This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Richmond, Kentucky
S&ME Project No. 1183-16-005
Prepared for:
Commonwealth of Kentucky Finance and Administration Cabinet
403 Wapping Street, 1st Floor
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Prepared by:
S&ME, Inc.
2020 Liberty Road, Ste 105
Lexington, Kentucky 40505
April 20, 2016
S&ME, Inc. | 2020 Liberty Road, Ste 105 | Lexington , KY 40505 | p 859.293.5518 | f 859.299.2481 | www.smeinc.com
April 20, 2016
Commonwealth of Kentucky Finance and Administration Cabinet
Department for Facilities and Support Services
Division of Engineering and Contract Administration
403 Wapping Street, 1st Floor
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Attention: Mr. Paul Cable
Reference: Report of Geotechnical Exploration
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Richmond, Kentucky
S&ME Project No. 1183-16-005
Dear Mr. Cable:
S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) is pleased to submit the results of our geotechnical exploration program and
laboratory services completed for the proposed Eastern Kentucky University Roy Kidd Football Stadium
Improvements located on the Eastern Kentucky University (EKU) campus in Richmond, Kentucky. The
purpose of this exploration was to obtain general subsurface data to assist in project design, development
and planning. We conducted this project in general accordance with revised S&ME Proposal No. 11-
1500247A, dated February 19, 2016, as authorized by you. This report explains our understanding of the
project, documents our findings, and presents our conclusions and geotechnical engineering
recommendations.
S&ME appreciates the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. We look forward to helping you
through project completion. If you have any questions, please call.
S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) is pleased to submit the results of our geotechnical exploration program and
laboratory services completed for the proposed Eastern Kentucky University Roy Kidd Football Stadium
Improvements located on the Eastern Kentucky University campus in Richmond, Kentucky. The purpose of
this exploration was to obtain general subsurface data to assist in project design, development and
planning. We conducted this project in general accordance with revised S&ME Proposal No. 11-
1500247A, dated February 19, 2016, as authorized by you. This report explains our understanding of the
project, documents our findings, and presents our conclusions and geotechnical engineering
recommendations.
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of the Eastern
Bypass and Roy and Sue Kidd Way on the Eastern Kentucky University Campus in Richmond, Kentucky.
Reference Figure 1 in Appendix I for a site location map.
Project information was obtained from Brown+Kubican Structural Engineers, PSC through a structural
narrative. The narrative provided the following information:
The stadium seating bowl will consist of three sections of outdoor fixed seating with a maximum
height of approximately 20 feet above grade. The seating system will either consist of precast
concrete bleachers or premanufactured composite risers with precast concrete walking surfaces as
designed by the Contractor. The risers will be supported by galvanized wide-flange raker beams.
The upper ends of the raker beams will be supported by wide-flange columns. The lower ends will
be supported by wide-flange columns as well.
The seating bowl will be structurally independent from the building. An expansion joint will be
provided at the concourse-bleacher interface to allow for structural movement while providing a
continuous walking surface.
The high roof will consist of rolled wide-flange beams arranged in a cantilevered design. In order to
eliminate extensive field-welded moment connections, the bottom of these beams are supported on
the top flanges of the girders. The beams shall be rolled along their strong axis with a radius to
match the architectural drawings. The roof beams are spaced at approximately 10 to 12½ feet, and
will support a 3-inch, 18-gage, steel roof deck.
The concourse level will consist of composite wide-flange beams supporting a 1½-inch, 20 gage,
composite steel floor deck. The concrete slab on metal deck will have a total thickness of 5 inches.
The low roof structure shall consist of steel wide-flange beams, approximately 12 inches in depth,
nominally spaced at 6 feet, supporting a 1½-inch, 20 gage, wide rib, steel roof deck. Beams will be
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Richmond, Kentucky
S&ME Project No. 1183-16-005
March 15, 2016 3
sloped to form the basic roof profile. Typically, the beams will be supported on wide-flange girders
at the column lines.
Currently, it is expected that the foundation system will be comprised of drilled piers varying in
diameter from 30 to 48 inches. Drilled piers were assumed to bear on solid rock at an estimated
depth of 25 feet below the lower level. Grade beams will be used below all of the exterior walls and
along the West (lower) edge of the stadium seating. The grade beams are expected to be
approximately two feet wide.
The ground floor construction will consist of a 5-inch thick slab-on-grade over a 10 mil minimum
polyolefin resin vapor retarder over four inches minimum of crushed stone or dense graded
aggregate. This system will be placed on a sub-grade prepared in accordance with the Geotechnical
report.
Grade beams will be used below all of the exterior walls and along the West (lower) edge of the
stadium seating. The grade beams are expected to be approximately two feet wide.
The exterior wall construction will typically consist of C.M.U. shear walls or light-gage metal stud
curtain wall systems clad with a brick masonry veneer. Insulation, sheet waterproofing, flashing,
and other wall detail components will be installed per the architectural design. Large openings in
the brick masonry veneer will be supported by loose galvanized-steel lintels. On the north and south
ends of the building, there will be a precast concrete wall.
3.0 SITE GEOLOGY
The Geologic Map of the Richmond South Quadrangle, Kentucky, (GQ-479, 1966) published by the U.S.
Geological Survey indicates the football field grandstand area is underlain by the Lower Part of the
Ashlock Formation of the Ordovician Geologic Age.
The Lower Part of the Ashlock Formation is further divided into the Stingy Creek Member, the Gilbert
Member and the Tate Member. The Stingy Creek Member consists of limestone that is silty and
argillaceous and brownish to olive gray. The limestone in this unit is commonly fine grained, and medium
grained, in part. This Member occurs in slightly uneven beds 3 to 24 inches thick, separated by sets of
thin beds of very silty limestone. This Member weathers to irregular pieces, and silty beds weather to
small fragments. Fossils are abundant in the Stingy Creek Member.
The Gilbert Member consists of limestone that is medium dark to medium gray, and is micro-grained to
fine grained. This Member is relatively resistant and displays prominent bedding (1 to 6 inches thick) with
wavy, irregular surfaces and shale partings between limestone beds. Fossils are abundant in the Gilbert
Member.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Richmond, Kentucky
S&ME Project No. 1183-16-005
March 15, 2016 4
The Tate Member consists of limestone that is medium dark to light gray and brownish gray. This
Member weathers light to very light gray and is fine to medium grained with a very irregular texture.
Bedding in this Member is obscure, with wavy and uneven beds 1 to 10 inches thick. This Member
weathers to a rubbly appearance. Fossils are abundant in the Tate Member. Dolomite is present in the
lower portions of the Tat Member.
We reviewed the USGS 7.5 topographic map and the geologic quadrangle map for closed depressions.
No closed depressions were observed by S&ME within a ½-mile radius of the site.
We did not observe any surface indications of sinkhole activity within the project boundaries; however,
the site has been developed, thus prior grading activity may have covered signs of sinkhole activity. The
Kentucky Geological Survey (KGS) mapping of the area indicates a moderate potential for solutioning of
the rock in the project area. The solutioning is mostly manifested by an erratic top of rock profile, soil
filled solution enlarged joints in the bedrock, and variable weathering (i.e. – clay seams). Any of these will
impact the rock bearing foundations and complicate the installation of drilled shafts or rock bearing
foundations. A 24-inch thick void was encountered in boring B-1 within the weathered portion of
limestone bedrock. This void could be an indication of solutioning.
The refusal materials were explored by coring rock from the ten borings and one sounding (B-1 through
B-10 and Sounding S-14). The recovered rock core samples were logged by Mrs. Cate Burton, G.I.T.
Observation of the recovered rock cores indicated that the bedrock primarily consists of limestone that is
gray to light gray, fine grained, with gray shale laminations and partings. The rock cores generally agree
with the geologic mapping that the site is underlain by limestone and shale of the Lower Part of the
Ashlock Formation. For more detailed descriptions of the data obtained from our borings, please refer to
our Test Boring Records in Appendix II.
The northwest-southeast trending Tate Creek Fault lies about 2,500 feet to the north and northeast of this
site. The project site is located along the upthrown side of this fault. Regional dip is to the northeast at
less than 1 percent. The significance of the regional dip is that the dip generally corresponds to the
direction of subsurface water flow.
4.0 EXPLORATION METHODS
The procedures used for sampling and testing are in general accordance with established engineering
methods and in accordance with ASTM standards. Appendix I contains brief descriptions of the
procedures used in this exploration.
4.1 Field Exploration
We drilled a total of ten (10) test borings and seven (7) soundings. The borings were numbered
sequentially, B-1 through B-10 and the soundings were numbered S-11 through S-17. The test boring
records are included in Appendix II.
During drilling, Mrs. Burton and Mr. William Young, P.E. from our office were on-site to observe pertinent
site features, surface indications of the site geology, and to direct the drilling operations. The location of
the borings and soundings were chosen by S&ME, and were staked in the field by an S&ME Professional
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Richmond, Kentucky
S&ME Project No. 1183-16-005
March 15, 2016 5
Land Surveyor. The test boring and sounding locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 2)
in Appendix I.
The borings were advanced by a track-mounted, Diedrich D-50 drill rig using 6-7/8 inch O.D. hollow stem
augers. We obtained soil samples using a split-barrel sampler driven by an automatic hammer system in
general accordance with ASTM D1586. We obtained three relatively undisturbed (Shelby) tube samples in
general accordance with ASTM D1587. Rock coring was performed in the ten borings and sounding S-14.
The stratification lines shown on the boring records represent the approximate boundaries between soil
or rock types. The transitions may be more gradual than shown.
4.2 Laboratory Testing
The S&ME Staff Professional sealed the soil samples in plastic storage bags, and the Shelby Tube samples
were sealed with caps after retrieval. The samples were returned to our laboratory where applicable
laboratory tests were assigned. These tests are used to determine the engineering properties of the soil.
The soil samples were visually classified by the geotechnical engineer according to the Unified Soil
Classification System (ASTM D2487). We conducted natural moisture content determinations and
Atterberg limits tests on selected samples to aid in classification. We also performed unconfined
compressive strength tests and unit weight determinations on samples obtained from the relatively
undisturbed (Shelby) tube and rock core samples. A summary of the unconfined compressive strength
testing is provided in the table below. The results of the laboratory testing as well as descriptions of these
tests and procedures are included Appendix III.
Table 4-1 – Summary of Unconfined Compressive Strength Data
Boring Depth (ft) Material UCS (ksf)
B-1 5.7 – 6.0 Hard Limestone 1,832
B-2 5.0 – 5.4 Hard Limestone 1,408
B-3 2.2 – 2.5 Hard Limestone 854
B-4 4.4 – 4.7 Hard Limestone 1,431
B-5 4.6 – 5.0 Hard Limestone 1,154
B-6 3.0 – 4.9 Stiff Lean Clay (CL) 3.0
B-6 11.1 – 11.4 Hard Limestone 1,320
B-7 9.5 – 9.8 Hard Limestone 1,269
B-8 3.0 – 5.0 Stiff Lean Clay (CL) 2.3
B-8 9.7 – 10.0 Hard Limestone 1,251
B-9 19.2 – 19.5 Hard Limestone 1,912
B-10 2.0 – 4.0 Firm Lean Clay (CL) 1.7
B-10A 20.8 – 21.1 Hard Limestone 1,273
S-14 5.2 – 5.5 Hard Limestone 1,763
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Richmond, Kentucky
S&ME Project No. 1183-16-005
March 15, 2016 6
5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The following is a general description of the materials encountered in our borings. The individual Test
Boring Records are included in Appendix II.
5.1 General Soil Profile
The Football Stadium grandstand area was explored by advancing ten (10) soil test borings and seven (7)
rock soundings. One of the borings and three of the soundings initially penetrated between three and six
inches of asphalt underlain by three to seven inches of granular base stone. The remaining soil test
borings initially penetrated 1 to 10 inches of topsoil.
Beneath the topsoil, asphalt and granular base stone, four (4) of the borings penetrated two to seven feet
of previously placed fill that consisted of a mixture of variable consistency Lean Clay (CL) with some
intermixed Fat Clay (CH) that contained varying amounts of rock pieces and fine roots.
Beneath the fill and beneath the surficial materials in the remainder of the borings, we encountered either
high plasticity (fat) clay (CH) or low plasticity (lean) clay (CL) that extended to the top of weathered rock in
three of the borings and two of the soundings, and to auger refusal in the remaining borings. The natural
soils consisted of predominantly firm soils with few stiff and soft zones. The weathered rock in the three
soil test borings and two soundings ranged from 1 to 18 inches thick and extended to auger refusal,
which we interpret as bedrock. The depth to auger refusal ranged from 0.9 feet in sounding S-16 to 17.8
feet in B-10A. Atterberg limits tests indicated Liquid Limits ranging from 40 to 51 percent with Plasticity
Indices ranging from 19 to 27 percent.
Rock coring was performed in boring B-1 through B-10 and sounding S-14. The recovered rock cores
were classified as limestone with shale partings from the Lower Part of the Ashlock Formation as mapped.
Note that, in boring B-1, an approximate two feet thick void was encountered approximately three feet
below the existing ground surface (approximate elevation 977 feet). Below is a summary table of the
bedrock information encountered in the current borings.
Table 5-1 – Summary of Bedrock Information
Location
Ground Surface
Elevation (MSL)
Depth to Top
of Rock (ft)
Top of Rock
El. (MSL)
Depth to Auger
Refusal (ft)
Auger Refusal
El. (MSL)
B-1 980.0 1.2 978.8 1.2 978.8
B-2 993.5 3.6 989.9 3.7 989.8
B-3 981.0 1.3 979.7 1.3 979.7
B-4 982.1 1.6 980.5 2.1 980.0
B-5 982.4 3.1 979.3 3.1 979.3
B-6 980.6 9.4 971.2 9.4 971.2
B-7 980.2 8.0 972.2 8.0 972.2
B-8 979.9 8.0 971.9 8.0 971.9
B-9 979.1 16.8 962.3 18.3 960.8
B-10 977.7 12.5 965.2 12.5 965.2
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Richmond, Kentucky
S&ME Project No. 1183-16-005
March 15, 2016 7
Location
Ground Surface
Elevation (MSL)
Depth to Top
of Rock (ft)
Top of Rock
El. (MSL)
Depth to Auger
Refusal (ft)
Auger Refusal
El. (MSL)
B-10A 977.7 17.8 959.9 17.8 959.9
S-11 978.9 3.5 975.4 4.0 974.9
S-12 979.3 5.5 973.8 6.7 972.6
S-13 980.8 9.0 971.8 9.0 971.8
S-14 981.5 4.0 977.5 4.0 977.5
S-15 981.4 4.0 977.4 4.0 977.4
S-16 982.4 0.9 981.5 0.9 981.5
S-17 981.0 2.0 979.0 2.6 978.4
5.2 Groundwater
The borings and soundings were dry upon completion of drilling and before coring. Groundwater is
commonly encountered at the soil/rock interface. The depth of the water and duration of flow is directly
dependent on recent rainfall activities and site specific drainage characteristics. The borings were
backfilled with the auger cuttings after the completion of drilling before we left the site due to safety
concerns. As such, 24-hour water levels were not measured. . In areas where our borings penetrated asphalt, the borings were topped with asphalt cold patch.
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the design information furnished to us, the data
obtained from the current geotechnical exploration, and our past experience. They do not reflect
variations in the subsurface conditions which may exist between our borings and in unexplored areas of
the site. The following sections of the report provide our geotechnical recommendations and conclusions
identified during the current exploration program:
6.1 Previous Site Grading/Existing Fill
Borings B-6, B-7, B-9, and B-10 encountered approximately 1-½ to 8 feet of previously placed fill material
that contained rock pieces, black oxide nodules and occasional fine roots. The fill exhibits a firm to stiff
consistency with occasional soft zones, as determined by the Standard Penetration Test Resistance N-
values and the results of the unconfined compressive strength testing performed on relatively
undisturbed (Shelby) tube samples. This indicates the fill was not placed under supervision (engineered
fill) and likely contains pockets of unwanted material.
We recommend that, once the structures, asphalt, and topsoil are removed, S&ME be retained to assess
the fill to determine if any further remediation is required. At the S&ME Engineer’s discretion, we may
request to perform supplemental test pits in the fill material to assess if remediation will be required prior
to placing fill.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Richmond, Kentucky
S&ME Project No. 1183-16-005
March 15, 2016 8
6.2 Existing Utilities
During our exploration, numerous existing utilities (both underground and overhead) were observed in
and around both of the existing grandstand area. After the underground utilities are relocated and in
areas where subsurface structures are encountered that will not remain in-place, remove the abandoned
utility pipes and subsurface structures from within the building footprint. As an alternative, the
underground utility lines can be abandoned in-place, provided that the abandoned utility lines are fully
grouted.
It is our experience that old utilities are poorly backfilled. We recommend that the backfill used around
the abandoned lines and structures be removed and backfilled in accordance with the recommendations
presented in Section 6.5 of this report. The excavated material may be re-used as structural fill, provided
it meets the criteria for structural fill presented later in this report in the section titled Structural Fill
Placement.
6.3 Potential for Rock Removal
Ten of the 17 borings and soundings performed during this exploration encountered rock at depths less
than five feet below the existing ground surface. As such, rock excavation will be required for utility and
foundation installation. Anticipate that once the weathered rock layer is encountered (ranging from three
inches to one foot thick in these borings), rock removal methods, such as hoe-ramming may be required
to achieve the desired grades. In this area, the structural Engineer may elect to use a combination of rock
bearing spread footings transitioning to drilled shafts. We recommend that the rock be removed to a
depth of two feet below the bottom of floor slab elevation and replaced with compacted DGA to provide
a more uniform transition from rock to soil. As the exact location of the transition is not known, we
recommend that the structural design include an additional floor slab reinforcement detail at the soil
bearing to rock bearing transition to reduce the potential for differential settlement and cracking.
6.4 Limestone Solutioning Remediation
In boring B-1, auger refusal was encountered approximately 1.2 feet below the existing ground surface.
Subsequent exploration of the refusal materials by coring rock indicated that an approximate two feet
thick void was documented approximately three feet below the existing ground surface. In this area, the
foundations, whether drilled shafts or spread footings, will need to extend through the void to bear on
intact bedrock. Expect that the void will need to be bulkheaded or permanent casing installed to prevent
foundation concrete from flowing further into the void.
6.5 Structural Fill Placement
Ideally, structural soil fill is defined as inorganic natural soil with a maximum particle size of 3 inches and
maximum dry density of at least 100 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) when tested by the standard Proctor
method (ASTM D698) and a plasticity index (PI) of less than 30 percent. High plasticity soils with a
plasticity index greater than 30 percent may be used as fill, provided they are kept at least three feet
below subgrade beneath structures and sidewalks, and may be used to the design subgrade elevation in
pavement areas.
We recommend that the upper one foot of the floor slab subgrade consist of compacted low plasticity
lean clay (CL), Dense Graded Aggregate (DGA) or quarry screenings.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Richmond, Kentucky
S&ME Project No. 1183-16-005
March 15, 2016 9
During construction, additional standard Proctor testing and Atterberg limits testing of proposed borrow
soils should be performed by S&ME for compliance with the project specifications before they are used as
fill material. We recommend that the laboratory testing for off-site borrow be performed prior to
bringing it to the site. Please realize that the laboratory conformance testing usually takes three to four
business days to complete. Therefore, the Contractor should plan accordingly.
Soil fill placement should occur in relatively thin (6 to 8-inch) layers and be compacted to at least 98
percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. The moisture content of the fill should be
maintained within 3 percent of the soil’s optimum moisture content even though compaction may be
achieved at moisture contents outside the specified range.
In-place density testing must be performed on structural soil fill as a check that the previously
recommended compaction criteria have been achieved. This allows our project engineer to monitor the
quality of the fill construction and assess that the design criterion is being achieved in the field. We
further recommend that these tests be performed on a full-time basis by S&ME. The testing frequency for
density tests performed on a full-time basis can be determined by our personnel based on the area to be
tested, the grading equipment used, and construction schedule. Tests should be performed at vertical
intervals of 8-inches or less (the recommended lift thickness) as the fill is being placed.
6.6 Water Management
The on-site soils are sensitive to changes in moisture content. If grading operations are performed during
periods of wet weather, these materials will not perform satisfactorily with regard to site access and
stability. If soft, wet soils are encountered during construction, the owner should retain S&ME to send an
Engineer to the site to assess the area and make recommendations for remediation.
The contractor should make provisions to direct water away from the excavations during construction via
site grading, drainage ditches, sump pits, etc. Water should never be allowed to pond in or around the
foundation and floor slab excavations.
At the discretion of the S&ME Engineer, probing or excavation of shallow test pits may be requested,
based on the observed conditions at the time of construction. To reduce, but not eliminate, access
problems associated with the on-site soils, we recommend that the earthwork portion of this project be
performed during the warm, dry summer months of the year.
For any below grade excavations, subsurface water may seasonally impact the excavations. We
recommend the design include provisions such as foundation drains tied to nearby storm sewer systems
or sump pits and sump pumps to discharge any water that may infiltrate the below grade portion of the
structures. We further recommend the below grade portions of the building be waterproofed.
6.7 Site Degradation During Construction
The on-site plastic soil is sensitive to changes in moisture content. If grading operations are performed
during periods of wet weather, these materials may not perform satisfactorily with regard to site access. If
soft, wet soils are encountered during construction, retain S&ME to send an Engineer to the site to assess
the area and make recommendations for remediation. At the discretion of the S&ME Engineer, a proofroll
may be requested, based on the observed conditions at the time of construction. To reduce, but not
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Richmond, Kentucky
S&ME Project No. 1183-16-005
March 15, 2016 10
eliminate, access problems associated with the on-site soils, we recommend that the earthwork portion of
this project be performed during the warm, dry summer months of the year.
6.8 Stripping and Site Preparation
Based on the results of our exploration and our experience at the Eastern Kentucky University Campus,
S&ME offers the following site preparation recommendations for design and construction of the Football
Stadium Improvements:
To prepare the site for construction, strip and remove the topsoil, existing structures, asphalt and
foundations from the project area. The removed topsoil can be utilized in the landscape areas only.
Organic material should not be utilized as structural fill material; however, it may be used as fill in
greenspace areas, and to dress slopes. In areas where trees are removed, we recommend the removal of
the entire root ball.
After removal of these materials, the area should be backfilled with structural fill, placed and compacted in
accordance with the recommendations presented later in this report. It is important that an S&ME
representative observes all site stripping. Previously unexplored or unknown conditions could become
evident during these operations to assess that adequate (but not excessive) material has been stripped.
We must judge whether the recommendations in this report should be modified in view of the conditions
encountered.
Rubblize the existing asphalt and base stone in the proposed grandstand footprint, plus a margin outside
the grandstand footprint sufficient to encompass the adjacent sidewalks. In areas where fill is planned
above the rubblized asphalt, it may be densified and left in-place. In cut areas, remove the rubblized
asphalt and base stone and stockpile it for later use to stabilize soft areas prior to placing fill.
After stripping and existing fill excavation, at-grade areas and exposed soil areas that are to receive fill
should be evaluated by an S&ME engineer or his representative by observing proofrolling. Proofrolling
consists of applying repeated passes (4 to 5 passes) on the subgrade with a loaded dump truck, or similar
rubber tired vehicle. Any materials judged to deflect excessively under the wheel loads should be
undercut to more stable soils or remediated as recommended by the S&ME Engineer. Once the area has
been observed by S&ME, and remediated if necessary, fill material can be placed to the desired grades.
We anticipate that soft areas observed during the proofroll of the subgrade will require stabilization prior
to placing new fill. The previously rubblized asphalt and base stone may be used for stabilization. If a
sufficient amount of asphalt and base stone is not available, the use of crushed stone may also be
required. Any stabilization or remediation should be performed at the discretion of the S&ME Engineer at
the time of construction. An alternate stabilization technique is to undercut soft areas 12 to 18 inches and
replace them with KYDOT No. 2 stone underlain by filter fabric. Once the area is deemed stable by the
S&ME Engineer, place and compact structural soil fill to the design subgrade elevation in accordance with
the recommendations of Section 6.5 in this report.
6.9 Foundation Recommendations
We recommend that the foundations for the new EKU Football Stadium Improvements be designed as a
combination of spread footings and end bearing drilled shaft foundations extended to the underlying
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Richmond, Kentucky
S&ME Project No. 1183-16-005
March 15, 2016 11
unweathered limestone bedrock. The following paragraphs provide recommendations for the design and
construction of shallow spread foundations and drilled shafts.
6.9.1 Shallow Spread Foundations
Where the overburden is shallower, spread footings bearing on bedrock are anticipated. We recommend
an allowable bearing pressure of 60 ksf for spread footings extended through the weathered rock to bear
on the intact limestone. For each foundation bearing on bedrock, 2-inch diameter probe holes should be
drilled into the bedrock to allow for observation of the continuity of the bedrock. For continuous
foundations, we recommend test holes be drilled at 25 foot intervals. If seams or voids are observed in
the bedrock, additional excavation may be required. We also recommend all shallow foundations have a
minimum footing width of 24 inches. This dimension allows for hand cleaning of footing subgrades
disturbed by the excavation process and the placement of reinforcing steel. The reinforcing steel should
be clean and dry prior to concrete placement.
S&ME recommends the following friction factors for shallow foundation design:
Table 6-1 – Summary of Shallow Foundation Friction Values
Foundation Bearing
Medium
Friction Angle (δ)
degrees
Friction Factor (tan δ)
degrees
Concrete on Bedrock 35 0.70
6.9.2 Drilled Shaft Foundations
The drilled shaft excavations should extend through the water stained, weathered limestone with clay
seams and bear entirely on the intact interbedded limestone and shale. For drilled shafts bearing as
described above, we recommend use of a maximum allowable net bearing pressure of 60 ksf to size the
end bearing drilled shafts. This allowable bearing pressure is based on the assumption that the bearing
material for each shaft will be observed and approved by S&ME personnel.
Based on the rock core data, we recommend budgeting for an average of one foot of weathered and
water stained rock removal to achieve this allowable bearing pressure, realizing that additional (or less)
excavation may be required in areas where these zones are thicker (or thinner) than encountered in our
borings. To limit the over-excavation of weathered rock to achieve an end bearing condition, we
calculated the allowable side resistance values per vertical foot of rock socket for 36 inch and 42 inch
diameter drilled shafts. Where the rock quality requires excessive excavation to achieve end-bearing, the
shaft can utilize side resistance to resist the foundation load and eliminate the need to extend the shaft
excessively.
Table 6-2 – Drilled Shaft Side Resistance Recommendations
Drilled Shaft Diameter Estimated Unit Side Resistance (in rock)
36 inches 150,000 lb/ft
42 inches 180,000 lb/ft
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Richmond, Kentucky
S&ME Project No. 1183-16-005
March 15, 2016 12
Experience indicates that excessive rock excavation and cost over-runs occur more often if a testing firm
unfamiliar with the subsurface conditions and design assumptions are retained to observe the drilled shaft
excavations.
6.9.2.1 Drilled Shaft Construction Considerations
The following construction considerations are recommended for drilled shaft construction:
♦ Drilled shaft foundations in the area around boring B-1 will require rock excavation beyond
the encountered void to bear on intact bedrock. Anticipate that permanent casing will be
required in these drilled shafts.
♦ Clean the foundation bearing area so it is nearly level or suitably benched and is free of ponded
water or loose material.
♦ Provide a minimum drilled shaft diameter of 30 inches to reasonably enter the drilled shaft
excavation for cleaning, bottom preparation, and inspection.
♦ Make provisions for groundwater removal from the drilled shaft excavation. It is common to
encounter perched (trapped) water in excavations that penetrate previously placed fill material,
and near the interface of the fill materials and silty swale material. Groundwater conditions at this
site will likely require the use of special procedures to achieve a satisfactory foundation
installation. If water is flowing into the drilled shaft at less than 20 gallons per minute, pumps
may be used to maintain less than 2 inches of water in the drilled shaft during cleaning and
inspection. After approval of the bearing surface, the pumps should be pulled and concreting
commenced immediately. If more than 20 gallons per minute are flowing into the drilled shaft,
the water level should be allowed to stabilize before attempting to place the concrete. For this
condition, concrete placement should be accomplished using a tremie pipe or concrete pumping
equipment.
♦ Specify a concrete slump of 7 to 9 inches for the drilled shaft construction. This slump is
recommended to fill irregularities along the sides and bottom of the drilled shaft, displace water
as it is placed, and permit placement of reinforcing cages into the fluid concrete.
♦ Retain S&ME personnel to observe foundation excavations after the bottom of the hole is leveled,
cleaned of any mud or extraneous material, and de-watered.
♦ Install a temporary protective steel casing to prevent side wall collapse, prevent excessive mud
and water intrusion, and to allow workers to safely enter, clean and inspect the drilled shaft.
♦ Observe the drilled shaft excavation after the bottom of the hole is leveled, cleaned of any mud or
extraneous material, and de-watered.
♦ The protective steel casing may be extracted as the concrete is placed provided a sufficient head
of concrete is maintained inside the steel casing to prevent soil or water intrusion into the newly
placed concrete.
♦ Direct the concrete placement into the drilled shaft through a centering chute or tremie to reduce
side flow or segregation.
♦ For side resistance design, we will require cleaning of the socket "face" prior to concrete
placements. Cleaning will require hand cleaning or washing if a mud smear forms on the face of
the rock. The geotechnical engineer should approve the rock socket surface prior to concrete
placement.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Richmond, Kentucky
S&ME Project No. 1183-16-005
March 15, 2016 13
6.9.2.2 Drilled Shaft Rock Excavation
Our experience indicates general drilled shaft construction and delineation of "rock" in the excavation is
greatly facilitated if adequate drilling equipment is used. We recommend the use of a drill capable of
producing at least 500,000 inch·pounds of torque and 35,000 pounds of downward force. Additionally, we
recommend that rock be defined as material which cannot be penetrated by a heavy duty earth auger with
hardened teeth at a rate in excess of 3 inches per minute.
6.9.2.3 Drilled Shaft Quality Control Requirements
We recommend that the drilled shaft construction be observed by an S&ME geotechnical engineer or an
S&ME special inspector experienced in drilled shaft construction. The observation should address the
following items:
♦ Top location within tolerances
♦ Correct plan dimensions
♦ Plumbness within tolerances
♦ Materials excavated agree with borings
♦ Statement of bottom cleanliness
♦ Construction procedure
Drilled shafts with diameters of 30 inches or greater are large enough to allow a down-hole inspection of
the bearing conditions. S&ME must assess the rock condition during construction using 2-inch diameter
probe holes. The probe holes must be drilled by the Contractor to a depth of at least one times the shaft
diameter or a minimum of 5 feet into the rock-bearing material for all drilled shafts. These probe holes
are usually drilled with a pneumatic percussion drill by the Contractor. S&ME should check the probe
hole using a hooked-end steel feeler rod to assess the rock continuity and to check for the presence of
mud seams or voids. If this check indicates a discontinuity or void in the rock, the drilled shaft should be
excavated deeper. Additional probe holes may be required by the S&ME Geotechnical Engineer to check
foundations supported on marginal material. Significant deviations from the specified or anticipated
conditions should be reported to the owner's representative and to the foundation designer.
Based on the structural loads provided and on our experience with similar structures and the site geology,
total settlements of the foundations are anticipated to be less than 1-inch, provided the foundations are
constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report.
6.9.2.4 LPile Parameters
Structural loading information was not available at the time of this report. Once final structural loading
and drilled shaft sizing information is provided to S&ME, we will perform lateral load analyses and provide
the results in an addendum letter to this report. The table below presents the recommended soil
parameters for input into the LPile 2016 computer program for determining lateral pile resistances and
deflections. Included are the p-y soil models, soil unit weights, lateral subgrade modulus (kh), undrained
strength or effective friction angles, and modulus values. These parameters are based on correlations
with soil types, lab data, and recommended values given in the LPile user’s manual.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Richmond, Kentucky
S&ME Project No. 1183-16-005
March 15, 2016 14
Table 6-3 – LPile Input Parameters
Stratum
p-y Soil
Model
Effective
Unit Weight
Subgrade
Modulus, k
Ø' / C
or Su
Strain
ε50
Existing Fill Soft Clay 125 pcf 1,000 psf 0.01
Natural Clay Soft Clay 120 pcf --- 2,000 psf 0.02
Weathered
Rock Reese Sand 135 pcf 225 pci 35° ---
Limestone
Bedrock
Vuggy
Limestone 150 pcf --- 4,000 psi ---
6.10 Seismic Site Classification
The current seismic design procedures outlined in the NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazard Reduction
Program) guidelines mandate structural design loads to be based on the seismic coefficients of the site.
Based on the results of our explorations, the geology of the area, and foundations bearing natural soil or
on structural fill, we recommend a site seismic classification of “C” for this project site. This classification
is further defined in Table 1613.5.2 in the 2013 Kentucky Building Code.
6.11 Floor Slab Recommendations
If our recommendations for structural fill placement are followed in Section 6.5 of this report, the new
floor slab will be constructed on one foot of compacted lean clay, Dense Graded Aggregate (DGA) or
quarry screenings, over newly placed and compacted fill or stabilized subgrade. If DGA is chosen, the
DGA should be moist, but not wet, as the concrete is placed to reduce curling of the slab as the concrete
cures. To help resist differential movement, we recommend that the floor slab be thickened, and include
primary reinforcement.
We recommend that control joints be placed in the slab around columns and along footing supported
walls to reduce cracking due to minor differential settlements. We recommend that ACI 302.1R-96
“GUIDE FOR CONCRETE FLOOR AND SLAB CONSTRUCTION” be followed for design and placement of
concrete floor slabs. A copy of the ACI document is included in Appendix IV of this report.
Between completion of grading and slab construction, floor slab subgrades are often disturbed by
weather, footing and utility line installation, and other construction activities. For this reason, the
subgrade should be evaluated by an S&ME engineer immediately prior to constructing the slab. If the
subgrade is not evaluated by an S&ME engineer prior to concrete placement, S&ME must be held
harmless for any claims due to poor performance of the floor slab.
7.0 FOLLOW UP SERVICES
Our services should not end with the submission of this geotechnical report. S&ME should be kept
involved throughout the design and construction process to maintain continuity and to verify our
recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented. To achieve this, we should be retained to
review project plans and specifications with the designers to see that our recommendations are fully
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Richmond, Kentucky
S&ME Project No. 1183-16-005
March 15, 2016 15
incorporated. We also should be retained to observe and test the site preparation, foundation
construction, and building construction. If we are not allowed the opportunity to continue our
involvement on this project, we cannot be held responsible for the recommendations in this report.
Our familiarity with the site and with the foundation recommendations will make us a valuable part of
your construction quality assurance team. In addition, a qualified engineering technician should observe
and test all structural concrete and steel. Only experienced, qualified persons trained in geotechnical
engineering and familiar with foundation construction should be allowed to evaluate and test foundation
excavations. Normally, full-time observation of the site work and foundation installation is appropriate.
8.0 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Commonwealth of Kentucky for specific
application to this project site. Our conclusions and recommendations have been prepared using
generally accepted standards of geotechnical engineering practice in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. No
other warranty is expressed or implied. This company is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or
recommendations of others based on these data.
Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the design information furnished to us, the data
obtained from the previously described preliminary geotechnical exploration, and our past experience.
They do not reflect variations in the subsurface conditions that are likely to exist between our borings and
in unexplored areas of the site. These variations result from the inherent variability of the general
subsurface conditions in this geologic region.
We recommend the Owner retain S&ME to continue our involvement in the project through the
subsequent phases of design and construction. Our firm is not responsible for interpretation of the data
contained in this report by others.
Geotechnical-Engineering Report
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and ProjectsGeotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a constructor — a construction contractor — or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one — not even you — should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.
Read the Full ReportSerious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only.
Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on a Unique Set of Project-Specific FactorsGeotechnical engineers consider many unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk-management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report that was:• not prepared for you;• not prepared for your project;• not prepared for the specific site explored; or• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed
from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure;
• the composition of the design team; or• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes—even minor ones—and request an
assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.
Subsurface Conditions Can ChangeA geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional OpinionsSite exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ — sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.
A Report’s Recommendations Are Not FinalDo not overrely on the confirmation-dependent recommendations included in your report. Confirmation-dependent recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s confirmation-dependent recommendations if that engineer does not perform the geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the recommendations’ applicability.
A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject to MisinterpretationOther design-team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly
Important Information about This
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.
problems. Confront that risk by having your geo technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s LogsGeotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and GuidanceSome owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions CloselySome clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help
others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with MoldDiverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold-prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services performed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved.
Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer for Additional AssistanceMembership in the Geotechnical Business Council of the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you GBC-Member geotechnical engineer for more information.
Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document
is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without
being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Richmond, Kentucky
S&ME Project No. 1183-16-005
Appendices
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Richmond, Kentucky
S&ME Project No. 1183-16-005
Appendix I – Figures
Site Location Map
Boring Location Plan
SITE
SCALE:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
03/15/2016
LHR
1183-16-005
1" = 2000'
1WWW.SMEINC.COM
2020 LIBERTY ROAD, SUITE 105
LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY 40505
PHONE: 859-293-5518
VICINITY MAP
EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY
FOOTBALL STADIUM
RICHMOND, KENTUCKY
SC
AL
E:
PR
OJE
CT
N
O:
FIG
UR
E N
O.
DA
TE
:
DR
AW
N B
Y:
BO
RIN
G L
OC
AT
IO
N P
LA
N
EA
ST
ER
N K
EN
TU
CK
Y U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y
RO
Y K
ID
D F
OO
TB
AL
L S
TA
DIU
M
IM
PR
OV
EM
EN
TS
LE
XIN
GT
ON
, K
EN
TU
CK
Y
03/15/2016
LH
R
1183-16-005
1" =
50'
2W
WW
.S
ME
IN
C.C
OM
20
20
L
IB
ER
TY
R
OA
D, S
UIT
E 1
05
LE
XIN
GT
ON
, K
EN
TU
CK
Y 4
05
05
PH
ON
E: 8
59
-2
93
-5
51
8
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Richmond, Kentucky
S&ME Project No. 1183-16-005
Appendix II –Test Boring Records & Test Boring Procedures
Core Diameter Inches BQ 1-7/16 NQ 1-7/8
HQ 2-1/2
TEST BORING RECORD LEGEND
FINE AND COARSE GRAINED SOIL INFORMATION
COARSE GRAINED SOILS (SANDS & GRAVELS)
FINE GRAINED SOILS (SILTS & CLAYS) PARTICLE SIZE
Qu, KSF Estimated N Relative Density N Consistency
Boulders Greater than 300 mm (12 in)
0-4 Very Loose 0-1 Very Soft 0-0.5 Cobbles 75 mm to 300 mm (3 to 12 in) 5-10 Loose 2-4 Soft 0.5-1 Gravel 4.74 mm to 75 mm (3/16 to 3 in)
11-20 Firm 5-8 Firm 1-2 Coarse Sand 2 mm to 4.75 mm 21-30 Very Firm 9-15 Stiff 2-4 Medium Sand 0.425 mm to 2 mm 31-50 Dense 16-30 Very Stiff 4-8 Fine Sand 0.075 mm to 0.425 mm
Over 50 Very Dense Over 31 Hard 8+ Silts & Clays Less than 0.075 mm The STANDARD PENETRATION TEST as defined by ASTM D 1586 is a method to obtain a disturbed soil sample for examination and testing and to obtain relative density and consistency information. A standard 1.4-inch I.D./2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler is driven three 6-inch increments with a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches. The hammer can either be of a trip, free-fall design, or actuated by a rope and cathead. The blow counts required to drive the sampler the final two increments are added together and designate the N-value defined in the above tables.
ROCK PROPERTIES
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD) ROCK HARDNESS Percent RQD Quality Very Hard: Rock can be broken by heavy hammer blows.
Hard: Rock cannot be broken by thumb pressure, but can be broken by moderate hammer blows.
Moderately Hard:
Small pieces can be broken off along sharp edges by considerable hard thumb pressure; can be broken with light hammer blows.
Soft: Rock is coherent but breaks very easily with thumb pressure at sharp edges and crumbles with firm hand pressure.
0-25
25-50
50-75
75-90
90-100
Very Poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
Very Soft: Rock disintegrates or easily compresses when touched; can be hard to very hard soil.
Recovery =
Length of Rock Core Recovered Length of Core Run
X100
RQD = Sum of 4 in. and longer Rock Pieces Recovered Length of Core Run
X100
63 REC NQ 43 RQD
SYMBOLS
KEY TO MATERIAL TYPES SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS N: Standard Penetration, BPF
TOPSOIL - 6.0 inchesLean Clay (CL), silty with rock fragments,FIRM, brown, moist
Auger Refusal at 1.2 Feet - Begin CoringLimestone with shale partings, moderately tointensely weathered rock, fine grained, gray,HARD, moderately to intensely fracturedVOID - 24 inchesLimestone with shale partings, moderately tointensely weathered rock, fine grained, gray,HARD, moderately to intensely fracturedLimestone with shale partings, fresh, finegrained, gray, HARD, slightly fractured to intact
Coring Terminated at 15.2 Feet
979.5978.8
977.0
975.0
969.8
964.8
12,727 psi
0
0
54
2 - 3 -50/0.2
14
24/48
8/60
59/60
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
JOB NO:
ELEV.(FT.)
D-50
Dry Before CoringGROUNDWATER (ft):
B- 1
3/9/2016
7BORING DIAMETER (IN):
REPORT NO:
RIG TYPE:
1
6 7/8 OD HSA
BORING NO:
DEPTH(FT.)
BORING COMPLETED:
SHEET
DRILLING METHOD:
BORING STARTED:
1183-16-005
OF
TEST BORING RECORD
Remarks:
PROJECT LOCATION:
980.0
ELEVATION:
HAMMER:
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Automatic
PROJECT:
Gro
undw
ater
Lost core water at 1.5 feet - No core water return
980.0
1
3/9/2016
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Richmond, Kentucky
CR
AIG
2 1
183
-16-
005
EK
U F
OO
TB
ALL
.GP
J Q
OR
_CO
RP
.GD
T 4
/20/
16
30RQ
D (
%)
BLOWS/6"
200Rec
over
y (in
)
Lith
olog
y
Sam
ple
Typ
e
STANDARD PENETRATIONRESISTANCE (N)
40
Qu
5010
TOPSOIL - 7.0 InchesLean Clay (CL), silty with black oxidenodulesand rock fragments, brown, FIRM toSTIFF, light brown with gray mottling, moist
Weathered RockAuger Refusal at 3.7 Feet - Begin CoringLimestone with shale partings, moderatelyweathered rock to fresh, fine grained, grayHARD, moderately fractured to intact
Coring Terminated at 13.7 Feet
992.9
989.9989.8
979.8
9,783 psi71
95
100
2 - 2 - 3
2 - 4 - 12
50/0.1
15
14
0
13/14
50/60
44/46
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
JOB NO:
ELEV.(FT.)
D-50
Dry Before CoringGROUNDWATER (ft):
B- 2
3/9/2016
7BORING DIAMETER (IN):
REPORT NO:
RIG TYPE:
1
6 7/8 OD HSA
BORING NO:
DEPTH(FT.)
BORING COMPLETED:
SHEET
DRILLING METHOD:
BORING STARTED:
1183-16-005
OF
TEST BORING RECORD
Remarks:
PROJECT LOCATION:
993.5
ELEVATION:
HAMMER:
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Automatic
PROJECT:
Gro
undw
ater
993.5
1
3/9/2016
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Richmond, Kentucky
CR
AIG
2 1
183
-16-
005
EK
U F
OO
TB
ALL
.GP
J Q
OR
_CO
RP
.GD
T 4
/20/
16
30RQ
D (
%)
BLOWS/6"
200Rec
over
y (in
)
Lith
olog
y
Sam
ple
Typ
e
STANDARD PENETRATIONRESISTANCE (N)
40
Qu
5010
TOPSOIL - 4.0 InchesLean Clay (CL), with silt, FIRM, brown withgray mottling, moist
Auger Refusal at 1.3 Feet - Begin CoringLimestone with shale partings, slightlyweathered rock, fine grained, gray, HARD,intact
Coring Terminated at 16.3 Feet
980.7
979.7
964.7
5,927 psi
98
100
90
2 - 3 -50/0.3
9
49/50
60/60
9/10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
JOB NO:
ELEV.(FT.)
D-50
Dry Before CoringGROUNDWATER (ft):
B- 3
3/7/2016
7BORING DIAMETER (IN):
REPORT NO:
RIG TYPE:
1
6 7/8 OD HSA
BORING NO:
DEPTH(FT.)
BORING COMPLETED:
SHEET
DRILLING METHOD:
BORING STARTED:
1183-16-005
OF
TEST BORING RECORD
Remarks:
PROJECT LOCATION:
981.0
ELEVATION:
HAMMER:
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Automatic
PROJECT:
Gro
undw
ater
981.0
1
3/7/2016
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Richmond, Kentucky
CR
AIG
2 1
183
-16-
005
EK
U F
OO
TB
ALL
.GP
J Q
OR
_CO
RP
.GD
T 4
/20/
16
30RQ
D (
%)
BLOWS/6"
200Rec
over
y (in
)
Lith
olog
y
Sam
ple
Typ
e
STANDARD PENETRATIONRESISTANCE (N)
40
Qu
5010
Topsoil - 7.0 InchesLean Clay (CL), silty withblack oxide nodules,with pieces of straw, FIRM, brown mixed withgray, moistFat Clay (CH), black oxide nodules, FIRM,brown with gray mottling, moistWeathered Rock
Auger Refusal at 2.1 Feet - Begin CoringLimestone with shale partings, slight weatheredto fresh rock, fine to medium grained, gray,HARD, slightly fractured to intact
Coring Terminated at 12.1 Feet
981.5981.1980.5980.0
970.0
9,935 psi89
100
100
2 - 2 - 450/0.1
15
1
35/38
59/59
23/23
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
JOB NO:
ELEV.(FT.)
D-50
Dry Before CoringGROUNDWATER (ft):
B- 4
3/7/2016
7BORING DIAMETER (IN):
REPORT NO:
RIG TYPE:
1
6 7/8 OD HSA
BORING NO:
DEPTH(FT.)
BORING COMPLETED:
SHEET
DRILLING METHOD:
BORING STARTED:
1183-16-005
OF
TEST BORING RECORD
Remarks:
PROJECT LOCATION:
982.1
ELEVATION:
HAMMER:
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Automatic
PROJECT:
Gro
undw
ater
982.1
1
3/7/2016
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Richmond, Kentucky
CR
AIG
2 1
183
-16-
005
EK
U F
OO
TB
ALL
.GP
J Q
OR
_CO
RP
.GD
T 4
/20/
16
30RQ
D (
%)
BLOWS/6"
200Rec
over
y (in
)
Lith
olog
y
Sam
ple
Typ
e
STANDARD PENETRATIONRESISTANCE (N)
40
Qu
5010
TOPSOIL - 7.0 InchesFat Clay (CH), silty with black oxide nodules,FIRM, brown, moist
Auger Refusal at 3.1 Feet - Begin CoringLimestone with shale partings, fine grained,gray, slightly weathered to fresh rock, HARD,slightly fractured to intact
Coring Terminated at 13.1 Feet
981.8
979.3
969.3
NotTestable
8,017 psi90
97
100
2 - 3 - 4
50/0.1
18
60
29/30
58/60
30/30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
JOB NO:
ELEV.(FT.)
D-50
Dry Before CoringGROUNDWATER (ft):
B- 5
3/4/2016
7BORING DIAMETER (IN):
REPORT NO:
RIG TYPE:
1
6 7/8 OD HSA
BORING NO:
DEPTH(FT.)
BORING COMPLETED:
SHEET
DRILLING METHOD:
BORING STARTED:
1183-16-005
OF
TEST BORING RECORD
Remarks:
PROJECT LOCATION:
982.4
ELEVATION:
HAMMER:
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Automatic
PROJECT:
Gro
undw
ater
982.4
1
3/7/2016
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Richmond, Kentucky
CR
AIG
2 1
183
-16-
005
EK
U F
OO
TB
ALL
.GP
J Q
OR
_CO
RP
.GD
T 4
/20/
16
30RQ
D (
%)
BLOWS/6"
200Rec
over
y (in
)
Lith
olog
y
Sam
ple
Typ
e
STANDARD PENETRATIONRESISTANCE (N)
40
Qu
5010
TOPSOIL - 1.0 InchFill - Lean Clay (CL), with gravel, FIRM, gray tobrown, moistLean Clay (CL), silty with rock fragments, rockslabs from 6.5 to 7 feet, FIRM to STIFF,yellowish brown with gray mottling, moist
Auger Refusal at 9.4 Feet - Begin CoringLimestone with shale partings, highlyweathered to fresh rock (after 10.8 Feet), finegrained, gray, HARD, slightly fractured to intact
Coring Terminated at 19.4 Feet
980.5
979.1
971.2
961.2
2,963 psf
9,167 psi
40
95
96
4 - 3 - 4
2 - 3 - 4
4 - 5 - 6
23 -50/0.4
10
18
16
10
6
9/10
60/60
49/50
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
JOB NO:
ELEV.(FT.)
D-50
Dry Before CoringGROUNDWATER (ft):
B- 6
3/7/2016
7BORING DIAMETER (IN):
REPORT NO:
RIG TYPE:
1
6 7/8 OD HSA
BORING NO:
DEPTH(FT.)
BORING COMPLETED:
SHEET
DRILLING METHOD:
BORING STARTED:
1183-16-005
OF
TEST BORING RECORD
Remarks:
PROJECT LOCATION:
980.6
ELEVATION:
HAMMER:
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Automatic
PROJECT:
Gro
undw
ater
980.6
1
3/7/2016
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Richmond, Kentucky
CR
AIG
2 1
183
-16-
005
EK
U F
OO
TB
ALL
.GP
J Q
OR
_CO
RP
.GD
T 4
/20/
16
30RQ
D (
%)
BLOWS/6"
200Rec
over
y (in
)
Lith
olog
y
Sam
ple
Typ
e
STANDARD PENETRATIONRESISTANCE (N)
40
Qu
5010
ASPHALT - 5.5 InchesGRAVEL - 4.5 InchesFILL - Lean Clay (CL), silty with black oxidenodules and rock fragments, STIFF, brown togray, moist
Auger Refusal at 8.0 Feet - Begin CoringLimestone with shale, severely weathered tofresh rock, fine grained, gray, HARD, intenselyfractured to intactClay Seam - 2 inchesLimestone with shale partings, severelyweathered to fresh rock, fine grained, gray,HARD, intensely fractured to intact
Coring Terminated at 18.0 feet
979.7979.4
972.2971.4971.2
962.2
8,815 psi44
87
91
3 - 4 - 5
6 - 6 - 5
4 - 5 - 7
15
16
14
11/16
58/60
44/44
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
JOB NO:
ELEV.(FT.)
D-50
Dry Before CoringGROUNDWATER (ft):
B- 7
3/9/2016
7BORING DIAMETER (IN):
REPORT NO:
RIG TYPE:
1
6 7/8 OD HSA
BORING NO:
DEPTH(FT.)
BORING COMPLETED:
SHEET
DRILLING METHOD:
BORING STARTED:
1183-16-005
OF
TEST BORING RECORD
Remarks:
PROJECT LOCATION:
980.2
ELEVATION:
HAMMER:
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Automatic
PROJECT:
Gro
undw
ater
Lost Core water at 9.4 feet - Core Water return at 10.5 feet
980.2
1
3/9/2016
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Richmond, Kentucky
CR
AIG
2 1
183
-16-
005
EK
U F
OO
TB
ALL
.GP
J Q
OR
_CO
RP
.GD
T 4
/20/
16
30RQ
D (
%)
BLOWS/6"
200Rec
over
y (in
)
Lith
olog
y
Sam
ple
Typ
e
STANDARD PENETRATIONRESISTANCE (N)
40
Qu
5010
TOPSOIL - 7.0 InchesLean Clay (CL), silty with black oxide nodules,SOFT to FIRM, brown, moist
Lean Clay (CL), silty with rock fragments,STIFF, gray, moist
Auger Refusal at 8.0 Feet - Begin CoringLimestone with shale partings, slightlyweathered to fresh rock, fine grained, gray,HARD, slightly fractured to intact
Coring Terminated at 18.0 Feet
979.3
975.9
971.9
961.9
2,320 psf
8,687 psi63
100
97
2 - 2 - 2
3 - 3 - 4
6 - 7 - 5
14
6
16
10
24/24
60/60
36/36
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
JOB NO:
ELEV.(FT.)
D-50
Dry Before CoringGROUNDWATER (ft):
B- 8
3/8/2016
7BORING DIAMETER (IN):
REPORT NO:
RIG TYPE:
1
6 7/8 OD HSA
BORING NO:
DEPTH(FT.)
BORING COMPLETED:
SHEET
DRILLING METHOD:
BORING STARTED:
1183-16-005
OF
TEST BORING RECORD
Remarks:
PROJECT LOCATION:
979.9
ELEVATION:
HAMMER:
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Automatic
PROJECT:
Gro
undw
ater
979.9
1
3/8/2016
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Richmond, Kentucky
CR
AIG
2 1
183
-16-
005
EK
U F
OO
TB
ALL
.GP
J Q
OR
_CO
RP
.GD
T 4
/20/
16
30RQ
D (
%)
BLOWS/6"
200Rec
over
y (in
)
Lith
olog
y
Sam
ple
Typ
e
STANDARD PENETRATIONRESISTANCE (N)
40
Qu
5010
Topsoil - 10.0 InchesFILL - Lean Clay (CL), silty with gravel andtrace topsoil, FIRM, dark brown, moistLean Clay (CL), silty with black oxide nodules,SOFT, brown, moist
Lean Clay (CL), silty with black oxide nodules,FIRM, brown, moist
Lean Clay (CL), silty with black oxide nodules,SOFT, brown, moist
Lean Clay (CL), silty with black oxide nodules,STIFF, brown, moist
Weathered Rock
Auger Refusal at 18.3 Feet - Begin CoringLimestone with shale partings, slightlyweathered to fresh rock, fine grained, gray,HARD, slightly fractured to intact
Coring Terminated at 28.3 Feet
978.2
976.6
974.1
971.1
965.6
962.3
960.8
950.8
13,281 psi100
82
98
2 - 2 - 3
3 - 4 - 4
3 - 2 - 1
4 - 3 - 2
2 - 1 - 2
WOH - 3- 3
18
18
9
9
8
0
15/15
57/60
45/45
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
JOB NO:
ELEV.(FT.)
D-50
Dry Before CoringGROUNDWATER (ft):
B- 9
3/9/2016
7BORING DIAMETER (IN):
REPORT NO:
RIG TYPE:
1
6 7/8 OD HSA
BORING NO:
DEPTH(FT.)
BORING COMPLETED:
SHEET
DRILLING METHOD:
BORING STARTED:
1183-16-005
OF
TEST BORING RECORD
Remarks:
PROJECT LOCATION:
979.1
ELEVATION:
HAMMER:
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Automatic
PROJECT:
Gro
undw
ater
979.1
1
3/9/2016
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Richmond, Kentucky
CR
AIG
2 1
183
-16-
005
EK
U F
OO
TB
ALL
.GP
J Q
OR
_CO
RP
.GD
T 4
/20/
16
30RQ
D (
%)
BLOWS/6"
200Rec
over
y (in
)
Lith
olog
y
Sam
ple
Typ
e
STANDARD PENETRATIONRESISTANCE (N)
40
Qu
5010
TOPSOIL - 7.0 InchesFILL - Lean Clay (CL), silty with rockfragments, buried grass and topsoil, FIRM,brown to dark brown, moist
Lean Clay (CL), silty, STIFF, brown, moist
Auger Refusal at 12.5 Feet
977.1
970.7
965.2
1,659 psf
2 - 3 - 3
3 - 3 - 3
4 - 6 - 8
17
16
8
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
JOB NO:
ELEV.(FT.)
D-50
Dry Upon Completion of AugeringGROUNDWATER (ft):
B-10
3/9/2016
7BORING DIAMETER (IN):
REPORT NO:
RIG TYPE:
1
6 7/8 OD HSA
BORING NO:
DEPTH(FT.)
BORING COMPLETED:
SHEET
DRILLING METHOD:
BORING STARTED:
1183-16-005
OF
TEST BORING RECORD
Remarks:
PROJECT LOCATION:
977.7
ELEVATION:
HAMMER:
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Automatic
PROJECT:
Gro
undw
ater
977.7
1
3/9/2016
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Richmond, Kentucky
CR
AIG
2 1
183
-16-
005
EK
U F
OO
TB
ALL
.GP
J Q
OR
_CO
RP
.GD
T 4
/20/
16
30RQ
D (
%)
BLOWS/6"
200Rec
over
y (in
)
Lith
olog
y
Sam
ple
Typ
e
STANDARD PENETRATIONRESISTANCE (N)
40
Qu
5010
Overburden - See B-10
Lean Clay (CL), silty, FIRM, gray, moist
Auger Refusal at 17.8 Feet - Begin Coring
Limestong with shale partings, moderatelyweathered to fresh rock, fine grained, gray,HARD, slightly fractured to intact
Coring Terminated at 27.8 Feet
964.2
959.9
949.9
8,840 psi
52
95
72
2 - 3 - 59
21/31
59/60
28/29
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
JOB NO:
ELEV.(FT.)
D-50
Dry Before CoringGROUNDWATER (ft):
B-10A
3/9/2016
7BORING DIAMETER (IN):
REPORT NO:
RIG TYPE:
1
Casing Adv.
BORING NO:
DEPTH(FT.)
BORING COMPLETED:
SHEET
DRILLING METHOD:
BORING STARTED:
1183-16-005
OF
TEST BORING RECORD
Remarks:
PROJECT LOCATION:
977.7
ELEVATION:
HAMMER:
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Automatic
PROJECT:
Gro
undw
ater
Offset of Boring B-10 to perform rock coring
977.7
1
3/9/2016
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Richmond, Kentucky
CR
AIG
2 1
183
-16-
005
EK
U F
OO
TB
ALL
.GP
J Q
OR
_CO
RP
.GD
T 4
/20/
16
30RQ
D (
%)
BLOWS/6"
200Rec
over
y (in
)
Lith
olog
y
Sam
ple
Typ
e
STANDARD PENETRATIONRESISTANCE (N)
40
Qu
5010
Overburden
Weathered RockAuger Refusal at 4.0 Feet
975.4974.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
JOB NO:
ELEV.(FT.)
D-50
Dry Upon Completion of AugeringGROUNDWATER (ft):
S-11
3/4/2016
7BORING DIAMETER (IN):
REPORT NO:
RIG TYPE:
1
6 7/8 OD HSA
BORING NO:
DEPTH(FT.)
BORING COMPLETED:
SHEET
DRILLING METHOD:
BORING STARTED:
1183-16-005
OF
TEST BORING RECORD
Remarks:
PROJECT LOCATION:
978.9
ELEVATION:
HAMMER:
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Automatic
PROJECT:
Gro
undw
ater
978.9
1
3/4/2016
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Richmond, Kentucky
CR
AIG
2 1
183
-16-
005
EK
U F
OO
TB
ALL
.GP
J Q
OR
_CO
RP
.GD
T 4
/20/
16
30RQ
D (
%)
BLOWS/6"
200Rec
over
y (in
)
Lith
olog
y
Sam
ple
Typ
e
STANDARD PENETRATIONRESISTANCE (N)
40
Qu
5010
Overburden
Weathered Rock
Auger Refusal at 6.7 Feet
973.8
972.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
JOB NO:
ELEV.(FT.)
D-50
Dry Upon Completion of AugeringGROUNDWATER (ft):
S-12
3/4/2016
7BORING DIAMETER (IN):
REPORT NO:
RIG TYPE:
1
6 7/8 OD HSA
BORING NO:
DEPTH(FT.)
BORING COMPLETED:
SHEET
DRILLING METHOD:
BORING STARTED:
1183-16-005
OF
TEST BORING RECORD
Remarks:
PROJECT LOCATION:
979.3
ELEVATION:
HAMMER:
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Automatic
PROJECT:
Gro
undw
ater
979.3
1
3/4/2016
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Richmond, Kentucky
CR
AIG
2 1
183
-16-
005
EK
U F
OO
TB
ALL
.GP
J Q
OR
_CO
RP
.GD
T 4
/20/
16
30RQ
D (
%)
BLOWS/6"
200Rec
over
y (in
)
Lith
olog
y
Sam
ple
Typ
e
STANDARD PENETRATIONRESISTANCE (N)
40
Qu
5010
Overburden
Auger Refusal at 9.0 Feet971.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
JOB NO:
ELEV.(FT.)
D-50
Dry Upon Completion of AugeringGROUNDWATER (ft):
S-13
3/4/2016
7BORING DIAMETER (IN):
REPORT NO:
RIG TYPE:
1
6 7/8 OD HSA
BORING NO:
DEPTH(FT.)
BORING COMPLETED:
SHEET
DRILLING METHOD:
BORING STARTED:
1183-16-005
OF
TEST BORING RECORD
Remarks:
PROJECT LOCATION:
980.8
ELEVATION:
HAMMER:
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Automatic
PROJECT:
Gro
undw
ater
980.8
1
3/4/2016
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Richmond, Kentucky
CR
AIG
2 1
183
-16-
005
EK
U F
OO
TB
ALL
.GP
J Q
OR
_CO
RP
.GD
T 4
/20/
16
30RQ
D (
%)
BLOWS/6"
200Rec
over
y (in
)
Lith
olog
y
Sam
ple
Typ
e
STANDARD PENETRATIONRESISTANCE (N)
40
Qu
5010
Asphalt - 6.0 InchesGravel - 6.0 InchesOverburden
Auger Refusal at 4.0 Feet - Begin CoringLimestone with shale partings, moderatelyweathered to fresh rock, fine grained, gray,HARD, moderately fractured to intact
FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES Field Operations: The general field procedures employed by S&ME, Inc. are summarized in ASTM D 420 which is entitled "Investigating and Sampling Soils and Rocks for Engineering Purposes." This recommended practice lists recognized methods for determining soil and rock distribution and ground water conditions. These methods include geophysical and in situ methods as well as borings. Borings are drilled to obtain subsurface samples using one of several alternate techniques depending upon the subsurface conditions. These techniques are: a. Continuous 2-1/2 or 3-1/4 inch I.D. hollow stem augers; b. Wash borings using roller cone or drag bits (mud or water); c. Continuous flight augers (ASTM D 1425). These drilling methods are not capable of penetrating through material designated as "refusal materials." Refusal, thus indicated, may result from hard cemented soil, soft weathered rock, coarse gravel or boulders, thin rock seams, or the upper surface of sound continuous rock. Core drilling procedures are required to determine the character and continuity of refusal materials. The subsurface conditions encountered during drilling are reported on a field test boring record by a field engineer who is on site to direct the drilling operations and log the recovered samples. The record contains information concerning the boring method, samples attempted and recovered, indications of the presence of various materials such as coarse gravel, cobbles, etc., and observations between samples. Therefore, these boring records contain both factual and interpretive information. The field boring records are on file in our office. The soil and rock samples plus the field boring records are reviewed by a geotechnical engineer. The engineer classifies the soils in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 2488 and prepares the final boring records that are the basis for all evaluations and recommendations. The final boring records represent our interpretation of the contents of the field records based on the results of the engineering examinations and tests of the field samples. These records depict subsurface conditions at the specific locations and at the particular time when drilled. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these boring locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the subsurface soil and ground water conditions at these boring locations. The lines designating the interface between soil or refusal materials on the records and on profiles represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. The final boring records are included with this report. The detailed data collection methods using during this study are discussed on the following pages. Soil Test Borings: Soil test borings were made at the site at locations shown on the attached Boring Plan. Soil sampling and penetration testing were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1586. The borings were made by mechanically twisting a 5-5/8” outer diameter auger into the soil. At regular intervals, the drilling tools were removed and samples obtained with a standard 1.4 inch I.D., 2 inch O.D., split tube sampler. The sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings, then driven an additional foot with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final foot was recorded and is designated the "penetration resistance”. Representative portions of the samples, thus obtained, were placed in glass jars and transported to the laboratory. In the laboratory, the samples were examined to verify the driller's field classifications. Test Boring Records are attached which graphically show the soil descriptions and penetration resistances. Soil Auger Soundings: Soil auger soundings were made at the site at the locations shown on the attached Boring Location Plan. The soundings were performed by mechanically twisting a steel auger into the soil. However, unlike the soil test borings, a smaller diameter solid stem auger was used and no split-spoon samples were obtained. The driller provided a general description of the soil encountered by observing the soils brought to the surface by the twisting auger. The auger was advanced until refusal materials were encountered and the refusal depth was noted by the driller. The auger is then withdrawn and the depths to water or caved materials are then measured and recorded by the driller. Soil auger soundings provide a rapid, economical method of obtaining the approximate bedrock depth, groundwater depth, and general soil conditions at locations where detailed soil testing and sampling is not required. Water Level Readings: Water table readings are normally taken in conjunction with borings and are recorded on the "Test Boring Records". These readings indicate the approximate location of the hydrostatic water table at the time of our field investigation. Where impervious soils are encountered (clayey soils) the amount of water seepage into the boring is small, and it is generally not possible to establish the location of the hydrostatic water table through water level readings. The ground water table may also be dependent upon the amount of precipitation at the site during a particular period of time. Fluctuations in the water table should be expected with variations in precipitation, surface run-off, evaporation and other factors. The time of boring water level reported on the boring records is determined by field crews as the drilling tools are advanced. The time of boring water level is detected by changes in the drilling rate, soil samples obtained, etc. Additional water table readings are generally obtained at least 24 hours after the borings are completed. The time lag of at least 24 hours is used to permit stabilization of the ground water table which has been disrupted by the drilling operations. The readings are taken by dropping a weighted line down the boring or using an electrical probe to detect the water level surface. Occasionally the borings will cave-in, preventing water level readings from being obtained or trapping drilling water above the caved-in zone. The cave-in depth is also measured and recorded on the boring records.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Richmond, Kentucky
S&ME Project No. 1183-16-005
Appendix III –Laboratory Testing Results and Laboratory Test
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES Soil Classification: Soil classifications provide a general guide to the engineering properties of various soil types and enable the engineer to apply past experience to current problems. In our investigations, samples obtained during drilling operations are examined in our laboratory and visually classified by an engineer. The soils are classified according to consistency (based on number of blows from standard penetration tests), color and texture. These classification descriptions are included on our "Test Boring Records." The classification system discussed above is primarily qualitative and for detailed soil classification two laboratory tests are necessary: grain size tests and plasticity tests. Using these test results the soil can be classified according to the AASHTO or Unified Classification Systems (ASTM D 2487). Each of these classification systems and the in-place physical soil properties provides an index for estimating the soil's behavior. The soil classification and physical properties obtained are presented in this report. Compaction Tests: Compaction tests are run on representative soil samples to determine the dry density obtained by a uniform compactive effort at varying moisture contents. The results of the test are used to determine the moisture content and unit weight desired in the field for similar soils. Proper field compaction is necessary to decrease future settlements, increase the shear strength of the soil and decrease the permeability of the soil. The two most commonly used compaction tests are the Standard Proctor test and the Modified Proctor test. They are performed in accordance with ASTM D 698 and D 1557, respectively. Generally, the Standard Proctor compaction test is run on samples from building or parking areas where small compaction equipment is anticipated. The Modified compaction test is generally performed for heavy structures, highways, and other areas where large compaction equipment is expected. In both tests a representative soil sample is placed in a mold and compacted with a compaction hammer. Both tests have four alternate methods.
Test Method Hammer Wt./Fall Mold Diam. Run on Matl. Finer Than
No. of Layers
No. of Blows/Lay
er
Standard A 5.5 lb./12" 4" No. 4 sieve 3 25
D 698 B 5.5 lb./12" 4" 3/8" sieve 3 25
C 5.5 lb./12" 6" 3/4" sieve 3 56
Test Method Hammer Wt./Fall Mold Diam. Run on Matl. Finer Than
No. of Layers
No. of Blows/Lay
er
Modified A 10 lb./18" 4" No. 4 sieve 5 25
D 1557 B 10 lb./18" 4" 3/8" sieve 5 25
C 10 lb./18" 6" 3/4" sieve 5 56
The moisture content and unit weight of each compacted sample is determined. Usually 4 to 5 such tests are run at different moisture contents. Test results are presented in the form of a dry unit weight versus moisture content curve. The compaction method used and any deviations from the recommended procedures are noted in this report. Atterberg Limits: Portions of the samples are taken for Atterberg Limits testing to determine the plasticity characteristics of the soil. The plasticity index (PI) is the range of moisture content over which the soil deforms as a plastic material. It is bracketed by the liquid limit (LL) and the plastic limit (PL). The liquid limit is the moisture content at which the soil becomes sufficiently "wet" to flow as a heavy viscous fluid. The plastic limit is the lowest moisture content at which the soil is sufficiently plastic to be manually rolled into tiny threads. The liquid limit and plastic limit are determined in accordance with ASTM D 4318. Moisture Content: The Moisture Content is determined according to ASTM D 2216.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
EKU Roy Kidd Football Stadium Improvements
Richmond, Kentucky
S&ME Project No. 1183-16-005
Appendix IV – ACI Document
302.1R-66 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
The report of ACI Committee 302, “Guide for ConcreteFloor and Slab Construction (ACI 302.1R-96)” states insection 4.1.5 that “if a vapor barrier or retarder is requireddue to local conditions, these products should be placedunder a minimum of 4 in. (100 mm) of trimable, compactible,granular fill (not sand).” ACI Committee 302 on Constructionof Concrete Floors, and Committee 360 on Design of Slabs onGround have found examples where this approach may havecontributed to floor covering problems.
Based on the review of the details of problem installations,it became clear that the fill course above the vapor retardercan take on water from rain, wet-curing, wet-grinding or cut-ting, and cleaning. Unable to drain, the wet or saturated fillprovides an additional source of water that contributes tomoisture-vapor emission rates from the slab well in excess ofthe 3 to 5 lb/1000 ft2/24 h (1.46 to 2.44 kg/100 m2/24 h)recommendation of the floor covering manufacturers.
As a result of these experiences, and the difficulty in ade-quately protecting the fill course from water during the con-struction process, caution is advised on the use of thegranular fill layer when moisture-sensitive finishes are to beapplied to the slab surface.
The committees believe that when the use of a vapor retarderor barrier is required, the decision whether to locate theretarder or barrier in direct contact with the slab or beneath alayer of granular fill should be made on a case-by-case basis.
Each proposed installation should be independently eval-uated by considering the moisture sensitivity of subsequentfloor finishes, anticipated project conditions and the poten-tial effects of slab curling and cracking.
The following chart can be used to assist in deciding where toplace the vapor retarder. The anticipated benefits and risks asso-ciated with the specified location of the vapor retarder should bereviewed with all appropriate parties before construction.
ADDENDUMGUIDE FOR CONCRETE FLOOR AND SLAB CONSTRUCTION
(302.1R-96)Vapor Retarder Location
CONCRETE FLOOR AND SLAB CONSTRUCTION 302.1R-67
ADDENDUMGUIDE FOR CONCRETE FLOOR AND SLAB CONSTRUCTION
(302.1R-96)Flow Chart for Location of Vapor Retarder/Barrier