ADDENDUM NUMBER TWO DREHER HIGH SCHOOL - ATHLETIC … · COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA SOLICITATION NO....

DREHER HIGH SCHOOL - ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS

ADDENDUM NUMBER TWO

ADDENDUM NUMBER TWO

for

DREHER HIGH SCHOOL - ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS RICHLAND COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ONE

COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA SOLICITATION NO. 2019-035

PREPARED BY:

Quackenbush Architects + Planners

1217 Hampton Street Columbia, SC 29201

And

Cumming Construction Management, Inc.

720 Lady Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201

DATE OF ISSUE: April 25, 2019 TO: ALL BIDDERS OF RECORD This addendum modifies the Contract Documents only in the manner and to the extent stated herein and shown on any accompanying drawings and will become a part of the Contract Documents. Except as specified or otherwise indicated by this addendum, all work shall be in accordance with the basic requirements of the Contract Documents. BIDDER SHALL ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF ADDENDUM IN THE SPACE PROVIDED ON THE BID FORM. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY CONSTITUTE AN INFORMALITY IN THE BID. This addendum consists of 3 pages and the following attachments:

- Addendum Geotechnical Report dated 10/27/2016 - Addendum Geotechnical Report dated 04/24/2019 - Revised sheet I.1 – Irrigation Plan - Revised sheet E-050 – Electrical Site Demolition Plan - Revised sheet E-100 – Electrical Site Renovation Plan

I. CHANGES TO BIDDING REQUIREMENTS: Item No. Description 1. None.


ADDENDUM NUMBER TWO

II. QUESTIONS:

Item No. Description

1. Question: In the District’s Procurement Code there is no required maximum or minimum percentage that requires the use of a “prime contractor” for a specific scope of work. Does this affect what trade can bid the project as the general contractor?

Answer: No, project bidding is open to properly licensed contractors meeting requirements as set forth in Instructions to Bidders and the General and Supplementary Conditions included in the project manual. Civil work included in the project may be greater in percentage than general building construction depending on how work elements are packaged.

III. CHANGES TO DIVISION ONE SPECIFICATIONS:


1. Section 012100 Allowances: ADD the following to paragraphs 1.2.B and 3.3:

“2. Electrical – SCE&G/Dominion Costs - $6,000 (This is for GC reference only – this allowance is indicated on electrical drawings (see Addendum No. 2) for electrical subcontractor to include. Coordinate bids accordingly. The Contractor shall refund any balance to Owner.)”

IV. CHANGES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS:

SPECIFICATIONS Item No. Description

1. None.

DRAWINGS:


1. Sheet I.1 – Irrigation Plan - Delete hose bibs noted at tennis courts. - Main hookup for proposed irrigation will be located on Adger Road, at existing meter

where shown. - Any existing irrigation valves, heads, or equipment located within the limits of the

proposed fire lane will need to be relocated outside of the fire lane. - Provide (2) 4” PVC sleeves where shown to provide access to run water for existing

irrigation to courtyard.

2. Sheet E-050 – Electrical Site Demolition Plan - Change Key Note 1 as shown on attached revised drawing.


ADDENDUM NUMBER TWO

3. Sheet E-100 – Electrical Site Renovation Plan - Add primary conduit and utility company coordination scope.

VI. APPROVED EQUALS:

The following Manufactures have met requirements for prior approval for substitution of specified materials/products. Approved products must meet all specifications set forth in the Project Manual unless noted otherwise here in this addendum.

Spec No. Product Manufacturer/Installer 074113.16 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF PANELS Metal Roofing Systems, Inc.

074293 SOFFIT PANELS Metal Roofing Systems, Inc.

074293 SOFFIT PANELS Construction Metal Products, Inc.

265100 INTERIOR LIGHTING See schedule below

Type Mfg. Part

Type A & AE Cooper Lighting 4SNLED Series

H.E. Williams 75R-4 Series Lithonia Lighting CLX Series

Type B & BE Cooper Lighting RL560 Series

Juno J6RL Series GE Lumination LRX Series

Type C CALI ALS50T-C Series

Tivoli TPL Series QTranLED SW24/3.0 Series

Type OA & OAE NLS Lighting HRM-1 Series

LEDALUX LXSM301

Type OB & OBE EliteLED RLX92 Series

Juno JSF Series Halo SMD6 Series

END OF ADDENDUM NUMBER TWO

October 27, 2016 Mr. Ricky Craps Dennis Corporation 1800 Huger Street Columbia, South Carolina Subject: Addendum Report Dreher High School-Athletic Field Improvements 3319 Millwood Avenue Columbia, South Carolina SUMMIT Project No. 1359.08 Dear Mr. Craps: SUMMIT Engineering, Laboratory and Testing, Inc. (SUMMIT) is pleased to submit this addendum report summarizing the additional geotechnical services performed for the proposed athletic field improvements at Dreher High School in Columbia, South Carolina. The geotechnical services was performed in general accordance with our Proposal No. P2016-872-G dated October 4, 2016. This report contains a brief description of the project information provided to us, general site and subsurface conditions revealed during our subsurface exploration, and preliminary recommendations regarding foundation design and construction.

Project Description

On May 31 2016, a report was submitted that included field testing and recommendations for proposed improvements to include artificial turf playing surfaces, pavement recommendations and perimeter bleachers/lighting. After submittal an additional request has been made to provide foundation design recommendations and Seismic Site Classification determination for the proposed concession/restroom buildings at each project location. The project structural engineer has indicated both structures will be considered lightly loaded single story structures with maximum wall loads of 2 kips per foot.

Addendum Report – Dreher High School October 27, 2016 Columbia, South Carolina SUMMIT Project No. 1359.08

2

Observations and Testing On April 27, 2016, SUMMIT visited the site and performed ten (10) standard penetration soil test borings and two (2) hand auger borings. Boring locations B-1, B-3, and B-10 were performed adjacent to the proposed concession/restroom building to approximate depths ranging between 5 and 20 feet below the existing ground surface . The soil test borings were performed at the approximate location as shown on the attached Figure 2. Boring locations were provided by Dennis Corporation. The borings were located by professionals from our office using the provide plans, a recreation-grade handheld GPS and historical aerial maps as reference. The boring locations were not surveyed and should be considered approximate. The mechanical soil borings were advanced to depths ranging from approximately 5 to 20 feet below the ground surface using a CME-550X ATV-mounted drill rig equipped with continuous-flight, hollow stem augers. The associated hand auger boring was generally advanced to an approximate depth of 5 feet by manually twisting a bucket auger into the ground. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed within the mechanical borings at designated intervals in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. Similarly, Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing was performed within the hand auger boring in general accordance with ASTM STP 399. When properly evaluated, the SPT and DCP results can be used as an index for estimating soil strength and density. In conjunction with the penetration testing, split-barrel soil samples were recovered from each of the mechanical borings for soil classification and potential laboratory testing. Within each of the hand auger borings, the soil cuttings were only described for general field reference and should be considered approximate due to the degree of sample disturbance inherent with hand auger testing. The results of these tests are depicted graphically on the Boring Logs provided in Appendix 2.

Laboratory Services The laboratory services provided for this project included visual classification of the soil samples. The color, texture and plasticity characteristics were used to identify each soil sample in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The results of these laboratory services are presented on the “Log of Borings” included in the Appendix.

General Subsurface Findings At the time of this report, no relevant information regarding the grading of the building pads, prior materials testing or geotechnical engineering services was provided for our review. Should any information regarding these activities become available, SUMMIT will require the opportunity to review the records and modify our recommendations as necessary.


3

The results of the preliminary exploration indicate that an upper layer of topsoil is present to a depth approximately 2 inches at boring locations B-1 and B-3. Beneath the surficial materials existing fill (disturbed) soils are present to depths of approximately 3.5 to 6 feet. When sampled, the fill soils generally consisted of very loose to medium dense silty sands (SM). Standard Penetration Resistances (N-values) in the fill soils ranged from 4 to 14 blows per foot (bpf). (Note: Since previous grading activities have occurred on the subject site, the possibility of deleterious inclusions and variable density material within the in-place soils can still exist on the site.)

Residual (undisturbed) soils were encountered beneath the surface material and/or existing fill in each of the borings and extended to maximum termination depth. When sampled, the residual soils generally consist of loose to dense silty sands (SM) with quartz fragments. Standard Penetration Resistances (N-values) in the residual soils ranged from 10 to 42 bpf.

Groundwater, at the time of drilling, was encountered at boring locations B-2, B-4 and B-5 at approximate depths between 9.5 and 10.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater levels tend to fluctuate with seasonal and climatic variations, as well as with some types of construction operations.

Foundation Support The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the geotechnical data obtained from our field and laboratory testing programs. As such, no warranty, expressed or implied, should be assumed from the information provided in this report. Also, we recommend that a comprehensive testing program be performed as an extension of this report. This testing program should include, as a minimum, additional borings and/or field testing services during construction.

Based on the spacing of the borings and preliminary nature of this exploration, there is a potential that deleterious inclusions, erratic transitions, variable densities and other undisclosed conditions may be present between or beneath the actual test locations. Consequently, it should be understood that the recommendations provided herein are based on an interpretation of the data that inherently relies upon consistent conditions being present between the borings. In general, the results of the borings indicate that the soils encountered, in their present state, are suitable for support of a residential spread footing that is designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of up to 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). However, special considerations with regard to the presence of existing fill soils are warranted. Although the SPT (N-values) results indicate that the fill materials are suitable for support of the proposed residential construction, there is a potential that soft or unsuitable fill may be present between the boring locations. Therefore, to further verify the suitability of the existing fill, a conscientious footing observation program should be implemented during


4

construction. As a minimum, this observation program should include the execution of hand auger/penetrometer borings within the excavated footings prior to placing concrete.

Seismic Site Class

SUMMIT has evaluated the Site Class for this site according to International Building Code (IBC), Section 1615, Earthquake Loads – Site Ground Motion (2015) using Soil Shear Wave Velocity. The approximate location of the ReMi Profile run was performed as shown on the Boring Location Plan (Figures 2) included in Appendix 1. We recommend that this project should be designed using a Site Class of “C” (Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock Profile) as defined in Table 1615.1.1 of the IBC. The results of the ReMi test can be found in Appendix 3 – ReMi Shear Wave Testing Results. The following is the mapped acceleration parameters as provided by USGS Earthquake Hazards Program (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php) using the following coordinates.

Latitude: 33.9999°N Longitude: 80.9930°W

Ss = 0.421 g S1 = 0.144 g

Fa = 1.200 Fv = 1.656

SMS = 0.505g SM1 = 0.239 g

SDS = 0.337 g SD1 = 0.159 g

Seismic Site Class = C

SUMMIT appreciates the opportunity to provide our professional services to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning the information in this report or if we can be of further service, please contact us. We recommend following all recommendations and construction considerations included in Section 4 and 5 of the Report previously submitted May 31, 2016.

Sincerely, SUMMIT

Robert L. Price, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php)

rprice

Typewritten Text

10/27/2016


5

Attachments: Figure 1-Site Location Plan Figure 2 -Boring Location Plan Log of Borings

SPT1

SPT2

SPT3

SPT4

SPT5

SPT6

Grass/Topsoil- 2 Inches(SM) FILL:Tan/Dark Brown Loose Silty SAND with Silt Seams

(SM) RESIDUUM:Gray/Brown/Orange Loose Silty Medium Fine SAND with someMottling

(SM) RESIDUUM:Light Gray/Red/Orange Dense Silty Medium Fine SAND with SiltSeams and Mottling=> ESTIMATED SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER TABLE - 6Feet

(SM) RESIDUUM:Light Gray/Red/Orange Dense Silty Medium Fine SAND withMottling

(SM) RESIDUUM:Red/Tan/White Medium Dense Silty Medium Fine SAND withQuartz Fragments

(SM) RESIDUUM:Light Gray/Pink/Red Medium Dense Silty Medium Fine SAND

Boring Terminated - 20' BGS

2-3-3(6)

3-4-6(10)

6-18-22(40)

7-14-18(32)

4-8-10(18)

5-9-12(21)

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION 0 ft

LOGGED BY R. Cassell

DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger

DRILLING CONTRACTOR SUMMIT

CHECKED BY R. Price

DATE STARTED 4/27/16 COMPLETED 4/27/16

AT TIME OF DRILLING ---

AT END OF DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 6 inches

GROUND WATER/CAVE-IN:

AFTER DRILLING ---

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

20 40 60 800 100

PL LLMC

FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 800 100

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

ELE

VA

TIO

N(f

t.)

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0

-20.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 800 100

PAGE 1 OF 1

BORING NUMBER B-1

PROJECT NUMBER 1359.08 PROJECT LOCATION Columbia, South Carolina

PROJECT NAME Dreher High SchoolCLIENT Dennis Corporation

Summit Engineering3575 Centre Circle Dr.Fort Mill, SC 29715704-504-1717WWW.SUMMIT-COMPANIES.COM

SPT1

SPT2

SPT3

SPT4

SPT5

SPT6

Grass/Topsoil - 2 Inches(SM) FILL:Tan/Dark Brown Medium Dense Silty Medium Fine SAND withSilt Seams

(SM) FILL:Tan/Orange/Brown Very Loose Silty Medium Fine SAND withsome Mottling

(SM) RESIDUUM:Light Gray/Tan/Red Medium Dense Silty Medium Fine SAND withsome Mottling

(SM) RESIDUUM:Light Gray/Tan/Red Dense Medium Fine Silty SAND with Mottling=> ESTIMATED SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER TABLE -8.5 Feet

same

(SM) RESIDUUM:Light Gray/Tan/Red/Brown Medium Dense Silty Medium FineSAND


14-8-6(14)

1-2-2(4)

5-9-17(26)

9-17-21(38)

9-17-25(42)

4-9-11(20)

NOTES





CHECKED BY R. Price




HOLE SIZE 6 inches


AFTER DRILLING ---

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

20 40 60 800 100

PL LLMC

FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 800 100

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

ELE

VA

TIO

N(f

t.)

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0

-20.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R


BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 800 100

PAGE 1 OF 1

BORING NUMBER B-3




SPT1

SPT2

ASPHALT - 2 Inches

(GW) STONE BASE - 4 Inches

(SM) FILL:Tan/Brown/Gray Loose Silty Medium Fine SAND

(SM) RESIDUUM:Red/Tan/Gray Clayey Medium Dense Silty Medium Fine SANDwith Some Mottling


6-7-3(10)

3-4-7(11)

NOTES Existing Parking Lot





CHECKED BY R. Price




HOLE SIZE 6 inches


AFTER DRILLING ---

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

20 40 60 800 100

PL LLMC

FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 800 100

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

ELE

VA

TIO

N(f

t.)

0.0

-2.5

-5.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R


BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 800 100

PAGE 1 OF 1

BORING NUMBER B-10




0.00

500.00

1000.00

1500.00

2000.00

2500.00

3000.00

3500.00

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Ray

leig

h W

ave

Ph

ase

Vel

ocit

y,ft

/s

Period, s

Dispersion Curve Showing Picks and Fit

Calculated Dispersion

Picked Dispersion

Dreher High School, Columbia, SC : Supportive Illustration

p-f Image with Dispersion Modeling Picks

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

00 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Dep

th, f

t

Shear-Wave Velocity, ft/s

Vs100' = 1237 ft/s

Dreher High School, Columbia, SC : Vs Model

ADDENDUM REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES DREHER HIGH SCHOOL – ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS

3319 MILLWOOD AVENUE COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA

SUMMIT PROJECT NO. 1359.08

Prepared For:

Mr. Ricky Craps Dennis Corporation 1800 Huger Street

Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Email: [email protected]

Prepared By:

SUMMIT Engineering, Laboratory & Testing, P. C. (SUMMIT) 3575 Centre Circle Drive

Fort Mill, South Carolina 29715

April 24, 2019

i

April 24, 2019

Mr. Ricky Craps Dennis Corporation 1800 Huger Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Email: [email protected]

Subject: Addendum Report of Geotechnical Services Dreher High School – Athletic Field Improvements 3319 Millwood Avenue Columbia, South Carolina SUMMIT Project No. 1359.08

Dear Mr. Craps:

SUMMIT Engineering, Laboratory & Testing, P. C. (SUMMIT) is pleased to submit this addendum report summarizing the geotechnical services performed for the proposed athletic filed improvements at Dreher High School is Columbia, South Carolina. These geotechnical services were performed in general accordance with our Proposal No. P2019-191-G, dated February 7, 2019. This report contains a brief description of the project information provided to us, general site and subsurface conditions revealed during our geotechnical subsurface exploration and our general recommendations regarding foundation design and construction.

SUMMIT appreciates the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning the information presented herein or if we can be of further assistance, please feel free to call us at (704) 504-1717.

Sincerely yours, SUMMIT Engineering, Laboratory & Testing, P. C.

Kevin P. Ferry, EIT Kerry C. Cooper, P.E. Staff Professional Senior Engineer

4/24/19

Addendum Report of Geotechnical Services SUMMIT Project No. 1359.08 Dreher High School – Athletic Field Improvements April 24, 2019

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………….. iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………. 1

1.1. Site and Project Description……………………………………………………… 1 1.2. Purpose of Subsurface Study……………………………………………………... 1

2.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES…………………………………………………….. 2 2.1. Field Study……………………………………………………………………….. 2 2.2. Laboratory Services………………………………………………………………. 2

3.0 AREA GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS…………………………… 4 3.1. Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy……………………………………………...4

3.1.1. Surface Materials………………………………………………………….4 3.1.2. Alluvial Soils……………………………………………………………... 4 3.1.3. Existing Fill Soils………………………………………………………… 5 3.1.4. Residual Soils…………………………………………………………….. 5 3.1.5. Hand Auger Refusal……………………………………………………… 6 3.1.6. Groundwater Level Measurements………………………………………. 6

4.0 EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………….. 7 4.1. General……………………………………………………………………………. 7 4.2. Shallow Foundation Recommendations………………………………………….. 7 4.3. Wet Weather Conditions………………………………………………………….. 8 4.4. Floor Slabs………………………………………………………………………... 9 4.5. Pavements Subgrade Preparation………………………………………………….9 4.6. Pavement Section Recommendations…………………………………………… 10

5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS……………………………………………. 12 5.1. Abandoned Utilities/Structures………………………………………………….. 12 5.2. Site Preparation………………………………………………………………….. 12 5.3. Temporary Excavation Stability………………………………………………… 13 5.4. Structural Fill……………………………………………………………………. 14 5.5. Engineering Services During Construction……………………………………... 15

6.0 RELIANCE AND QUALIFICATIONS OF REPORT……………………………… 17

LIST OF APPENDICES:

APPENDIX 1 - Figures

Figure 1 - Site Vicinity Map Figures 2A and 2B – Test Location Plans APPENDIX 2 – Hand Auger Boring & DCP Testing Sheets

APPENDIX 3 – Laboratory Test Results


iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SUMMIT has completed a Subsurface Exploration for the Dreher High School – Athletic Field Improvements located in Columbia, South Carolina. SUMMIT performed a geotechnical study that consisted of five (5) hand auger borings (identified as HA-1 through HA-5) at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2A and 2B – Test Location Plan provided in Appendix 1. The borings were performed using hand auger and dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) equipment and extended to approximate depths ranging from 6.6 to 10 feet below the existing ground surface. Water level measurements were attempted at the termination of drilling. The boreholes were backfilled after final water level measurements were attempted with the displaced soil. The following geotechnical engineering information was obtained as a result of the hand auger borings:

• Surface – Topsoil was encountered to depths ranging from approximately 4 to 5 inches below existing ground surface in all of the borings except HA-4 where fill soils were encountered at the ground surface.

• Fill Soils - Fill soils were encountered in all of our borings ranging in depth from 2 to 3.7 feet below existing ground surface. The fill soils encountered typically consisted of silty sands (SM) and sandy silts (ML). DCP averaged blow counts in the fill soils ranged from 1 to 15+ blows per increment (bpi).

• Residual - Residual soils were encountered in all of our borings underlying the fill soils and extending to beyond the depth of boring termination. The residual soils encountered typically consisted of silty sands (SM), clayey sands (SC) sandy silts (ML). DCP averaged blow counts in the residual soils ranged from 3.5 to greater than 15 bpi.

• Partially Weathered Rock (PWR) – Partially Weathered Rock (PWR) and Auger Refusal were not encountered in any of our borings.

• Groundwater – Groundwater was not encountered in any of our borings, as measured at the time of completion. Groundwater may be encountered in excavations near drainage features observed on site and groundwater control may be required. Water levels tend to fluctuate with seasonal and climatic variations, as well as with some types of construction operations. Therefore, water may be encountered during construction at depths not indicated during this study.

• Foundation Support: Bearing conditions depend upon amount of cut and/or fill expected. We do not have information regarding the final elevations of proposed building pad. Therefore, the following preliminary recommendations should be reviewed once grading plans are finalized. Provided the recommendations in this report are implemented the soils will be suitable for support of shallow foundations designed for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf.


iv

• Special Considerations (existing fill soils and soils with DCP blow count <7 bpi): Special considerations are warranted concerning existing fill soils and soils with DCP blow count less than 7 bpi. Dependent on final grades, the contractor can anticipate that some undercutting and/or foundation extension may be necessary through unsuitable soils if encountered during grading and construction. Should these soils be encountered during the grading and construction activities, these soils should be evaluated in the field by a Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record and/or his designee prior to remediation. Additional testing such as test pit excavations and/or hand auger borings may be required in order to further evaluate these soil conditions, depths and locations.

• Existing Fill Soils: At the time of this report, no relevant information (documentations) regarding previous grading activities, prior materials testing, and/or geotechnical engineering services was provided for our review. All of our hand auger borings encountered undocumented fill soils (fill soils not monitored and tested during placement) and undocumented fill poses risks associated with undetected deleterious materials within the fill soils and/or deleterious material at the interface between the fill soils and residual soils.

• Soils with DCP Blow Counts less than 7 bpi: Soils that exhibited DCP blow counts less than 7 bpi are considered not suitable to support the proposed construction. These soils were encountered in all of our borings ranging in depth from 2 to 5 feet below the existing ground surface.

Report of Geotechnical Services SUMMIT Project No. 1359.08 Dreher High School – Athletic Field Improvements April 24, 2019

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Site and Project Description

The Dreher High School – Athletic Field Improvements site is located at 3319 Millwood Avenue

in Columbia, South Carolina. A site vicinity map showing the project’s general location is

provided as Figure 1. The Client (Dennis Corporation) provided SUMMIT a plan sheet that

indicates the configuration of the proposed athletic field improvements construction for the new

tennis court and new restroom/concession building.

1.2. Purpose of Subsurface Study

The purpose of this study was to obtain general geotechnical information regarding the subsurface

conditions and to provide general preliminary recommendations regarding the geotechnical

aspects of site preparation and foundation design. This report contains the following items:

• General subsurface conditions.

• Hand Auger Borings & DCP Testing Sheet and an approximate “Test Location Plan.”

• Pavement design recommendations.

• Suitable foundation types.

• Recommended maximum allowable bearing pressures.

• Construction considerations.


2

2.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

2.1. Field Study

SUMMIT visited the site on April 5, 2019 and performed a geotechnical study that consisted of

five (5) hand auger borings (identified as HA-1 through HA-5). The approximate locations of the

borings are shown on Figures 2A and 2B - “Test Location Plans” provided in Appendix 1. The

borings were located by professionals from Dennis Corporation.

The soil test borings were performed using hand auger equipment and extended to approximate

depths ranging from 6.6 to 10 feet below the existing ground surface. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

(DCP) testing was performed within each of the hand auger borings in general accordance with

ASTM STP 399. When properly evaluated, the DCP results can be used as an index for estimating

soil strength and density. In conjunction with the soil testing, representative soil samples were

obtained from each test location and returned to our laboratory for visual classification and

potential laboratory testing. Within each of the hand auger borings, the soil cutting were only

described for general field reference and should be considered approximate due to the degree of

sample disturbance inherent with hand auger testing. The results of these tests are presented on the

“Hand Auger Boring & DCP Testing Sheet” provided in Appendix 2 at the respective test depth.

2.2. Laboratory Services

The collected soil samples were transported to SUMMIT’s laboratory to be visually examined and

classified by a qualified geotechnical professional in general accordance with the Unified Soil

Classification System (USCS) and ASTM D 2488. Additional laboratory testing, to aid in the

classification of soils and to better evaluate their engineering properties were performed on

selected representative soil samples. Laboratory testing performed included one (1) Atterberg

Limit test (ASTM D 4318), one (1) Grain Size Analysis (ASTM D422), one (1) Standard Proctor

test (ASTM D698) and (1) Remolded CBR test (ASTM D1833). Laboratory test results are shown

in the table below and included in Appendix 3 of this report.


3

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Laboratory Test ASTM

Designation

Results

Atterberg Limit D4318 PL = 17 LL = 40 PI = 23

Grain Size Analysis

with Washed #200

Sieve

D422 Fine Gravel = 2.6%

Coarse Sand = 1.7%

Medium Sand = 24.2%

Fine Sand = 31.7%

Clays and Silts = 39.8%

Standard Proctor D698 OMC = 15.5% & MDD = 111.4 pcf

California Bearing

Ratio

D1883 3.4%

PL – Plastic Limit LL – Liquid Limit PI – Plasticity Index OMC – Optimum Moisture Content MDD – Maximum Dry Density


4

3.0 AREA GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1. Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy

General subsurface conditions observed during our geotechnical exploration are described herein.

For more detailed soil descriptions and stratifications at a particular field test location, the

respective “Hand Auger Borings & DCP Testing Sheet”, provided in Appendix 2 should be

reviewed. Transitions between different strata in the field may be gradual in both the horizontal

and vertical directions. Therefore, subsurface stratigraphy between test locations may vary.

3.1.1. Surface Materials

Surficial organic soils (topsoil) was observed in borings HA-1, HA-2, HA-3 and HA-5 at

the existing ground surface with thicknesses ranging from approximately 4 to 5 inches.

The surficial organic soil depths provided in this report and on the “Hand Auger Borings

& DCP Testing Sheet” are based on observations of field personnel and should be

considered approximate. Please note that the transition from surficial organic soils to

underlying materials may be gradual, and therefore the observation and measurement of

the surficial organic soil depth is subjective. Actual surficial organic soil depths should be

expected to vary and generally increases with the amount of vegetation present over the

site.

Surficial Organic Soil is typically a dark-colored soil material containing roots, fibrous

matter, and/or other organic components, and is generally unsuitable for engineering

purposes. SUMMIT has not performed any laboratory testing to determine the organic

content or other horticultural properties of the observed surficial organic soils. Therefore,

the phrase “surficial organic soil” is not intended to indicate suitability for landscaping

and/or other purposes.

3.1.2. Alluvial Soils

Alluvial (water-deposited) soils were not encountered in any of the borings performed

during this study. Alluvial soils are typically encountered in or near drainage features,


5

pond bottom, creeks and in low-lying areas. Alluvial soils are generally loose and/or

under-compacted and, as such, are typically unsuitable as bearing soils. Therefore,

remediation may be required wherever alluvial soils are encountered during grading

activities. If these soils are encountered during site grading activities, the extent of the

alluvial soils should be evaluated in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record or

his qualified representative. Additional testing such as test pit excavations and/or hand

auger borings may be required in order to further evaluate the alluvial soils.

3.1.3. Existing Fill Soils

Existing fill (disturbed) soils were encountered beneath the surface material in all five (5)

of the borings to approximate depths ranging from 2 to 3.7 feet below the existing ground

surface. When sampled, the existing fill soils general consisted of sandy silt (ML) and silty

sands (SM). The average DCP readings in the existing fill soils ranged from 1 to greater

than 15 blows per increment (bpi).

Since the subject site had been previously developed, there is a possibility of deleterious

inclusions and variable density material within the in-place soils can still exists in the site.

If fill soils are encountered at other locations in the field during construction, the fill soils

should be evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record, or his authorized

representative, with respect to the criteria outlined in Section 4.0 – Construction

Considerations.

3.1.4. Residual Soils

Residual (undisturbed) soils were encountered below the surface materials and fill soils in

all of the borings and extended to beyond the boring termination depth. These residual soils

generally consisted of clayey sands (SC), sandy silts (ML), and silty sands (SM). The

average DCP readings in the residual soils ranged from 3.5 to greater than 15 blows per

increment (bpi).


6

3.1.5. Hand Auger Refusal

Hand auger refusal conditions were encountered in borings HA-1, HA-2, HA-4 and HA-5

at approximate depths ranging from 6.6 to 8.8 feet below the existing ground surface,

respectively. Auger refusal is defined as material that could not be penetrated by the drilling

equipment used during our field study. Materials that might result in auger refusal include

dense soils, rocks, rock ledges, lenses, seams or the top of parent bedrock.

The following table summarizes the location and approximate depths of hand auger refusal

conditions that were encountered in the borings performed for this study.

Summary Table of Hand Auger Refusal Depths

Boring Auger Refusal Approx. Depth, (feet)*

HA-1 7.1

HA-2 8.8

HA-3 ---

HA-4 6.6

HA-5 6.8

*Depths were measured from the ground surface existing at the time drilling was performed. “---“ When hand auger refusal conditions were not encountered in the borings.

3.1.6. Groundwater Level Measurements

At the time of drilling, groundwater was not observed in the borings performed during this

study. It should be noted that groundwater levels tend to fluctuate with seasonal and

climatic variations, as well as with some types of construction operations. Therefore, water

may be encountered during construction at depths not indicated in the borings performed

for this study.


7

4.0 EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1. General

Our evaluation and recommendations are based on the project information outlined previously and

on the data obtained from the field and laboratory testing program. If the structural loading,

geometry, or proposed building locations are changed or significantly differ from those outlined,

or if conditions are encountered during construction that differ from those encountered by the

borings, SUMMIT requests the opportunity to review our recommendations based on the new

information and make the necessary changes.

4.2. Shallow Foundation Recommendations

For satisfactory performance, the foundation for any structure must satisfy two independent design

criteria. First, an acceptable factor of safety against bearing failure of the foundation soils under

the maximum design loads must be attained. Second, the settlement of the foundations due to the

compression of the underlying soils should be within tolerable limits for the structure.

Based on the general stratigraphy in the building area, our test boring results, and the magnitude

of the provided building loads, it is our opinion that the estimated total settlement calculated using

the provided loads will take precedence over allowable bearing capacity. The proposed structure

can be designed based on a net allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot,

provided site preparation and compacted fill recommendation procedures outlined Section 5.0 of

this report in this report are implemented.

Provided the procedures and recommendations outlined in this report are implemented and using

the provided loads, we have estimated a total settlement of less than 1 inch for footing design

pressures of 2,500 psf. Differential settlement estimated based on the in-situ soil conditions are

anticipated to be less than 0.5 inches between adjoining footings and along individual wall

footings. Our total and differential settlements calculations were based on using the maximum

wall loads and the maximum column loads.


8

To avoid punching type bearing capacity failure, we recommend wall foundation widths of 18

inches or more. Exterior foundations and foundations in unheated areas should be designed to

bear at least 12 inches below finished grade. To reduce the effects of seasonal moisture variations

in the soils, for frost protection and for bearing capacity, it is recommended that all foundations be

embedded at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade.

All footing excavations and undercutting remediation operations should be evaluated by the

Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record or his qualified representative to confirm that suitable soils are

present at and below the proposed bearing elevation and that the backfill operations are completed

with the recommendations of this report. This evaluation may include hand-auger and DCP testing.

If evaluation with DCP testing encounters lower penetration resistances than anticipated or

unsuitable materials are observed beneath the footing excavations, these bearing soils should be

corrected per the Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record’s recommendations.

4.3. Wet Weather Conditions

Contractors should be made aware of the moisture sensitivity of the near soils and potential

compaction difficulties. If construction is undertaken during wet weather conditions, the surficial

soils may become saturated, soft, and unworkable. The contractor can anticipate reworking and/or

recompacting soils may be needed when excessive moisture conditions occur. Additionally,

subgrade stabilization techniques, such as chemical (lime or lime-fly ash) treatment, may be

needed to provide a more weather-resistant working surface during construction. Therefore, we

recommend that consideration be given to construction during the dryer months.

Surface runoff should be drained away from excavations and not allowed to pond. Concrete for

foundations should be placed as soon as practical after the excavation is made. That is, the exposed

foundation soils should not be allowed to become excessively dry or wet before placement of

concrete. Bearing soils exposed to moisture variations may become highly disturbed resulting in

the need for undercutting prior to placement of concrete. If excavations must remain open

overnight, or if rainfall becomes imminent while the bearing soils are exposed, we recommend

that a 2- to 4-inch-thick “mud-mat” of lean (2000 psi) concrete be placed on the bearing soils


9

before work stops for the night.

SUMMIT recommends that special care be given to providing adequate drainage away from the

building areas to reduce infiltration of surface water to the base course and subgrade materials. If

these materials are allowed to become saturated during the life of the slab section, a strength

reduction of the materials may result causing a reduced life of the section.

4.4. Floor Slabs

Slab-on-grade floor systems may be supported on approved residual soils, or newly compacted

fill, provided the site preparation and fill placement procedures outlined in this report are

implemented. Depending upon the amount of cuts and/or fills, unsuitable soils such as poorly

compacted existing fill soils and areas which deflect, rut or pump excessively during proof-rolling

may require remediation as described in Section 5.2. We recommend floor slabs be isolated from

other structural components to allow independent movement of the slab and the building

foundation elements.

Immediately prior to constructing a floor slab, the areas should be proof-rolled to detect any

softened, loosened or disturbed areas that may have been exposed to wet weather or construction

traffic. Areas that are found to be disturbed or indicate pumping action during the proof-rolling

should be undercut and replaced with adequately compacted structural fill. This proof-rolling

should be observed by the staff professional or a senior soils technician under his/her direction.

Proof-rolling procedures are outlined in the “Site Preparation” section of this report.

4.5. Pavements Subgrade Preparation

The pavement sections can be adequately supported on approved non-high plasticity residual soils,

or newly compacted fill, provided the site preparation and fill placement procedures outlined in

this report are implemented. Immediately prior to constructing the pavement section, we

recommend that the areas be proofrolled to detect any softened, loosened or disturbed areas that

may have been exposed to wet weather or construction traffic. Areas that are found to be disturbed

or indicate instability during the proofrolling should be undercut and replaced with adequately


10

compacted structural fill or repaired as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. This

proofrolling should be observed by the staff professional or a senior soils technician under his/her

direction. Proofrolling procedures are outlined in the “Site Preparation” section of this report.

4.6. Pavement Section Recommendations

Based on a laboratory CBR value, Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing, and consideration

of similar projects completed, measurements were performed at the project site for the purpose of

providing a Soil Support Value (SSV).

CBR Estimate and Recommended SSV

Item Recommended Value

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) (AASHTO T 193) 3.4

Soil Support Value 1.6

This evaluation assumes that the subgrade soils are stable and have been properly compacted and

that fill soils have been properly placed. The extent of our evaluation was to characterize the

subgrade soil encountered in our borings. Based upon our experience with soil conditions in this

area, laboratory test results and typical soil support values (SSV) for this of type soil an SSV of

1.6 can be expected.

Recommended Asphalt Tennis Court Pavement Section

Material Tennis Court

Thickness, Inches

Asphaltic Concrete Surface Course 2

Graded Aggregate Base Course SCDOT 4

TOTAL RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT

THICKNESS

6


11

Recommended Asphalt Light Duty Pavement Section

Material Light Duty

Thickness, Inches

Asphaltic Concrete Surface Course 1

Asphalt Binder (Intermediate) Course 2

Graded Aggregate Base Course SCDOT 6

TOTAL RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT

THICKNESS

9


12

5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.1. Abandoned Utilities/Structures

SUMMIT recommends that any existing utility lines and foundations be removed from within

proposed building and pavement areas. The utility backfill and foundation material should be

removed and the subgrade in the excavations should be evaluated by a geotechnical professional

prior to fill placement. The subgrade evaluation should consist of visual observations, probing

with a steel rod and/or performing hand auger borings with Dynamic Cone Penetrometer tests to

evaluate their suitability of receiving structural fill. Once the excavations are evaluated and

approved, they should be backfilled with adequately compacted structural fill. Excavation backfill

under proposed new foundations should consist of properly compacted structural fill, crushed

stone, flowable fill or lean concrete as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record.

5.2. Site Preparation

Based on the results of our borings, and dependent on final grades, the contractor can anticipate

that some undercutting and/or foundation extension through poorly compacted existing fill soils

may be required prior to building construction and/or fill placement. If these soils are encountered

during the grading activities, the extent of the undercut required should be determined in the field

by the Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record and/or an experienced staff professional. Additional

testing such as test pit excavations and/or hand auger borings may be required in order to further

evaluate these soil conditions.

Topsoil, organic laden/stained soils, construction debris and other unsuitable materials should be

stripped/removed from the proposed construction limits. Stripping and clearing should extend 10

feet or more beyond the planned construction limits. Upon completion of the stripping operations,

we recommend areas planned for support of foundations, floor slabs, parking areas and structural

fill be proof-rolled with a loaded dump truck or similar pneumatic tired vehicle (minimum loaded

weight of 20 tons) under the observations of a staff professional. After excavation of the site has

been completed, the exposed subgrade in cut areas should also be proof-rolled. The proof-rolling


13

procedures should consist of four complete passes of the exposed areas, with two of the passes

being in a direction perpendicular to the proceeding ones. Any areas which deflect, rut or pump

excessively during proof-rolling or fail to “tighten up” after successive passes should be undercut

to suitable soils and replaced with compacted fill.

The extent of any undercut required should be determined in the field by an experienced staff

professional or engineer while monitoring construction activity. After the proof-rolling operation

has been completed and approved, final site grading should proceed immediately. If construction

progresses during wet weather, the proof-rolling operation should be repeated after any inclement

weather event with at least one pass in each direction immediately prior to placing fill material or

aggregate base course stone. If unstable conditions are experienced during this operation, then

undercutting or reworking of the unstable soils may be required.

5.3. Temporary Excavation Stability

Localized areas of soft or unsuitable soils not detected by our borings, or in unexplored areas, may

be encountered once grading operations begin. Vertical cuts in these soils may be unstable and

may present a significant hazard because they can fail without warning. Therefore, temporary

construction slopes greater than 5 feet in height should not be steeper than two horizontal to one

vertical (2H:1V), and excavated material should not be placed within 10 feet of the crest of any

excavated slope. In addition, runoff water should be diverted away from the crest of the excavated

slopes to prevent erosion and sloughing.

Should excavations extend below final grades, shoring and bracing or flattening (laying back) of

the slopes may be required to obtain a safe working environment. Excavation should be sloped or

shored in accordance with local, state and federal regulations, including OSHA (29 CFR Part 1926)

excavation trench safety standards.


14

5.4. Structural Fill

Soil to be used as structural fill should be free of organic matter, roots or other deleterious

materials. Structural fill should have a plasticity index (PI) less than 25 and a liquid limit (LL)

less than 50 or as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record. Compacted structural fill

should consist of materials classified as either CL, ML, SC, SM, SP, SW, GC, GM, GP, or GW

per ASTM D-2487 or as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record. Off-site borrow soil

should also meet these same classification requirements. Non-organic, low-plasticity on-site soils

are expected to meet this criterion. However, successful reuse of the excavated, on-site soils as

compacted structural fill will depend on the moisture content of the soils encountered during

excavation. We anticipate that scarifying and drying of portions of the on-site soils will be required

before the recommended compaction can be achieved. Drying of these soils will likely result in

some delay.

All structural fill soils should be placed within the proposed structural pad and extending at least

5 feet beyond the perimeter of the pad and foundation limits. All structural fill soils should be

placed in thin (not greater than 8 inches) loose lifts and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of

the soil's Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) at/or near optimum moisture

content (±2%). The upper 2 feet of structural fill should be compacted to a minimum of 100

percent of the soil's Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) at/or near optimum

moisture content (±2%). Some manipulation of the moisture content (such as wetting, drying)

may be required during the filling operation to obtain the required degree of compaction. The

manipulation of the moisture content is highly dependent on weather conditions and site drainage

conditions. Therefore, the grading contractor should be prepared to both dry and wet the fill

materials to obtain the specified compaction during grading. Sufficient density tests should be

performed to confirm the required compaction of the fill material.

Structural Fills Greater than 10 feet Discussions: Soil undergoes both primary and secondary

consolidation (compression of the soil). Primary consolidation can take place over a short-term

during the mechanical compacting process. Secondary consolidation can take place over a long-

term and can place after the compaction process is complete and the permanent loads are in place.


15

The amount of secondary consolidation which can be expected increases with the depth of fill soils

and structure loads. Therefore, in order to reduce secondary consolidation, we recommend when

either mass fills or utility lines are more than 10 feet deep, the fill/backfill material below 10 feet

should be compacted to at least 98 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density

(ASTM D 698) and within 2 percentage points of the material's optimum moisture content. The

portion of the fill/backfill shallower than 10 feet should be compacted as outlined above.

Another option is to monitor the settlement with settlement plates embedded at the proposed

subgrade level. After the magnitude and rate of settlement are within acceptable levels, then

foundation and slab-on grade construction may commence. Based on our previous experience and

dependent on soil types at the site, we anticipate the time required to reduce settlements to an

acceptable level may be on the order of 30 to 90 days.

5.5. Engineering Services During Construction

As stated previously, the engineering recommendations provided in this report are based on the

project information outlined above and the data obtained from field tests. However, unlike other

engineering materials like steel and concrete, the extent and properties of geologic materials (soil)

vary significantly. Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical engineering exploration, there

is always a possibility that conditions between borings will be different from those at the boring

locations, that conditions are not as anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process

has altered the subsurface conditions. This report does not reflect variations that may occur

between the boring locations. Therefore, conditions on the site may vary between the discrete

locations observed at the time of our subsurface exploration.

The nature and extent of variations between the borings may not become evident until construction

is underway. To account for this variability, professional observation, testing and monitoring of

subsurface conditions during construction should be provided as an extension of our engineering

services. These services will help in evaluating the Contractor's conformance with the plans and

specifications. Because of our unique position to understand the intent of the geotechnical

engineering recommendations, retaining us for these services will also allow us to provide


16

consistent service through the project construction. Geotechnical engineering construction

observations should be performed under the supervision of the Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record

from our office who is familiar with the intent of the recommendations presented herein. This

observation is recommended to evaluate whether the conditions anticipated in the design actually

exist or whether the recommendations presented herein should be modified where necessary.

Observation and testing of compacted structural fill and backfill should also be provided by our

firm.


17

6.0 RELIANCE AND QUALIFICATIONS OF REPORT

This geotechnical study has been provided for the sole use of Dennis Corporation. This

geotechnical study should not be relied upon by other parties without the express written consent

of SUMMIT and Dennis Corporation.

The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report were based, in part, on data obtained

from this study. If the above-described project conditions are incorrect or changed after the issuing

of this report, or subsurface conditions encountered during construction are different from those

reported, SUMMIT should be notified and these recommendations should be re-evaluated based

on the changed conditions to make appropriate revisions. We have prepared this report according

to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranty, express or implied, is

made as to the professional advice included in this report.


APPENDIX 1 – Figures


APPENDIX 2 – Hand Auger Boring & DCP Testing Sheets

Project Name: Dreher High School

Performed By: K. Ferry, D. Smith

Depth* Depth*

Location* (feet) Soil Description (feet) 1st 2nd 3rd Avg.

0 - 0.33 Approx. 4 in. of Topsoil 1 15 15+ 15+

0.33 - 1 FILL: Dark Brown and Tan Silty SAND 2 4 5 4 4.5

3 6 10 11 10.5

4 12 15 15+ 15+

HA-1 5 7 13 15 14.0

6 7 15+ 15+

7 15+ 15+

HAR at 7.1 feet bgs - Rock Fragments

0 - 0.33 Approx. 4 in. of Topsoil 1 15+ 15+

0.33 - 0.50 FILL: Tan and Dark Brown Silty SAND w/ Concrete Debris 2 5 4 5 4.5

0.50 - 2 FILL: Tan and Dark Brown Silty SAND 3 7 10 11 10.5

4 9 15 15+ 15+

5 10 15+ 15+

6 10 15 15+ 15+

HA-2 7 15 15+ 15+

8 15+ 15+

HAR at 8.8 feet bgs - Rock Fragments

0 - 0.42 Approx. 5 in. of Topsoil 1 10 15 15+ 15+

0.42 - 1 FILL: Dark Brown Silty SAND w/ organic roots 2 4 4 4 4.0

3 3 6 7 6.5

4 7 10 11 10.5

1.4 - 3 FILL: Brownish Yellow Slightly Clayey Sandy SILT 5 7 11 13 12.0

HA-3 6 7 12 15+ 15+

7 15 15+ 15+

6.5 - 6.9 RESIDUUM: Red and Tan Slightly Clayey Silty SAND 8 15+ 15+

9 13 15+ 15+

10 15 15+ 15+

3.6 - 6.2 RESIDUUM: Yellowish Red and Red Silty SAND w/ trace Yellowish Red and Red Slightly Clayey Silty SAND and trace Rock Fragments

3.7 - 5RESIDUUM: Moist Reddish Yellow, Red and Gray Slightly Clayey Silty SAND

5 - 7.1RESIDUUM: Reddish Yellow and Gray Slightly Clayey Silty SAND w/ Rock Fragments

RESIDUUM: Moist Light Yellowish Brown and Reddish Yellow Slightly Clayey Silty SAND

2 - 3.6

HAND AUGER BORINGS & DCP TESTING SHEET

Project No.: 1359.08

Date: April 5, 2019

DCP Blows Per 1¾-inch

1 - 3.7 FILL: Moist Tan and Dark Brown Slightly Clayey Silty SAND

bgs = below ground surface

HAR = Hand Auger Refusal.

Notes:

RESIDUUM: Red and Reddish Yellow Sandy SILT w/ some Light Gray Clayey Sandy SILT

6.9 - 10

1 - 1.4 FILL: Dark Brown and Tan Silty SAND w/ trace Rock Fragments

RESIDUUM: Moist Reddish Yellow and Red Slightly Clayey Sandy SILT

3 - 6.5

6.2 - 8RESIDUUM: Yellowish Red, Red and Gray Slightly Clayey Silty SAND

8 - 8.8RESIDUUM: Red and Yellowish Red Silty SAND w/ some Yellowish Red Slightly Clayey Silty SAND and Rock Fragments

Project Name: Dreher High School

Performed By: K. Ferry, D. Smith

Depth* Depth*

Location* (feet) Soil Description (feet) 1st 2nd 3rd Avg.

0 - 3 FILL: Tan and Dark Brown Silty SAND 1 1 1 1 1.0

2 1 1 1 1.0

3 2 3 4 3.5

HA-4 4 4 4 4 4.0

5 6 6 7 6.5

HAR at 6.6 feet bgs 6 15+ 15+

6.6 15+ 15+

0 - 0.42 Approx. 5 in. of Topsoil 1 5 5 4 4.5

0.42 - 1 FILL: Dark Brown Silty SAND 2 5 5 5 5.0

1 - 2.5 FILL: Tan Sandy SILT 3 4 5 5 5.0

4 4 4 5 4.5

5 11 11 11 11.0

HA-5 6 6 15 15+ 15+

6.8 15+ 15+

HAR at 6.8 feet bgs

bgs = below ground surface

HAR = Hand Auger Refusal.

HAND AUGER BORINGS & DCP TESTING SHEET

Project No.: 1359.080

Date: April 5, 2019

DCP Blows Per 1¾-inch

Notes:

3 - 5.4RESIDUUM: Moist Reddish Yellow and Light Yellowish Brown Silty SAND

RESIDUUM: Moist Red, Gray and Reddish Yellow Slightly Silty Clayey SAND

5.4 - 6.6

2.5 - 4.2RESIDUUM: Moist Light Yellowish Brown Slightly Clayey Silty SAND

4.2 - 6RESIDUUM: Gray, Yellowish Red and Red Slightly Clayey Silty SAND

6 - 6.8

Side Note: Boring location previously had tree uprooted and backfilled not compacted with backfill material

RESIDUUM: Gray, Red and Yellowish Red Slightly Silty Clayey SAND


APPENDIX 3 – Laboratory Test Results

15' WIDE CITY OF COLUMBIAEXCLUSIVE WATER LINEEASEMENT (TYP.)

6" WATER /CF284-04

8" WATERCF284-04

8" WATER

CF284-04

WV

TC

S

S

GTP

S

D

S

S

ICV

ICV

S

S

D

T

TT

T

D

D

D

S

GV GTP

GV

GTP

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

WMARV

IVIV

IV IV

S

ICB

ICBIV

SPED

PED

S

ICB

IV

IV

IV

IV

IV

IV

D

IVIV

ICB

IV

IV

IV

IV

S

S

SS

ICB

F

DC

F

DC

GM

GM

IVIV

ICBICB

DD

D

D D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

TC

D

WV

WV

H Y

D

H Y

D

WV

WM

WV

WV

WM

GV

H Y

D

WV

WV

WV

WV

H Y

D

H Y

D

WV

WV

H Y

D

WV

WV

WV

WV

WV

WM

H Y

D

WV

WV

WV

E

EE

E

E

E

E E

ELECTR

ICAL C

ONTRA

CTOR SHALL

COORDINA

TE WIT

H SCE&G THE

REMOVAL

OF

EXISTING UNDERG

ROUND ELE

CTRICA

L LINE

S IN

THIS AREA.

RR RR RR

RR

RR

RR

RR

RR

RR

RR RR RR

1

TYPICAL2

TYPICAL2

PROJECT NORTH

(803) 731-0650 p | (803) 960-6443 c

ENGINEERING

7 CLUSTERS COURT, SUITE 201 | COLUMBIA, SC | 29210

ASSOCIATES, INC.

BELKA

[email protected]

CONTACT: CLIFF STRINGFIELD

(803) 731-0650 p | (803) 960-6443 c

ENGINEERING


ASSOCIATES, INC.

BELKA

[email protected]


(803) 731-0650 p | (803) 960-6443 c

ENGINEERING


ASSOCIATES, INC.

BELKA

[email protected]


QU21607QU21607QU21607

No. 26181

RANILORACHTUOS

J EENI

GNE

LANOISSEFORPDESN E CI LA

S

O N E AR

T

L. HERA

No. 26181

RANILORACHTUOS

J EENI

GNE


S

O N E AR

T

L. HERA

No. 26181

RANILORACHTUOS

J EENI

GNE


S

O N E AR

T

L. HERA

No. C00953ASSOC. INC.

BELKAENGINEERING

ANILORACHTUOS

CERT I F I CATE OF AUTHOR I ZAT

I ON


BELKAENGINEERING

ANILORACHTUOS


I ON


BELKAENGINEERING

ANILORACHTUOS


I ON

SHEET NO

TITLE

ISSUE DATE

PROJECT NO.

CORP

ORAT

E SE

ALA/

E S

EAL

PROJ

ECT

TITL

E

PHASE

REVISION DATE

CONDITIONS OF USE: THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN THEREON ARE THE PROPERTY OF BELKA ENGINEERINGA ASSOCIATES, INC. THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING, OR USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF BELKA ENGINEERINGA ASSOCIATES, INC IS PROHIBITED AND ANY INFRINGEMENT WILL BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL ACTION.

04-01-19

C:\U

sers\

Terrin

\Doc

umen

ts\20

18 -

QU21

607 -

Dre

her H

S Fie

ld Ho

use_

Centr

alFile

_Ter

rin.rv

t

4/25/2

019 3

:30:16

PM

E-050

ELECTRICAL SITEDEMOLITION PLAN

DREH

ER H

IGH

SCHO

OL A

THLE

TIC

FIEL

DIM

PROV

EMEN

TS

RICH

LAND

SCH

OOL D

ISTR

ICT

ONE

3319

MILL

WOO

D AV

E CO

LUMB

IA, S

C 29

205

BID SET

16.187.01

04.01.19

KEY NOTES

1 ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE REMOVAL OF THEEXISTING UNDERGROUND PRIMARY CONDUIT/CONDUCTORS WITHSCE&G/DOMINION (CONTACT PERSON: DANIEL HERNANDEZ (803)217-9931). ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE (1) ONE 2"CONDUIT (SCHEDULE 40 PVC WITH RGS LONG SWEEP ELBOWS/FITTING)WITH PULL STRING AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS E-100. MINIMUM COVERSHALL BE 36". STUB UP RGS LONG SWEEP ELBOWS UP EXISTINGSERVICE POLES AT EACH END OF RUN. THERE SHALL BE AFEED-THROUGH CABINET (SCE&G/DOMINION PROVIDED) MIDWAY IN RUN.STAGE WORK TO MINIMIZE POWER OUTAGE. SCE&G/DOMINION SHALL PULLNEW CONDUCTORS IN CONTRACTOR PROVIDED CONDUIT, DISCONNECTEXISTING CONDUCTORS, THEN RECONNECT. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORSHALL REMOVE DISCONNECTED CONDUCTORS AND CONDUITS. COORDINATEELECTRICAL CONDUIT ROUTING WITH STORM DRAINAGE. ELECTRICALCONTRACTOR SHALL CARRY A $6000 ALLOWANCE AS A PART OF HIS BIDTO COVER SCE&G/DOMINION WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLEFOR PAYING SCE&G/DOMINION FOR THEIR WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALLCREDIT ANY BALANCE TO THE OWNER.

2 EXISTING PARKING LOT LIGHTING SHALL BE RECONFIGURED TO SERVERENOVATED LOT. EXISTING POLES/FIXTURES SHALL BE TAKEN DOWN,STORED DURING CONSTRUCTION, AND RE-INSTALLED. CLEAN ANDRELAMP FIXTURES/POLES. PROVIDE CONCRETE BASES IN NEWLOCATIONS (SEE DETAIL 5/E-002).

0 100' - 0" 150' - 0" 200' - 050' - 0"SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"

GENERAL NOTES

SCALE: 1" = 50'-0"E-050

1 ELECTRICAL SITE DEMOLITION PLAN

DEMOLITION/RENOVATION NOTATIONIF NO ANNOTATION IS SHOWN ASSUME EXISTING TO REMAIN INPLACE FOR SOLID LINES AND DEMOLISH FOR DASHED LINES.

DEVICES AND EQUIPMENT NOT SHOWN SHALL BE ASSUMED TOBE EXISTING TO REMAIN IN PLACE.

E EXISTING FIXTURE OR DEVICE TO REMAIN IN PLACE. REPLACEANY BROKEN DEVICES OR PLATES; COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING.

R EXISTING FIXTURE OR DEVICE TO BE REMOVED BY THEELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. MAINTAIN CONTINUITY OF REMAININGPORTIONS OF BRANCH CIRCUIT.

RE EXISTING DEVICE TO BE REMOVED BY THE ELECTRICALCONTRACTOR. EXISTING CIRCUIT SHALL BE RETAINED. PROVIDENEW DEVICE AS SHOWN ON RENOVATION PLANS.

RN RELOCATED FIXTURE (NEW LOCATION).

RR EXISTING FIXTURE TO BE RELOCATED BY THE ELECTRICALCONTRACTOR TO NEW LOCATION SHOWN ON RENOVATION PLAN.

Addendum #2 04/25/2019

1

1

102030405040302010

102030405040302010

77

53 2929 63

DREHER HIGH SCHOOL

E-1011

E-1012

E

RN

RN

RNRN

RN

EE

RN

RN

RN

RN

TO EXISTING MAIN SWITCHBOARD "B" IN EXISTING MAIN ELECTRICAL ROOM

POWER FEEDER(SEE SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM)

2-2"C (UNDERGROUND)

UP TO "FH" UP TO DATA BOARD

E

E

E

E E

HH

4E-002

5E-002

1

2

1

21

12

1

3

3

SEE KEYNOTE 1 ON DRAWING E-050.

1

FEED-THROUGH BOX SUPPLIEDBY SCE&G/DOMINION. COORDINATELOCATION WITH SCE&G/DOMINION.

PROJECT NORTH

(803) 731-0650 p | (803) 960-6443 c

ENGINEERING


ASSOCIATES, INC.

BELKA

[email protected]


(803) 731-0650 p | (803) 960-6443 c

ENGINEERING


ASSOCIATES, INC.

BELKA

[email protected]


(803) 731-0650 p | (803) 960-6443 c

ENGINEERING


ASSOCIATES, INC.

BELKA

[email protected]


QU21607QU21607QU21607

No. 26181

RANILORACHTUOS

J EENI

GNE


S

O N E AR

T

L. HERA

No. 26181

RANILORACHTUOS

J EENI

GNE


S

O N E AR

T

L. HERA

No. 26181

RANILORACHTUOS

J EENI

GNE


S

O N E AR

T

L. HERA


BELKAENGINEERING

ANILORACHTUOS


I ON


BELKAENGINEERING

ANILORACHTUOS


I ON


BELKAENGINEERING

ANILORACHTUOS


I ON

SHEET NO

TITLE

ISSUE DATE

PROJECT NO.

CORP

ORAT

E SE

ALA/

E S

EAL

PROJ

ECT

TITL

E

PHASE

REVISION DATE

CONDITIONS OF USE: THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN THEREON ARE THE PROPERTY OF BELKA ENGINEERINGA ASSOCIATES, INC. THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING, OR USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF BELKA ENGINEERINGA ASSOCIATES, INC IS PROHIBITED AND ANY INFRINGEMENT WILL BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL ACTION.

04-01-19

C:\U

sers\

Terrin

\Doc

umen

ts\20

18 -

QU21

607 -

Dre

her H

S Fie

ld Ho

use_

Centr

alFile

_Ter

rin.rv

t

4/25/2

019 1

2:08:4

7 PM

E-100

ELECTRICAL SITERENOVATION PLAN

DREH

ER H

IGH

SCHO

OL A

THLE

TIC

FIEL

DIM

PROV

EMEN

TS

RICH

LAND

SCH

OOL D

ISTR

ICT

ONE

3319

MILL

WOO

D AV

E CO

LUMB

IA, S

C 29

205

BID SET

16.187.01

04.01.19

GENERAL NOTES1 EXTRA POLES LEFT OVER AFTER THE RELOCATION OF EXISTING POLES

SHALL BE TURNED OVER TO OWNER.

KEY NOTES

1 PROVIDE 2#6, 1#10GND. IN 1"C. (SCHEDULE 40 PVC).

2 PROVIDE 2#10, 1#10GND. IN 3/4"C. (SCHEDULE 40 PVC).

3 BORE UNDER EXISTING CONCRETE PLAZA & SIDEWALK TO ROUTE FEEDERTO PANEL "FH". COORDINATE ROUTING WITH EXISTING UTILITIES (I.E.GAS, WATER, STORM DRAINAGE).

0 100' - 0" 150' - 0" 200' - 050' - 0"SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"

SCALE: 1" = 50'-0"E-100

1 ELECTRICAL SITE RENOVATION PLAN

DEMOLITION/RENOVATION NOTATIONIF NO ANNOTATION IS SHOWN ASSUME EXISTING TO REMAIN INPLACE FOR SOLID LINES AND DEMOLISH FOR DASHED LINES.

DEVICES AND EQUIPMENT NOT SHOWN SHALL BE ASSUMED TOBE EXISTING TO REMAIN IN PLACE.

E EXISTING FIXTURE OR DEVICE TO REMAIN IN PLACE. REPLACEANY BROKEN DEVICES OR PLATES; COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING.

R EXISTING FIXTURE OR DEVICE TO BE REMOVED BY THEELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. MAINTAIN CONTINUITY OF REMAININGPORTIONS OF BRANCH CIRCUIT.

RE EXISTING DEVICE TO BE REMOVED BY THE ELECTRICALCONTRACTOR. EXISTING CIRCUIT SHALL BE RETAINED. PROVIDENEW DEVICE AS SHOWN ON RENOVATION PLANS.

RN RELOCATED FIXTURE (NEW LOCATION).

RR EXISTING FIXTURE TO BE RELOCATED BY THE ELECTRICALCONTRACTOR TO NEW LOCATION SHOWN ON RENOVATION PLAN.

Addendum #1 04/25/20192

ADDENDUM NUMBER TWO DREHER HIGH SCHOOL - ATHLETIC … · COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA SOLICITATION NO....

Documents

Transcript of ADDENDUM NUMBER TWO DREHER HIGH SCHOOL - ATHLETIC … · COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA SOLICITATION NO....