitability of the fill soils located within the final location of the planned structureand parking areas. Recommendations for any corrective measures will need to


be formulated based on the results of the detailed geotechnical exploration andfinal building/pavement locations.

5) Re-use of Materials from Cut Areas for New Fill: Excluding the topsoil and/orunsuitable old fill, the residual soil and bedrock can be used as new structural fillprovided that moisture content, placement, compaction, and maximum particlesize criteria are strictly maintained. Some of the excavated rock may need to bedownsized to a 4-inch maximum particle size. Blending of the crushed rock withthe on-site soils will provide a much more consistent mixture of material whichshould result in a higher quality fill.

The soil types and consistencies of the in-situ materials are generally withintypical ranges for soils from the general geographic area. These soils typicallydo not exhibit adverse shrink-swell characteristics provided that compactioncriteria and proper construction drainage measures, grading, and sloping awayfrom structures are maintained both during and after construction. Some of thelaboratory moisture content testing of the residual soils exhibited moisture levelsin excess of 30%. Therefore, some of the on-site soils may require extensiveaeration during construction in order to obtain satisfactory moisture contents forcompaction. The fine-grained residual soils are sensitive to moisturefluctuations and can become difficult to work with during prolongedperiods of precipitation. In addition, they are difficult to aerate during thewetter periods of the year. Therefore, it will be very important to properly controlstormwater runoff during all stages of earthwork activities.

6) New Controlled Fill: Controlled fill placed in structure areas should be free ofrock larger than four (4) inches in any dimension. Larger rock sizes up to 12inches can be utilized in required deeper pavement fill or non-structural areas.Final earthwork and compaction recommendations for the project should bedeveloped after more detailed information is available regarding the proposedstructures, traffic loads, pavement requirements, etc.

7) Structure Foundations: Based on the results of the field exploration andlaboratory testing, it is anticipated the new dormitory structure can be founded onconventional shallow spread footings bearing on approved in-situ soils and/ornew controlled fill. In general, the soils at the site should meet the presumptivebearing pressures listed in the International Building Code for the materialclassifications present while maintaining settlements within tolerable levels.Based on the results of the SPT sampling, we anticipate that allowable bearingpressures on the order of 2,000 to 2,500 psf can be used for shallow foundationsbearing on in-situ soils or new controlled fill. Allowable bearing pressures shouldbe based on the actual location of the planned structure, the estimated structuralloads, the permissible settlements for the structures and more detailedinformation obtained from the detailed geotechnical exploration.

Depending on conditions encountered at the time of excavation and the finallocation of the structure, some softer soils resulting from elevated moisture


contents may be encountered. In any areas where soft conditions areencountered, some over-excavations will be required to achieve adequatebearing conditions. In addition, there is the potential for partial rock/partial soilbearing conditions to be encountered. Due to the potential for differentialsettlement, this bearing condition should be avoided by either over-excavatingthe rock one (1) foot below bearing elevation and replacing with compacted soilor removing the soil to expose competent bedrock and backfilling with concrete.The most appropriate measure will need to be determined once final grading andstructure plans are available and an evaluation of the preponderance of bearingmaterial is completed. Specific recommendations for foundation types should bedeveloped based on the results of a detailed geotechnical exploration.

Based on the results of the preliminary borings, we do not anticipate the need toover-excavate mass amounts of compressible soils which would be subject tolong-term (consolidation) settlements. Settlements which are generally realizedin this setting are more elastic and will develop during construction. However,potential settlements can be better defined during the detailed exploration.Depending upon final grading details and the thickness of fill materials instructure areas, we often recommend that shallow foundation construction bepostponed for several weeks to allow for some post-construction settlement ofthe fill to occur. These details are more appropriately addressed during thedetailed design phase.

Depending upon the final structure type, anticipated loads and sensitivity tosettlement, ground improvement methods may be required to facilitate use ofshallow foundations. For example, if the structure is composed of masonrybearing walls and pre-stressed, pre-cast concrete floor units, the structural loadscould be significant, and this type of structure is usually very sensitive to total anddifferential settlement. In this instance, rammed agggegate piers (aka Geopiers)or partial excavation of old fill may be warranted to limit settlement and enhancethe bearing capacity. This can be assessed more effectively as the designadvances and the detailed exploration is undertaken.

8) Structure Floor Slabs and Below Grade Walls: We anticipate that typical slab-on-grade construction, including a nominal thickness of crushed aggregate, willbe suitable for the concrete floors. Depending on the structure type and use, theleveling course of crushed aggregate should consist of either open-gradedaggregate, such as ASTM No. 57 stone, or well-graded aggregate, such asWVDOH Class 1 or Class 8 dense graded aggregate. Polyethylene vaporbarriers should be placed on top of the stone leveling course where floorcoverings (carpet, tile, etc.) will be placed. Although the on-site residual soils aresuitable for re-use as general fill, it should be noted that high plasticity soils arenot suitable for placement directly behind below grade walls unless the wall isproperly designed for increased lateral earth pressures, and the drainage systembehind the wall is more elaborate than minimum standards. If lower lateral earthpressures are desired, select off-site granular materials (SM or more granular)should be utilized within the zone of influence for backfill behind any below grade


walls. Proper drainage behind below grade walls is critical to help minimize long-term structure problems associated with water. Due to the underlying karstterrain and fine-grained clayey soils, all downspouts should be containerized anddirected away from all structures. In addition, final grades should be slopedpositively away from structures and roadways to prevent buildup of wateradjacent to their perimeters.

9) Suggested Building Location: Based on results of the borings, shallow rockwas encountered in Borings B-1 and B-2, and rock outcrops were observed inthe vicinity of boring B-2. Very soft to soft conditions were encountered inborings B-1 and B-5 at depths ranging from 2.5 to 29.5 feet below existinggrades. Additionally, deeper bedrock was generally encountered in the vicinity ofborings B-4 and B-5. The fill soils and deep bedrock profile near these locationssuggest an increased the risk of deep unsuitable soils and intolerablesettlements. Based on the encountered conditions, it is our opinion that theplanned dormitory should be located in northwestern or eastern portions of thesite. Depending on the finished floor elevation for the structure and presence ofany planned elevator pits, hard rock can be expected in the northwestern area.However, the amount of rock removal will be dependent on final grades and thedesign bearing elevation of the building.

10) Karst Features: Based on our limited reconnaissance, we did not observe anyapparent sinkholes or closed depressions at the site. Sinkholes and solutioningfeatures are common in the general geographic area, and some may beencountered during the site development. Solutioning features can also developboth during and after construction as a result of alteration of the ground surface(cuts) and existing drainage patterns and blasting. Water is the principalmechanism which leads to rapid development of the features. Furthermore,blasting during construction can disturb old solutioning channels and soil filledfractures, and this can result in re-activation of some older dormant features.However, we recommend that blasting be strictly prohibited at this site.Contingency costs should be included in the construction budget to repairsinkholes which may develop during construction. As mentioned previously,geophysical exploration, including two-dimensional electrical resistivity imaging(2-D ERI) can be conducted within the building footprint to better define the risksassociated with the underlying karst terrain.

Any sinkholes which are discovered should be repaired in an appropriatemanner. We prefer to employ simpler repair methods as opposed to extensiveinjection grouting, compaction grouting, etc. Conventional methods typicallyinclude excavation of loose materials in the feature, placement of lean mixconcrete plugs or graded filters and placement and compaction of lowpermeability soils to limit infiltration. However, specific measures will bedependent upon the findings obtained from more detailed explorations andproposed grading details in the areas of the features. Development of roadwaysand structures within naturally closed depressions should be avoided unless


more detailed engineering studies are conducted to help determine their originand/or level of concern related to new development.

11) Recommendations for the Detailed Exploration: After the final buildinglocation and new parking areas are determined, a more detailed explorationshould be undertaken in consideration of the planned structure, grading andpavement areas. It is suggested that additional borings be concentrated in theplanned structure area, and the borings should include SPT and sampling toverify that the preliminary allowable bearing pressure reported herein can beachieved within the planned structure footprint. Based on our previousexperiences with deep unsuitable fill soils at the campus, we also recommendexcavating track-hoe test pits within planned building and pavement areas tobetter evaluate the consistency and moisture levels of the fill. The test pitsshould be excavated to the maximum reach of the equipment or to residual soils,whichever occurs first. The contractor excavating the test pits should beprepared to place the excavated material in a control manner to preventuncontrolled fill being placed within structure and pavement areas.

APPENDIX A

Illustrations

SOURCE: USGS 7.5Shepherdstown (WV-MD) 1978;

Topographic Maps

Site Location

CHECKEDBY: RLM

SHEPHERD UNIVERSITY DORMITORY

SHEPHERDSTOWN, WEST VIRGINIA

www.triadeng.com

SCALE:1”= 2000’


DRAWNBY: MWB

DATE:10-13-2015

SITE VICINITY PLAN

FIGURE NO.: A-1

www.triadeng.com

TRIA

DEN

GIN

EER

ING,

INC

.20

0AV

IATI

ON

DR

IVE

WIN

CH

ES

TER

,VA

2260

2P

H:5

40.6

67.9

300

FAX:

540.

667.

2260

OFF

ICE

LOC

ATIO

NS

:M

AR

YLA

ND

-OH

IO-P

EN

NS

YLVA

NIA

VIR

GIN

IA-W

ES

TV

IRG

INIA

FIGURE NUMBER:

A-2PROJECT NO: 07-15-0145

BA

SE

MA

PP

RO

VID

ED

BY:

PE

NN

ON

IAS

SO

CIA

TES

INC

.P

RO

JEC

TN

O:

07-1

5-01

45

DR

AWN

BY:

MW

B

SC

ALE

:1"

=40'

DAT

E:

10-1

3-20

15

CH

EC

KE

DB

Y:R

LMTE

ST

LOC

ATIO

NP

LAN

SH

EP

HE

RD

UN

IVE

RS

ITY

DO

RM

ITO

RY

SH

EP

HE

RD

STO

WN

,WE

ST

VIR

GIN

IA

- Approximate Boring LocationLocation plan is approximate.For reference purposes only.

B-1

B-7

B-4B-5

B-2

B-6

B-3

APPENDIX B

Field Exploration

FIELD EXPLORATION

The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling seven (7) test boringswith Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) and sampling. The borings were drilled byRecon Drilling (Recon) utilizing a track-mounted rig equipped with solid stem augers.The field exploration was supervised by a geotechnical engineer from our office.BSPT and sampling was performed in accordance with ASTM D 1586. The SPT's wereperformed to depths indicated on the attached boring logs using a split barrel samplerwith an outside diameter of two (2) inches and an inside diameter of one and three-eighths (1-3/8) inches. The split barrel sampler was driven eighteen (18) inches with ahammer weighing approximately 140 pounds and falling thirty (30) inches. The numberof blows required to drive the split barrel sampler at six (6) inch increments wasrecorded on the boring logs. The method utilized to classify the soils is defined in theKey To Identification Of Soil And Weathered Rock Samples, Figure 1.

TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC.

KEY TO IDENTIFICATION OF SOIL AND WEATHERED ROCK SAMPLES

The material descriptions on the logs indicate the vis ual identification of the soil and rock recovered from theexploration and are based on the following criteria. Major soil components are designated by capital letters andminor components are described by terms indicating t he percentage by weight of each component. StandardPenetration Testing (SPT) and sampling was conductedin accordance with ASTM D1586. N-values in blows perfoot are used to describe the relative density of coarse-grained soils or the consistency of fine-grained soils.

The MAJOR components constitute more than 50% ofthe sample and have the following size designation.

The MINOR components have the followingpercentage designation.

COMPONENT PARTICLE SIZE ADJECTIVE PERCENTAGE

BouldersCobblesGravel -coarse

-fineSand -coarse

-medium-fine

Silt or Clay

12 inches plus3 to 12 inches¾ to 3 inches#4 to ¾ inches#10 to #4#40 to #10#200 to #40Minus #200

(fine-grained soil)

and

some

little

trace

35 - 50

20 - 35

10 - 20

0 - 10

Relative Density – Coarse-grained Soils Consistency – Fine-grained Soils

Term N-Value Term N-Value

Very Loose 4 ery Soft 2

Loose 5 to 10 Soft 3 to 4

Medium Dense 11 to 30 Medium Stiff 5 to 8

Dense 31 to 50 Stiff 9 to 16

Very Dense >50 Very Stiff >16

Soil Plasticity Plasticity Index (PI) Rock Hardness

None Nonplastic Term N-Value

Low 1 to 5 Very Weathered 50/.5

Medium 5 to 20 Weathered 50/.4

High 20 to 40 Soft 50/.3

Very High over 40 Medium hard 50/.2 to 50/.1

Moisture Description Hard Auger Refusal

Dry - Dusty, dry to touch FIGURE NO. 1Slightly Moist - damp

Moist - no visible free water

Wet - visible free water, saturated

> >

>

100%

83%

9%

5" TOPSOILBrown lean CLAY, medium stiff, trace sand and rockfragments, moist

PP=1.00 TSF

-very soft to very stiff, moistPP=0.50 TSF

-stiff, moistPP=1.00 TSF

-FILL TO POSSIBLE RESIDUUM-

-AUGER REFUSAL AT 7.0 FEET-

2-2-3

WH-1-50/0"

3-4-6

S-1

S-2

S-3

2-2-3

WH-1-50/0"

3-4-6

7.0 423.0

10/6/15

Str

ata

Dep

th (

ft)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Driller:

CME550D

epth

(fe

et)

RQ

D (

Str

ata)

RQ

D (

RU

N)

AugerProbe

No groundwater encountered during or uponcompletion of drilling. Surface elevation isapproximate. Auger refusal at 2.5'; offset 10'west, auger refusal at 5.0' and offset 10' west.

Shepherd University Dormitory

StandardSplit Spoon

Remarks:

Logger:

Date Completed:

Sheet

Project Number:

430

TEST BORING LOG

Drill/Method:

1

10/6/15

5.0

10.0

15.0

Str

ata

Ele

vatio

n

Date Started:

See Figure No. A-2

BlowCounts

ShelbyTube

Sam

ple

Typ

e

B-1

Sam

ple

No.

Ground Elev.:

Wat

er L

evel

07-15-0145

Boring Location:

RECON

Gra

phic

Log

CoreSample

MB

200 Aviation DriveWinchester, VAP: 540.667.9300F: 540.667.2260

of

Boring No.:Project Name:

1

Rec

over

y (%

)

TR

IAD

_C 0

7-15

-014

5.G

PJ

TR

IAD

3.G

DT

10

/26/

15

100%

56%

67%

4" TOPSOILTan brown clayey SILT, stiff, trace sand and rockfragments, slightly moistPP=1.00 TSF

-POSSIBLE FILL TO RESIDUUM-

Brown lean CLAY, very stiff, low to medium plasticity,little sand, some to little rock fragments, slightly moistPP=4.5 TSF

-very stiff, slightly moistPP=4.5 TSF



3-5-9

10-16-14

9-10-11

S-1

S-2

S-3

3-5-9

10-16-14

9-10-11

2.0

8.5

427.0

420.5

10/6/15

Str

ata

Dep

th (

ft)


Driller:

CME550D

epth

(fe

et)

RQ

D (

Str

ata)

RQ

D (

RU

N)

AugerProbe

No groundwater encountered during or uponcompletion of drilling. Surface elevation isapproximate. Rock outcrop in all directions. Cavein at 4'. Auger refusal less than 0.5', offset 20'east.


StandardSplit Spoon

Remarks:

Logger:

Date Completed:

Sheet

Project Number:

429

TEST BORING LOG

Drill/Method:

1

10/6/15

5.0

10.0

15.0

Str

ata

Ele

vatio

n

Date Started:

See Figure No. A-2

BlowCounts

ShelbyTube

Sam

ple

Typ

e

B-2

Sam

ple

No.

Ground Elev.:

Wat

er L

evel

07-15-0145

Boring Location:

RECON

Gra

phic

Log

CoreSample

MB


of


1

Rec

over

y (%

)

TR

IAD

_C 0

7-15

-014

5.G

PJ

TR

IAD

3.G

DT

10

/26/

15

78%

56%

100%

100%

100%

5" TOPSOILBrown lean CLAY, stiff, medium plasticity, trace sandand rock fragments, moistPP=1.50 TSF

- FILL-

Orange fat CLAY, stiff, medium to high plasticity, tracesand and rock fragments, moistPP=4.25 TSF

-stiffPP=2.25 TSF


- POSSIBLE FILL TO RESIDUUM-

Brown sandy CLAY, medium stiff, trace rock fragments,moistPP=1.75 TSF

-RESIDUUM-


2-3-6

3-6-8

3-7-8

4-4-5

3-3-3

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

2-3-6

3-6-8

3-7-8

4-4-5

3-3-3

2.0

13.0

17.0

430.0

419.0

415.0

10/6/15

Str

ata

Dep

th (

ft)


Driller:

CME550D

epth

(fe

et)

RQ

D (

Str

ata)

RQ

D (

RU

N)

AugerProbe

No groundwater encountered during or uponcompletion of drilling. Surface elevation isapproximate. Cave in at 5'.


StandardSplit Spoon

Remarks:

Logger:

Date Completed:

Sheet

Project Number:

432

TEST BORING LOG

Drill/Method:

1

10/6/15

5.0

10.0

15.0

Str

ata

Ele

vatio

n

Date Started:

See Figure No. A-2

BlowCounts

ShelbyTube

Sam

ple

Typ

e

B-3

Sam

ple

No.

Ground Elev.:

Wat

er L

evel

07-15-0145

Boring Location:

RECON

Gra

phic

Log

CoreSample

MB


of


1

Rec

over

y (%

)

TR

IAD

_C 0

7-15

-014

5.G

PJ

TR

IAD

3.G

DT

10

/26/

15

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

6" TOPSOILBrown lean CLAY, very stiff, medium plasticity, tracesand and rock fragments, moistPP=2.50 TSF

- FILL-

Orange brown fat CLAY, stiff, medium to high plasticity,trace sand and rock fragments, moistPP=2.25 TSF

-medium stiff, magnesium staining, moistPP=1.25 TSF

-medium stiff, moistPP=3.75 TSF

-medium stiff, moistPP=0.75 TSF

6-7-10

3-4-6

2-3-4

3-3-5

3-3-3

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

6-7-10

3-4-6

2-3-4

3-3-5

3-3-3

2.0 427.5

10/6/15

Str

ata

Dep

th (

ft)


Driller:

CME550D

epth

(fe

et)

RQ

D (

Str

ata)

RQ

D (

RU

N)

AugerProbe



StandardSplit Spoon

Remarks:

Logger:

Date Completed:

Sheet

Project Number:

429.5

TEST BORING LOG

Drill/Method:

2

10/6/15

5.0

10.0

15.0

Str

ata

Ele

vatio

n

Date Started:

See Figure No. A-2

BlowCounts

ShelbyTube

Sam

ple

Typ

e

B-4

Sam

ple

No.

Ground Elev.:

Wat

er L

evel

07-15-0145

Boring Location:

RECON

Gra

phic

Log

CoreSample

MB


of


1

Rec

over

y (%

)

TR

IAD

_C 0

7-15

-014

5.G

PJ

TR

IAD

3.G

DT

10

/26/

15

100%

61%

Orange brown fat CLAY, stiff, medium to high plasticity,trace sand and rock fragments, moistPP=2.25 TSF (continued)

- FILL TO POSSIBLE RESIDUUM-

Brown sandy CLAY, stiff, low plasticity, some silt, tracerock fragments, moistPP=1.00 TSF

-very stiff, moistPP=0.50 TSF (Penetrometer reading obtained fromsandy CLAY soil present above hard rock)

-RESIDUUM-


2-4-6

2-50/3"

S-6

S-7

2-4-6

2-50/3"

18.0

24.5

411.5

405.0

10/6/15

Str

ata

Dep

th (

ft)


Driller:

CME550D

epth

(fe

et)

RQ

D (

Str

ata)

RQ

D (

RU

N)

AugerProbe



StandardSplit Spoon

Remarks:

Logger:

Date Completed:

Sheet

Project Number:

429.5

TEST BORING LOG

Drill/Method:

2

10/6/15

20.0

25.0

30.0

Str

ata

Ele

vatio

n

Date Started:

See Figure No. A-2

BlowCounts

ShelbyTube

Sam

ple

Typ

e

B-4

Sam

ple

No.

Ground Elev.:

Wat

er L

evel

07-15-0145

Boring Location:

RECON

Gra

phic

Log

CoreSample

MB


of


2

Rec

over

y (%

)

TR

IAD

_C 0

7-15

-014

5.G

PJ

TR

IAD

3.G

DT

10

/26/

15

100%

56%

67%

100%

0%

5" TOPSOILBrown clayey SILT, medium stiff, little sand and rockfragments, moistPP=1.00 TSF

- FILL-

Brown lean CLAY, medium stiff, little sand, moistPP=1.00 TSF

-orange brown, stiff, moistPP=3.00 TSF

-brown, stiff, moist(higher silt content)PP=2.00 TSF

-very soft, no recovery

3-2-4

2-2-4

4-4-6

3-4-6

WH-WH-WH

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

3-2-4

2-2-4

4-4-6

3-4-6

WH-WH-WH

2.0 423.0

10/6/15

Str

ata

Dep

th (

ft)


Driller:

CME550D

epth

(fe

et)

RQ

D (

Str

ata)

RQ

D (

RU

N)

AugerProbe



StandardSplit Spoon

Remarks:

Logger:

Date Completed:

Sheet

Project Number:

425

TEST BORING LOG

Drill/Method:

2

10/6/15

5.0

10.0

15.0

Str

ata

Ele

vatio

n

Date Started:

See Figure No. A-2

BlowCounts

ShelbyTube

Sam

ple

Typ

e

B-5

Sam

ple

No.

Ground Elev.:

Wat

er L

evel

07-15-0145

Boring Location:

RECON

Gra

phic

Log

CoreSample

MB


of


1

Rec

over

y (%

)

TR

IAD

_C 0

7-15

-014

5.G

PJ

TR

IAD

3.G

DT

10

/26/

15

78%

100%

- FILL-

Tan lean CLAY, soft, low plasticity, some silt, trace rockfragments, moistPP=0.25 TSF


Brown clayey SAND, very loose, moist

-RESIDUUM-


2-2-2

2-2-2

S-6

S-7

2-2-2

2-2-2

17.0

22.0

26.0

408.0

403.0

399.0

10/6/15

Str

ata

Dep

th (

ft)


Driller:

CME550D

epth

(fe

et)

RQ

D (

Str

ata)

RQ

D (

RU

N)

AugerProbe



StandardSplit Spoon

Remarks:

Logger:

Date Completed:

Sheet

Project Number:

425

TEST BORING LOG

Drill/Method:

2

10/6/15

20.0

25.0

30.0

Str

ata

Ele

vatio

n

Date Started:

See Figure No. A-2

BlowCounts

ShelbyTube

Sam

ple

Typ

e

B-5

Sam

ple

No.

Ground Elev.:

Wat

er L

evel

07-15-0145

Boring Location:

RECON

Gra

phic

Log

CoreSample

MB


of


2

Rec

over

y (%

)

TR

IAD

_C 0

7-15

-014

5.G

PJ

TR

IAD

3.G

DT

10

/26/

15

78%

67%

100%

4" TOPSOILBrown clayey SILT, very stiff, trace to little sand androck fragments, moistPP=3.00 TSF

-FILL-

Orange-brown fat CLAY, very stiff, high plasticity, littlesand, trace rock fragments, moistPP=4.5 TSF

-FILL-

Orange-tan lean CLAY, very stiff, low to mediumplasticity, trace sand and rock fragments, moistPP=4.50 TSF

- POSSIBLE FILL TO RESIDUUM-


7-9-9

9-11-14

5-8-9

S-1

S-2

S-3

7-9-9

9-11-14

5-8-9

2.0

4.5

8.5

423.0

420.5

416.5

10/6/15

Str

ata

Dep

th (

ft)


Driller:

CME550D

epth

(fe

et)

RQ

D (

Str

ata)

RQ

D (

RU

N)

AugerProbe



StandardSplit Spoon

Remarks:

Logger:

Date Completed:

Sheet

Project Number:

425

TEST BORING LOG

Drill/Method:

1

10/6/15

5.0

10.0

15.0

Str

ata

Ele

vatio

n

Date Started:

See Figure No. A-2

BlowCounts

ShelbyTube

Sam

ple

Typ

e

B-6

Sam

ple

No.

Ground Elev.:

Wat

er L

evel

07-15-0145

Boring Location:

RECON

Gra

phic

Log

CoreSample

MB


of


1

Rec

over

y (%

)

TR

IAD

_C 0

7-15

-014

5.G

PJ

TR

IAD

3.G

DT

10

/26/

15

0%

22%

100%

100%

100%

6" TOPSOILDark brown lean CLAY, stiff, low plasticity, trace sandand rock fragments, moist

-orange brown, soft, moist (blow counts likely skewed dueto spoon sampler pushing rock during SPT)PP=0.50 TSF


-FILL-

Orange brown sandy CLAY, medium stiff, some silt,trace rock fragments, moistPP=1.50 TSF

-very stiff, moistPP=0.25 TSF

-POSSIBLE FILL TO RESIDUUM--AUGER REFUSAL AT 13.7 FEET-

10-6-6

5-9-8

5-7-7

3-3-4

50/2"

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

10-6-6

5-9-8

5-7-7

3-3-4

50/2"

8.0

13.7

419.5

413.8

10/6/15

Str

ata

Dep

th (

ft)


Driller:

CME550D

epth

(fe

et)

RQ

D (

Str

ata)

RQ

D (

RU

N)

AugerProbe



StandardSplit Spoon

Remarks:

Logger:

Date Completed:

Sheet

Project Number:

427.5

TEST BORING LOG

Drill/Method:

1

10/6/15

5.0

10.0

15.0

Str

ata

Ele

vatio

n

Date Started:

See Figure No. A-2

BlowCounts

ShelbyTube

Sam

ple

Typ

e

B-7

Sam

ple

No.

Ground Elev.:

Wat

er L

evel

07-15-0145

Boring Location:

RECON

Gra

phic

Log

CoreSample

MB


of


1

Rec

over

y (%

)

TR

IAD

_C 0

7-15

-014

5.G

PJ

TR

IAD

3.G

DT

10

/26/

15

APPENDIX C

Laboratory Testing

LABORATORY TESTING

The soil samples obtained during the field exploration were visually classified in the fieldby geotechnical engineering personnel from Triad. The recovered soils were furtherevaluated by laboratory testing. Laboratory soil tests were conducted in accordancewith applicable ASTM Standards as listed below:

1) Moisture content tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 2216.

2) Atterberg Limits tests, consisting of the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticityindex, were performed in accordance with ASTM D 4318.

3) Sieve analysis with washed No. 200 sieve tests were performed in accordancewith ASTM D 422.

A summary and details of the laboratory tests are included on the following pages of thisappendix.

LL

PL

PI

%G

RA

VE

L%

SA

ND

%F

INE

SM

AX

.D

D(p

cf)

OP

T.

M(%

)

B-1

2.5

-4.0

SS

35.6

B-2

2.5

-4.0

SS

13.9

B-2

5.0

-6.5

SS

19.1

B-3

5.0

-6.5

SS

33.8

B-3

8.5

-10.0

SS

40.4

B-4

2.5

-4.0

SS

37.7

B-4

5.0

-6.5

SS

38.7

B-5

2.5

-4.0

SS

18.1

B-5

5.0

-6.5

SS

22.3

B-5

8.5

-10.0

SS

34.9

B-6

2.5

-4.0

SS

19.6

B-6

5.0

-6.5

SS

26.0

B-7

2.5

-4.0

SS

32.1

B-7

5.0

-6.5

SS

30.5

Note

s:

07-1

5-0

145

2)

SS

=S

plit

Spoon;

UD

=U

ndis

turb

ed

PR

OC

TO

R

Shepherd

Univ

ers

ity

Dorm

itory

PR

OJE

CT

NA

ME

:

1)

Soil

tests

perf

orm

ed

inaccord

ance

with

US

CS

SO

ILC

LA

SS

.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

TE

ST

SC

ON

DU

CT

ED

AT

TE

RB

ER

GLIM

ITS

GR

AD

AT

ION

FIG

UR

E

C-1

PR

OJE

CT

NU

MB

ER

:

Shepherd

stow

n,W

V

recogniz

ed

AS

TM

testing

sta

ndard

s.

CH

30

20

10

TR

IAD

EN

GIN

EE

RIN

G,

INC

.

SO

ILD

AT

AS

UM

MA

RY

SA

MP

LE

NO

.S

AM

PLE

DE

PT

H(f

t.)

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NA

TU

RA

LM

OIS

TU

RE

(%)

29

89

CL

54

22

32

02

98

Tested By: MP Checked By: RAS

Triad Engineering, Inc.

10/21/15

C-2

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

Brown lean CLAY, trace sand and gravel0.375"

#4#10#20#40

#100#200

100.098.497.295.594.592.689.4

20 30 10

0.0842

CL A-4(8)

Pennoni Associates, Inc.

Shepherd University DormitoryShepherdstown, WV

07-15-0145

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: B-5 Depth: 2.5 ft. - 6.5 ft.Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 1.6 1.2 2.7 5.1 89.4

6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1½

in.

1 in.

¾ in.

½ in.

3/8

in.

#4

#10

#20

#30

#40

#60

#100

#140

#200

Particle Size Distribution Report

Tested By: MP Checked By: RAS

Triad Engineering, Inc.

10/20/15

C-3

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

Tan fat CLAY, trace sand#4#10#20#40

#100#200

100.099.999.899.699.198.1

22 54 32

CH A-7-6(35)

Pennoni Associates, Inc.

Shepherd University DormitoryShepherdstown, WV

07-15-0145

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: B-7 Depth: 2.5 ft. - 6.5 ft.Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.5 98.1

6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1½

in.

1 in.

¾ in.

½ in.

3/8

in.

#4

#10

#20

#30

#40

#60

#100

#140

#200

Particle Size Distribution Report

shepherd university dormitory hepherdstown, west …

Documents