Geotech NorthParkPondWaterQual

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
North Park Pond Dam

Edinborough Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1351-12-039
Prepared For:
W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc.

720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Prepared By:
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
April 24, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
1.2
2.
OVERALL PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................... 1

PURPOSE AND SCOPE ....................................................................................................... 1
EXPLORATION PROCEDURES ............................................................................................ 2

2.1
FIELD TESTING.................................................................................................................. 2
2.1.1 Soil Test Borings ........................................................................................................ 2
2.1.2 Hand Auger Borings ................................................................................................... 3
2.1.3 Rod Soundings ........................................................................................................... 4
2.2
LABORATORY TESTING ...................................................................................................... 4
3.
AREA GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................ 5

3.1
PHYSIOGRAPHY AND AREA GEOLOGY ................................................................................ 5
3.2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 6
3.2.1 Embankment Crest (B-1, B-2, B-3) ............................................................................ 7
3.2.2 Downstream Toe (HA-1, HA-2, RS-1) ........................................................................ 7
3.3
W ATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ......................................................................................... 8
3.4
LABORATORY TESTING SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 8
4.
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 9

4.1
GENERAL.......................................................................................................................... 9
4.2
EXISTING EMBANKMENT .................................................................................................... 9
4.2.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 9
4.2.2 Existing Vegetation ................................................................................................... 10
4.2.3 Existing Utilities ........................................................................................................ 10
4.2.4 Alluvial Soils ............................................................................................................. 10
4.2.5 Re-use of Existing Fill ............................................................................................... 10
4.3
EXISTING SPILLWAY ........................................................................................................ 10
4.4
ADDITIONAL/FUTURE EXPLORATION ................................................................................. 11
4.5
FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 11
5.
GENERAL EARTHWORK/CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .................................... 12

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
6.
SITE PREPARATION ......................................................................................................... 12

EXCAVATIONS ................................................................................................................. 12
EXPANSIVE SOILS ........................................................................................................... 13
TEMPORARY DEWATERING .............................................................................................. 13
FILL MATERIAL AND PLACEMENT ...................................................................................... 14
LIMITATIONS OF REPORT ................................................................................................. 15
APPENDIX
Site Vicinity Map, Figure 1
Test Location Plan, Figure 2
Generalized Subsurface Profiles, Figures 3, 4, 5
Legend to Soil Classification and Symbols
Boring Logs (B-1, B-2, B-3)
Hand Auger/DCP Sounding Record (HA-1 and HA-2)
Rod Sounding Log (RS-1)
Particle Size Analysis of Soils sheets (3 sheets)

North Park Pond Dam
1.

April 24, 2012
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Overall Project and Site Description
Information for this project is based on telephone and e-mail correspondence between
Mr. Tom Murray of W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc. (W.K. Dickson) and Mr. Duane Bents of
S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) between October 25 and November 1, 2011. It is also based on email and telephone correspondence between Mr. Murray and Mr. Luis Campos of S&ME
between January 6 and March 22, 2012. A preliminary topographic CAD drawing
(prepared by ESP Associates) was e-mailed by Mr. Murray to Mr. Campos on March 22,
2012.
The subject embankment is located southeast of the southern terminus of Edinborough
Drive in Charlotte, North Carolina, as shown on the attached Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1)
included in the Appendix. Based on review of the NCDENR Dam Safety inventory
(dated August 11, 2010) available on the North Carolina Dam Safety website, the hazard
classification of the subject embankment (State ID MECKL-164) is Intermediate.
Based on topographical maps provided by W.K. Dickson, our site reconnaissance, and
field measurements, the existing dam embankment crest is approximately 120 to 140 feet
long and about 15 feet wide at its crest. The crest elevation ranges from approximately
770 to 770.6 feet (all elevations referenced to Mean Sea Level). The dam embankment
appears to have a maximum height about 12 to 13 feet near its center, and based on the
provided topographic information provided by W.K. Dickson, has a downstream slope of
approximately 2.5 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (2.5H:1V).
Discharge structures (risers, etc.) were not observed in the embankment. A concrete
spillway is located at the west end of the dam and has been undermined and collapsed.
Underbrush and small (less than 4 inch diameter) trees were observed on the
embankment crest and downstream face and relatively large (greater than 8 inch
diameter) trees were observed at the immediate downstream toe. The area surrounding
the pond is heavily wooded. Overhead utilities are present over the western portion of
the dam. Additionally, an 8-inch diameter ductile iron pipe was observed at the collapsed
spillway and appears to run lengthwise along the dam towards an old sewer plant.
Based on information provided to us, we understand that reconstruction of the existing
dam embankment is anticipated.
1.2
Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this limited geotechnical study was to determine the general subsurface
conditions of the existing embankment and develop preliminary geotechnical conclusions
on the embankment condition and recommendations for design/repair.

North Park Pond Dam

April 24, 2012
S&ME has completed the following scope of geotechnical services for this project:
2.
Visited the site to observe site surface conditions, marked boring locations, and
coordinated field activities.
Contacted North Carolina 811 to mark the locations of existing underground
utilities in the exploration areas.
Coordinated with Duke Energy to shield overhead power lines.
Subcontracted HPC Land Services to clear trees and brush with their
environmental land clearing equipment to allow access to the embankment.
Mobilized an ATV-mounted drill rig and crew to the site.
Drilled three (3) soil test borings at the site.
Performed two (2) hand auger borings with Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)
testing at the site.
Performed one (1) rod sounding at the site.
Attempted water level measurements and abandoned the soil test and hand auger
boreholes with cement grout to the ground surface.
Estimated ground surface elevations at the test locations using a survey level.
Performed laboratory testing on selected soil samples.
Prepared this geotechnical engineering report.
EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
2.1
Field Testing
In order to explore the subsurface conditions along the embankment, three soil test
borings and two hand auger borings with Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing
were performed. Additionally, one supplemental rod sounding was performed. The test
locations were advanced at the approximate locations shown on the Test Location Plan
(Figure 2) in the Appendix. Ground surface elevations indicated on the logs were
estimated using differential leveling techniques with an established on-site benchmark,
which was a sanitary sewer manhole rim northwest of the embankment with a given
elevation of 766.56 feet. Northings and eastings on the logs are approximate and were
estimated by measuring distances and estimating right angles from existing site features
and plotted on the provided CAD drawing. The soil test and hand auger borings were
grouted with cement after water level measurements were attempted.
2.1.1 Soil Test Borings
Three soil test borings (designated as Borings B-1 through B-3) were drilled along the
embankment crest to depths of 25 to 30 feet below existing grades. A Diedrich D-50 drill
rig mounted on an ATV carrier was used to advance the borings with hollow-stem,
continuous-flight augers. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split spoon sampling was
performed at designated intervals in the soil test boring in general accordance with
ASTM D 1586 to provide an index for estimating soil strength and relative density or
consistency.

North Park Pond Dam

April 24, 2012
The drill rig used to perform the borings is equipped with a hydraulic automatic hammer
for penetration testing. The N-values reported on the attached Boring Logs are the actual
field-measured blow counts and are not corrected for the hammer energy. In conjunction
with the SPT testing, samples are obtained for soil classification purposes.
Representative portions of each soil sample were placed in plastic bags and taken to our
laboratory.
2.1.2 Hand Auger Borings
Due to drill rig accessibility constraints, two hand auger borings with DCP tests
(designated as Hand Auger Borings HA-1 and HA-2) were performed along the
downstream embankment toe to depths of 6 to 10 feet below existing grades. The DCP
tests were generally performed at 2-foot intervals, beginning at the ground surface.
The DCP test procedure is as follows: The cone point of the penetrometer is first seated
2 inches into the bearing materials to assure that the point is completely embedded. Then
the cone point is driven an additional 1-3/4 inches using a 15-pound weight falling 20
inches. The penetrometer reading is the number of blows required to drive the cone point
1-3/4 inches. The cone point may be driven a second and third increment of 1-3/4 inches
each and the penetrometer readings are recorded. The average penetrometer reading is
similar to the Standard Penetration Resistance N-value as defined by ASTM D 1586.
When properly evaluated, the penetrometer test results provide an index for estimating
soil strength and relative density/consistency. The following figure (from ASTM Special
Technical Publication #399, 1966) presents generally accepted correlations between
average DCP resistance and the SPT N-value, although site specific correlations may be
developed.
The results of the hand auger boring and DCP tests are summarized on the Hand Auger /
DCP Sounding Records included in the Appendix. Relative densities and consistencies
presented on the logs are inferred from the appropriate correlations in the previous figure.

North Park Pond Dam

April 24, 2012
2.1.3 Rod Soundings

Although not included in our original scope of services, S&ME personnel performed one
rod sounding (designated RS-1) to supplement Hand Auger Boring HA-1 since the hand
auger boring was terminated at a shallower depth than proposed due to caving soils. Rod
soundings are commonly used by NCDOT for supplementing traditional borings at creek
crossings where access is limited or when hand auger boreholes cave in due to water
inflow. The rod sounding consists of manually driving a 0.5-inch diameter steel rod into
the ground with a standardized drop hammer while recording the number of blows
required to penetrate two 6-inch increments. The total number of blows over the 1-foot
penetration interval is referred to as a blow count in this report and provides a general
indication of material consistency or relative density. The blow count is not the same
as an SPT N-value, and samples are not recovered for classification; therefore, strata and
material types are inferred based on engineering judgment. The rod sounding was
advanced to a depth of 10 feet below the existing ground surface.
2.2
Laboratory Testing
Once the samples were received in our laboratory, a geotechnical staff professional
visually examined each sample in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) to estimate the distribution of grain sizes, plasticity, organic content,
moisture condition, color, presence of lenses and seams and apparent geological origin.
The results of the classifications, as well as the field test results, are presented on the
individual boring logs included in the Appendix. Similar materials were grouped into
strata on the logs. The strata contact lines represent approximate boundaries between the
soil and rock types; the actual transition between the soil and rock types in the field may
be gradual in both the horizontal and vertical directions.
Representative samples of the on-site soils obtained during the field testing program were
then selected for laboratory testing. The limited testing program was designed to confirm
visual/manual soil classification and determine selected engineering properties of the
soils. Results of the laboratory testing program are included in the Appendix. The
following tests were performed:
Moisture Content: The moisture content is the ratio, expressed as a percentage,
of the weight of water in a given mass of soil to the weight of the solid particles.
This test was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D 2216.
Grain Size Test with Hydrometer Analysis: A grain size test determines the
particle size and distribution of the samples tested. The grain size distribution of
soils coarser than a No. 200 sieve is determined by passing the samples through a
set of nested sieves. The soil particles passing the No. 10 sieve (typically) are
suspended in solution and the grain size distribution for materials smaller than the
No. 200 sieve is determined from the rate of settlement. This test was conducted
in general accordance with ASTM D 422.

North Park Pond Dam

April 24, 2012
Atterberg Limits Test: Atterberg Limits testing determines the plasticity

characteristics of soil. The Plasticity Index (PI) is representative of this
characteristic and is bracketed by the Liquid Limit (LL) and the Plastic Limit
(PL). These tests were conducted in general accordance with ASTM D 4318.
3.
AREA GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1
Physiography and Area Geology
The site is located within the Charlotte Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province of
North Carolina as shown in the following figure. The Piedmont Province generally
consists of well-rounded hills and ridges, which are dissected by a well-developed system
of draws and streams. The Piedmont Province is predominantly underlain by
metamorphic rock (formed by heat, pressure and/or chemical action) and igneous rock
(formed directly from molten material), which were initially formed during the
Precambrian and Paleozoic eras. The volcanic and sedimentary rocks deposited in the
Piedmont Province during the Precambrian eras were the host for the metamorphism and
were changed to gneiss and schist. The more recent Paleozoic era had periods of igneous
emplacement, with at least several episodes of regional metamorphism resulting in the
majority of the rock types seen today.
APPROXIMATE
SITE LOCATION
Physiographic Provinces of North Carolina

The topography and relief of the Piedmont Province have developed from differential
weathering of the igneous and metamorphic rock. Because of the continued chemical and
physical weathering, the rocks in the Piedmont Province are now generally covered with
a mantle of soil that has weathered in place from the parent bedrock. These soils have
variable thicknesses and are referred to as residuum or residual soils. The residuum is
typically finer grained and has higher clay content near the surface because of the
advanced weathering. Similarly, the soils typically become coarser grained with
increasing depth because of decreased weathering. As the degree of weathering
decreases, the residual soils generally retain the overall appearance, texture, gradation
and foliations of the parent rock.

North Park Pond Dam

April 24, 2012
The boundary between soil and rock in the Piedmont is not sharply defined. A
transitional zone termed Partially Weathered Rock is normally found overlying the
parent bedrock. Partially Weathered Rock (PWR) is defined for engineering purposes as
residual material with Standard Penetration Resistances (N-values) exceeding 50 blows
per 6 inches or less. The transition between hard/dense residual soils and PWR occurs at
irregular depths due to variations in degree of weathering. A depiction of typical
weathering profiles in the Piedmont Province is presented in the following figure.
Typical Piedmont Weathering Profiles (After Sowers/Richardson, 1983)
Water is typically present in the residual soils and within fractures in the PWR or
underlying bedrock in the Piedmont. On upland ridges in the Piedmont, water may or
may not be present in the residual soils above the PWR and bedrock.
Alluvial soils, which have been transported and deposited by water, are typically found in
floodplains and are generally saturated to within a few feet of the ground surface. These
alluvial soils typically have horizontal deposition layers, varying amounts of organic
matter, and have typically not experienced vertical pressures greater than the current
overburden pressure.
Fluctuations in water levels are typical in residual soils and PWR in the Piedmont,
depending on variations in precipitation, evaporation and surface water runoff. Seasonal
high water levels are expected to occur during or just after the typically wetter months of
the year (November through April).
3.2
Subsurface Conditions
As previously mentioned, soil test borings were performed along the embankment crest,
and hand auger borings and a rod sounding were performed along the downstream toe of
the embankment. The generalized subsurface conditions encountered in each of these

North Park Pond Dam

April 24, 2012
locations are described below. Additionally, Generalized Subsurface Profiles (Figures 3,

4, and 5) are included in the Appendix. For more detailed soil descriptions and
stratifications at a particular test location, the respective test log should be reviewed.
3.2.1 Embankment Crest (B-1, B-2, B-3)
Surface Materials: Each of the borings encountered topsoil at the ground surface.
Topsoil thicknesses ranged from approximately 4 to 6 inches.
Existing Fill: Existing fill soils were encountered in Borings B-1, B-2 and B-3 to depths
of approximately 14, 12 and 8 feet (approximate elevations 756.4, 758.5 and 762.6 feet),
respectively. The fill soils generally consisted of firm sandy clay (CL), very soft to firm
silty clay (CH), and soft to firm clayey silt (MH). SPT N-values in the fill ranged from 2
to 8 blows per foot (bpf). Based on the results of the Standard Penetration Testing, it
appears that the fill soils were placed with low to moderate compactive effort.
Alluvial Soils: Alluvial soils were encountered beneath the fill soils in Borings B-1, B-2
and B-3 to depths of approximately 17, 17, and 12 feet (approximate elevations 753.4,
753.5, and 758.6 feet), respectively. The alluvial soils generally consisted of soft to firm
clay (CH). SPT N-values in the alluvial soils ranged from 4 to 6 bpf.
Residual Soils: Beneath the alluvial soils in in each of the soil test borings, residual soils
were encountered to the boring termination depths. The residual soils generally consisted
of loose to medium dense silty sand (SM) and firm to stiff sandy silt (ML). SPT N-values
in the residual soils ranged from 5 to 14 bpf. Borings B-1, B-2 and B-3 were terminated
at depths of 25, 30 and 25 feet, respectively.
3.2.2 Downstream Toe (HA-1, HA-2, RS-1)
Surface Materials: Hand Auger Borings HA-1 and HA-2 encountered topsoil at the
ground surface. Topsoil thicknesses ranged from approximately 2 to 3 inches.
Existing Fill: Existing fill soils were encountered below the surficial topsoil in Hand
Auger Borings HA-1 and HA-2 to depths of approximately 1.8 and 1 feet (approximate
elevations 755.6 and 761.1 feet), respectively. The fill soils generally consisted of very
loose clayey sand (SC) and soft sandy clay (CL). Average DCP resistance values
obtained in the fill soils ranged from 2 to 3 blows per 1-3/4 inch increment (bpi). Based
on the DCP resistance values, it appears that the fill was placed with low compactive
effort.
Alluvial Soils: Alluvial soils were encountered beneath the fill soils in Hand Auger
Boring HA-1 to a depth of at least 6 feet (approximate elevation 751.4 feet). The alluvial
soils generally consisted of very loose clayey sand (SC) and firm silty clay (CH).
Average DCP resistance values obtained in the alluvial soils ranged from 0 to 8 bpi.
Hand Auger Boring HA-1 was terminated in the alluvial soils at a depth of 6 feet due to
water inflow and caving soils.

North Park Pond Dam

April 24, 2012
Residual Soils: Beneath the fill soils in Hand Auger Boring HA-2, residual soils were
encountered to the boring termination depth of 10 feet. The residual soils generally
consisted of firm silty clay (CH), stiff sandy silt (ML) and stiff clayey silt (MH).
Average DCP resistance values in the residual soils ranged from 7 to greater than 25 bpi.
Rod Sounding: As previously discussed, a rod sounding was performed to a depth of 10
feet adjacent to Hand Auger Boring HA-1 to help estimate soil conditions in this area.
Blow counts generally indicative of alluvial soils were encountered to a depth of
approximately 6 feet (blow counts of 2 to 9 bpf). Blow counts generally indicative of
residual soils were encountered between approximate depths of 6 to 10 feet (blow counts
of 20 to 52 bpf).
3.3
Water Level Measurements
The surface water in the pond was at an approximate elevation of 765.8 feet on March 20,
2012.
Water level measurements were attempted in the soil test and hand auger borings at their
completion and after a waiting period of at least 24 hours. Water was not encountered at
the drilling termination in Borings B-1, B-2 or B-3 performed along the embankment
crest. Water was encountered at the termination of hand augering in Hand Auger Borings
HA-1 and HA-2 performed along the downstream toe at depths of 1 and 6 feet,
respectively. Water was encountered after the waiting period in Borings B-1, B-2 and B3 at depths of 5.7, 12.5 and 13.3 feet (approximate elevations 764.7, 758 and 757.3 feet),
respectively, and in Hand Auger Borings HA-1 and HA-2 at depths of 0.5 and 6 feet
(approximate elevations 756.9 and 756.1 feet), respectively. The soil test and hand auger
borings were abandoned and backfilled with cement grout on or before March 20, 2012.
Water levels tend to fluctuate with seasonal and climatic variations, as well as with some
types of construction operations, and are highly dependent on the current pool elevation.
Therefore, water may be encountered during construction operations at depths or
elevations different than indicated in this study.
3.4
Laboratory Testing Summary
Representative soil samples were selected for laboratory testing. The results of the
laboratory testing performed on the selected soil samples are presented in the following
table and on the Particle Size Analysis of Soils sheets included in the Appendix.
Test
Location
B-1
B-2
HA-2
Sample
USCS
Moisture Percent Liquid Plasticity
Depth
Classification Content
Fines
Limit
Index
13.5 15
CH
33.1
82.4
52
24
6 7.5
CH
29.8
68.5
61
35
6.5 10
MH
39.7
85.0
52
20

North Park Pond Dam
4.

April 24, 2012
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1
General
The following preliminary conclusions and recommendations presented are based on the
data obtained from the limited field testing program and are intended to provide a general
assessment of geotechnical conditions at the site. Depending on modifications planned
for the dam and outlet structures, a design-level exploration may be required to develop
specific geotechnical design and construction recommendations.
Based on observations, the dam has not been properly maintained. Based on the SPT Nvalues, it appears that the dam embankment was constructed with variable compactive
effort. Therefore, the embankment presents a long-term risk of instability.
Considering the spillway has been undermined and collapsed, along with the presence of
low-consistency embankment fill soils and alluvial foundation soils, we recommend that
the existing embankment be removed and replaced. Additionally, we recommend that the
existing alluvial soils in the vicinity of the toe of the dam and at the dam foundation be
undercut and replaced. This should be performed in conjunction with installation of a
seepage cutoff key consisting of newly placed dam embankment materials.
We recommend that both the upstream and downstream slopes be flattened to 3H:1V or
flatter. Steeper slopes may be considered after design level slope stability and seepage
analysis are performed. However, slopes steeper than 3H:1V make it difficult to perform
regular maintenance. Installation of a toe drain is recommended; however, its necessity
will depend on the proposed dam embankment soils permeability and strength
characteristics. If slopes steeper than 3H:1V are planned, the need for a toe drain will be
increased. Slope protection should be placed on the embankment face, particularly the
upstream face, to resist wave erosion.
4.2
Existing Embankment
4.2.1 Existing Conditions

In general, no distress of the main portion of the embankment was observed. However, a
majority of the embankment fill materials were soft to firm indicating that the
embankment soils were placed with low to moderate compactive effort. The spillway at
the western end of the embankment has collapsed due to soils piping beneath the
spillway. Based on the provided topographic plans and visual observations, the
downstream face of the embankment is sloped at approximately 2.5H:1V, and there was
no visual evidence of surficial sloughing or tension cracks.
Visual inspection for significant surficial moisture (e.g., ponded water), holes, and other
evidence of seepage on the downstream face of the embankment indicated no apparent
evidence of seepage. Water was encountered in borings B-2, B-3, HA-1 and HA-2
between approximate elevations of 756.1 to 758 feet during our field exploration.
Additionally, water was encountered in Boring B-1 at an approximate elevation of 764.7

North Park Pond Dam

April 24, 2012
feet which we anticipate is influenced by the surface water flow from the collapsed
spillway. We anticipate the water levels in borings B-2, B-3, HA-1 and HA-2 represent
the steady-state phreatic surface.
4.2.2 Existing Vegetation
Small trees and underbrush are located along the crest and downstream slope of the
existing embankment. Additionally, some large trees are located at the immediate
downstream toe. These trees would require removal during dam modifications.
4.2.3 Existing Utilities
An overhead power line is present over the western portion of the embankment. We
anticipate that this line would require temporary/permanent removal for construction
activities to proceed. Also, an 8-inch diameter ductile iron pipe is present beneath the
spillway and embankment and appears to lead to an old sewer plant. We recommend that
the pipe be removed/rerouted from the embankment as part of the dam modifications.
4.2.4 Alluvial Soils
Alluvial soils were encountered underlying the embankment fill materials and at the toe
of the embankment indicating that these materials were not undercut prior to construction
of the embankment, which is typically performed. These alluvial soils were very loose
and soft to stiff, and based on the borings, contained some organic matter consisting of
rootlets. We generally do not recommend the use of alluvial soils as structural fill for the
embankment construction.
4.2.5 Re-use of Existing Fill
We anticipate that some of the clean existing embankment soils may be suitable for reuse as embankment fill. The CH soils encountered within Boring B-2 from a depth of 6
to 7.5 feet had a PI of 35, indicating a moderate to high shrink/swell potential. These
soils would need to be blended with less plastic soils and not used directly behind or
beneath structures. If re-use of these materials is considered, we recommend that
monitoring of excavation be performed by a geotechnical engineer or his representative.
Although not encountered, materials with debris or organic-laden materials within the
embankment are not suitable for re-use.
4.3
Existing Spillway
The existing spillway at the western end of the embankment has been undermined and
has collapsed. This undermining/collapse is likely due to erosion and piping of the
spillway subgrade soils caused by seepage beneath the spillway. Additionally, it appears
that the surface water infiltration within the collapsed spillway has raised the
groundwater level in the immediate vicinity of the spillway. The higher water level can
result in a reduced factor of safety for the embankment.
We understand that current plans are to replace the existing spillway as part of the dam
modifications. The replacement spillway should be adequately reinforced and a
relatively impermeable material should be placed at the spillway subgrade at the
10

North Park Pond Dam

April 24, 2012
upstream face and crest of the embankment. To allow drainage, reduce hydrostatic
pressures, and prevent erosion, we recommend a properly designed filtered drainage layer
and drainage system be placed beneath the spillway. Finally, we recommend adequate
energy dissipation (e.g., rip-rap, a rip-rap lined plunge pool, or concrete energy
dissipation) be provided at the discharge point of the spillway to reduce the potential for
erosion along the spillway toe. Concrete cutoffs should be considered at the top and
bottom of the spillway to help reduce the potential for undermining the spillway or
provide a direct seepage path beneath the spillway. Intermediate cutoffs could also be
considered along the spillway to help reduce the potential for piping and erosion.
4.4
Additional/Future Exploration
Once preliminary design for the dam replacement has been completed, additional
geotechnical testing and analysis of the embankment should be performed. The
additional testing should consist of in-situ and laboratory permeability and strength
determination of the proposed dams foundation soils. Additionally, indexing,
permeability, and strength characteristics of the proposed embankment borrow materials
should be performed such that detailed slope stability and seepage analysis can be
completed.
We also understand that along with the proposed spillway replacement, hydraulic design
may dictate modifications to the existing dam structure (e.g., providing a riser and outlet
structure, increasing crest height for more freeboard, etc.). Some of these modifications
(riser/outlet structures) may require additional borings/testing to specifically explore the
structure locations or alignments. If a riser and outlet barrel are constructed, a diaphragm
drain and drainage system should be included with a design in accordance with NRCS
standards.
It should be noted that the reported stability of the existing dam embankment is based on
visual observations and the general condition of the existing embankment. A detailed
slope stability analysis with seepage study would be required to confirm the dam has an
adequate/inadequate factor of safety.
4.5
Foundations
Depending on design modification plans, we anticipate risers, headwalls and other
structures requiring foundations may be required. These structures could typically be
supported on residual soils and/or properly compacted fill material typically compacted
to a minimum of 95 percent of the fill material Standard Proctor maximum dry density.
An allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 to 3,000 psf can be considered for preliminary
foundation design, subject to confirmation during design or possibly, construction.
Undercutting of alluvial sediment and/or unstable materials, may be required to achieve
adequate bearing materials. Some undercutting of softened bearing soils within the pond
area would likely be required for support of a riser. Typically, these soils would be
replaced with lean concrete, if encountered.
11

North Park Pond Dam
5.

April 24, 2012
GENERAL EARTHWORK/CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
5.1
Site Preparation
Replacement of the embankment will require undercutting of unsuitable materials along
with temporary dewatering measures. Typically, a temporary cofferdam and pumparound system or temporary stormwater bypass system is required to handle stormwater
flows during construction.
Prior to any fill placement or construction, any upstream and downstream areas to receive
fill should be thoroughly stripped of any topsoil, trash, vegetation, stumps, trees, shallow
root systems, root bulbs, other organic materials, alluvial soils, and soft or loose fill or
residual soils to a distance of 10 feet outside the proposed embankment footprint. A
topsoil stockpile should be established separate from all other stockpiles. Topsoil is not
suitable as fill in any structural portion of the embankment or as spillway backfill. A thin
layer of topsoil may be placed after the structural embankment is completed for
establishment of vegetation only as indicated in the project plans or specifications.
If modifications are planned in the downstream area where larger trees are present, the
existing tree root bulbs should be removed under the direction of a geotechnical engineer
or his representative after notification to NCDENR. Depending on the depth of these
root systems, several feet of soil removal may be required. Any voids observed below
the excavation depth should be filled and grouted in place. All of the root materials
should be removed from these voids. Once the root material or other deleterious
materials are removed, we recommend that the soil surface be scarified and re-compacted
prior to placement of structures or additional fill.
5.2
Excavations
Replacement of the existing embankment will require the excavation of existing fill,
alluvial and, possibly, residual soils. These soils can be excavated using backhoes,
trackhoes, front-end loaders, bull dozers and other types of typical earthmoving
equipment.
Although PWR was not encountered in any of the borings, the depth to, and thickness of,
PWR, rock lenses or seams and bedrock, can vary dramatically in short distances and
between boring locations in the Piedmont Geologic Province; therefore, PWR, boulders
or bedrock may be encountered during general excavation at locations or depths between
boring locations not encountered during this exploration.
Partially Weathered Rock, rock, etc. is typically much more difficult to excavate than the
existing fill, alluvial or residual soils and may require alternative equipment and/or
excavation methods. As such, unit rates for excavation in these materials are
considerably more than soil.
12

North Park Pond Dam

April 24, 2012
5.3
Expansive Soils
Based on the laboratory testing results and our visual/manual classification of the
recovered soil samples, plastic soils (CH and MH) were encountered within the
embankment and are the common near-surface soil type in the site area. In particular,
Boring B-2 encountered silty clay (CH) fill soils with a PI of 35. These plastic soils can
experience change in volume (shrink/swell) with changes in their moisture content. In
addition, these soils are highly sensitive to moisture and can degrade quickly if allowed
to saturate.
While the permeability of these soils is relatively low indicating a potentially suitable
embankment material, their strength characteristics are also low requiring flatter
embankment slopes and, due to the shrink/swell potential, are not suitable below
structures (e.g. risers, barrels, spillways, etc.). While these materials are commonly used
in this area as fill and could be re-used if well-mixed with low-plasticity soils, the
potential uses of these plastic materials in structural areas should be performed under the
direction of the geotechnical engineer. These plastic materials should not be placed
directly beneath or behind structures that could be affected by soil movement.
It should be noted that because these soils are sensitive to moisture, significant moisture
conditioning may be required to achieve the project compaction criteria. Additional
preparation of these materials (undercutting, moisture conditioning, etc.) should be
anticipated if construction occurs during the wetter months of the year and when working
with soils excavated at or below the water table.
5.4
Temporary Dewatering
Water was encountered in borings B-2, B-3, HA-1 and HA-2 between approximate
elevations of 756.1 to 758 feet during our field exploration. Additionally, water was
encountered in Boring B-1 at an approximate elevation of 764.7 feet, which we anticipate
is influenced by the surface water flow from the collapsed spillway. Depending on the
planned modifications and required undercutting, groundwater seepage may be
encountered. During excavation for and during construction of the modifications, this
seepage could produce sloughing of the slopes and softening of the subgrade soils if not
controlled with proper temporary dewatering techniques. Details concerning dewatering
should be discussed and agreed upon with the contractor prior to proceeding with
construction.
During construction, diversion of normal stormwater flows will be the responsibility of
the contractor. A temporary cofferdam may be required upstream of the proposed dam
improvements. Sumps should be constructed to collect any accumulated water in
excavation areas, and may need to be moved/reconfigured during earthwork. Plans for
removal/abandonment of sumps should be discussed with the contractor. A portable
pump capable of handling the anticipated storm water flows and backup pump(s) should
be ready at all times during construction of the embankment. The portable pump(s)
should remain on standby to handle large storm flows as necessary.
13

North Park Pond Dam

April 24, 2012
The water levels should be kept at a sufficient depth to prevent softening of the subgrade
soils. If water is encountered, pumping must be maintained continuously from sumps
and/or well points for any beneficial dewatering to be derived and a back-up pump should
also be maintained on site. Discontinuous pumping will result in softening of the
subgrade soils and additional undercutting may be required. The contractor should also
be prepared to implement additional dewatering procedures in the event groundwater
levels rise to the point it impacts construction. Undercutting due to softening of subgrade
soils as a result of improper temporary dewatering will be the contractors responsibility.
Positive site drainage shall be maintained away from all working areas at all times to
prevent ponding of water that could soften and disturb the subgrade materials. The
contractor shall be prepared to implement alternative dewatering techniques should the
need arise. All subgrade surfaces and fill surfaces should be adequately sloped to provide
positive drainage as construction progresses.
5.5
Fill Material and Placement
Prior to proceeding with fill placement and after the site is properly prepared, the exposed
subgrade soils should be scarified prior to placing the first lift of soil or benched to allow
bonding between the existing soil and the newly placed fill. All fill placed in the dam
embankment should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its Standard Proctor
maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) within 1 percent below to 3 percent above
optimum moisture content.
For preliminary purposes, all fill considered for construction backfill should consist of a
clean (free of organic matter and debris) soil with USCS classification of ML, CL or MH,
with liquid limits (LL) ranging between 40 and 60 and plasticity indices (PI) between 15
and 30. Some CH soils may be suitable for use as fill provided the plasticity
requirements are met. Soils with a PI greater than 30 could be modified by thoroughly
blending the soil with a lower plasticity soil. Laboratory testing would be required prior
to approval of the blended soil.
All fill compacted with heavy compaction equipment shall be placed in loose lifts not
exceeding 8 inches in thickness and compacted to the applicable compaction criteria
given above. The surface of the fill lifts should be scarified prior to placing subsequent
fill lifts to promote bonding of the fill layers. For manually compacted fill, fill
compacted with light walk-behind type compactors, or near pipes and other structures,
maximum loose lifts of 4 to 6 inches in thickness will be required. Field density tests,
including one-point Proctor verification tests, should be performed on the fill as it is
being placed at a frequency determined by the geotechnical engineer.
Upon completion of each days filling, the fill surface will be adequately sealed and
sloped to provide positive drainage of surface water runoff away from the filling areas. If
water is allowed to pond on the newly placed fill, the material will absorb water and can
be easily disturbed. If this occurs, any disturbed or softened areas will be evaluated and
possibly undercut prior to continuation of the filling operations. On the following day
14

North Park Pond Dam

April 24, 2012
prior to proceeding with fill placement, the surface of the fill material will be scarified to
allow a better bonding between the fill lifts.
The site should be monitored to evaluate the suitability of the soils for embankment
construction or re-use as structural fill. Results of the limited laboratory testing on some
of the on-site soils indicated materials with Liquid Limits ranging from 52 to 61 and
Plasticity Indexes ranging from 20 to 35 are present. The soils with PIs greater than 30
may not be suitable for re-use due to their plasticity, or may require mixing and
confirmation of their permeability rates prior to approval for re-use as embankment fill
material. Significant moisture conditioning of the existing embankment soils should also
be anticipated. The existing alluvial soils are generally not suitable for use as
embankment fill.
We recommend that a borrow source be identified for any additional embankment fill
that may be required to construct the embankment modifications. We recommend that
additional test pits or soil test borings and laboratory analyses should be performed to
evaluate engineering characteristics of the borrow soils. A borrow area study was beyond
the scope of this exploration.
6.
LIMITATIONS OF REPORT
The exploration locations given in this report should be considered accurate only to the
degree implied by the methods used to determine them.
The exploration logs represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on
the field logs, and visual examinations of samples by a staff professional or technician, in
addition to tests of the field samples. The lines designating the interfaces between
various strata may be gradual.
The generalized subsurface strata and profiles described in this report are intended to
convey trends in subsurface conditions. The boundaries between strata are approximate
and idealized. They have been developed by interpretations of widely-spaced
geotechnical explorations. Therefore, actual subsurface conditions may vary from those
given between exploration locations.
Groundwater levels have been measured or inferred in the borings at the times and under
the conditions stated on the exploration logs in this report. Changes in the groundwater
conditions may occur due to variations in rainfall, evaporation, construction activity,
surface water runoff, and other site specific factors. We emphasize that ground water
levels are influenced by precipitation, long term climatic variations, and nearby
construction. Groundwater measurements made at different times than our exploration
may indicate groundwater levels substantially different than indicated in this report.
Recovered samples not suspected of contamination and not expended in laboratory tests
are commonly retained in our laboratory for 90 days following completion of drilling.
Samples are then disposed of at our convenience unless our client requests otherwise.
15

North Park Pond Dam

April 24, 2012
The assessment of site environmental conditions and the determination of contaminants

in the soil, rock, surface water or groundwater of the site were beyond the scope of this
geotechnical study.
The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the
project information given in this report and on our interpretation of the surface and
subsurface data collected. We have made our recommendations based on our experience
with similar subsurface conditions and similar projects. The recommendations apply to
the specific project discussed in this report; therefore, any changes in the project
information should be provided to us so we may review our conclusions and
recommendations and make any appropriate modifications. In the event that any changes
in the nature, design, location, or alignment of the project are planned, the conclusions
and recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the
changes are reviewed and conclusions of the report modified or verified in writing by us.
S&ME should be retained for a general review of the design drawings and specifications
to verify that geotechnical recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented.
Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical study, there is always a possibility that
subsurface conditions will be different from those at boring locations, that conditions will
not be as anticipated by the designers or contractors, or that the construction process will
alter soil conditions. Therefore, qualified geotechnical personnel should observe
construction to confirm that the conditions indicated by the geotechnical explorations
actually exist. We recommend the owner retain S&ME for this service since we are
already familiar with the project, the subsurface conditions at the site, and the intent of
the recommendations and design.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of S&MEs client for specific
application to the subject project site described in this report. It has been prepared in
accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice for specific
application to this project. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this
report are based upon applicable standards of our practice in this geographic area at the
time this report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
16
Approximate
Site Location
SITE
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
FIGURE NO.
AS SHOWN
LAC
JSR
4/24/2012
SITE VICINITY MAP

NORTH PARK POND DAM
EDINBOROUGH DRIVE
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT NO.:
1351-12-039
1" = 50'
DATE:
4/24/2012
TEST LOCATION PLAN

NORTH PARK POND DAM
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO.
1351-12-039
CHECKED BY:
JSR
LAC
WWW.SMEINC.COM
ENGINEERING LICENSE NO: F-0176
EDINBOROUGH DRIVE
FIGURE NO.
DRAWING PATH:
SCALE:
775
770
ELEVATION (feet-MSL)
765
B-3
B-2
B-1
N
FILL
760
FILL
ALLUVIAL
10
750
745
ALLUVIAL
755
RESIDUAL
11
RESIDUAL
13
BT @ 25'
14
BT @ 25'
10
BT @ 30'
740
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
APPROXIMATE DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (feet)

CL, Low Plasticity Clay
CH, High Plasticity Clay
Topsoil
SM, Silty Sand
MH, High Plasticity Silt
ML, Low Plasticity Silt
FILL
BT = Boring Termination
N = Standard Penetration Test resistance value (blows per foot). The depicted stratigraphy is shown for illustrative purposes only. The actual subsurface conditions will vary between boring locations.
JOB NO:
DATE:
1351-12-039
4/24/2012
9751 SOUTHERN PINE BOULEVARD

P: (704) 523-4726
F: (704) 525-3953
Diagram: Generalized Subsurface Profile

Project: North Park Pond Dam
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
Figure
775
B-2
770
765
760
B-1
N
FILL
HA-1
RS-1
DCP
2
755
ALLUVIAL
8
750
6
8
7
HAT @ 6'
RESIDUAL
RST @ 10'
14
BT @ 25'
745
BLOW COUNT
2
2
4
5
6
9
20
29
33
52
10
BT @ 30'
740
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70

Topsoil
SM, Silty Sand
SC, Clayey Sand
FILL
Rod Sounding
HAT = Hand Auger Termination
RST = Rod Sounding Termination
JOB NO:
DATE:
1351-12-039
4/24/2012

P: (704) 523-4726
F: (704) 525-3953

Figure
B-3
772
N
770
768
766
764
FILL
HA-2
DCP
3
762
ALLUVIAL
6
760
758
25
RESIDUAL
756
10
17
754
25
752
25
HAT @ 10'
11
750
748
746
13
BT @ 25'
744
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45

Topsoil
FILL
HAT = Hand Auger Termination
JOB NO:
DATE:
1351-12-039
4/24/2012

P: (704) 523-4726
F: (704) 525-3953

Figure
North Park Pond Dam

PROJECT:
B-1
BORING LOG
NOTES: Norting and Easting interpolated from

provided drawing and should be considered
approximate
DATE DRILLED: 3/15/12
ELEVATION: 770.4 ft
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50
BORING DEPTH: 25.0 ft
DRILLER: J. Cain
WATER LEVEL: 5.7 feet on 3/19/2012
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic
LOGGED BY: L. Campos

NORTHING: 574455
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
EASTING: 1446539
2nd 6in / REC
3rd 6in / RQD
REMARKS
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

(blows/ft)
10
20 30
N VALUE
BLOW COUNT
/ CORE DATA
1st 6in / RUN #
SPT REC. (in.)

SAMPLE TYPE
SAMPLE NO.
(feet-MSL)
ELEVATION
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
WATER LEVEL
LOG
(feet)
GRAPHIC
DEPTH
DRILLING METHOD: 2" H.S.A.
60 80
Topsoil / Rootmat (6 inches)

FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - firm, red brown
SS-1
765.4
FILL: SILTY CLAY (CH) - very soft, reddish

gray brown, wet
SS-2
SS-3
HC
760.4
10
S&ME BORING LOG 12-039 NORTH PARK POND DAM.GPJ S&ME.GDT 4/24/12
15
ALLUVIUM: CLAY (CH) - soft, grayish brown,

with medium to fine sand, with rootlets
755.4
SS-4
SS-5
RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - loose to

medium dense, gray brown, fine to medium
20
750.4
25
745.4
Boring terminated at 25 feet
SS-6
SS-7
14
14
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.

4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
North Park Pond Dam

PROJECT:
BORING LOG
B-2

approximate
ELEVATION: 770.5 ft
DRILLER: J. Cain

NORTHING: 574480
EASTING: 1446581
2nd 6in / REC
3rd 6in / RQD
REMARKS

(blows/ft)
10
20 30
N VALUE
BLOW COUNT
/ CORE DATA
1st 6in / RUN #
SPT REC. (in.)

SAMPLE TYPE
SAMPLE NO.
(feet-MSL)
ELEVATION
WATER LEVEL
LOG
(feet)
GRAPHIC
DEPTH
60 80

FILL: CLAYEY SILT (MH) - soft to firm, red
brown, with clay pockets
SS-1
765.5
SS-2
FILL: SANDY CLAY (CH) - firm, orange brown

SS-3
760.5
10
SS-4
ALLUVIUM: CLAY (CH) - firm, grayish brown,

with medium to fine sand, with rootlets
755.5
15
SS-5
RESIDUUM: SANDY SILT (ML) - firm to stiff,

tan gray
HC
20
750.5
25
745.5
30
740.5
SS-6
SS-7
SS-8
10
10
NOTES:

Page 1 of 1
North Park Pond Dam

PROJECT:
B-3
BORING LOG

approximate
ELEVATION: 770.6 ft
DRILLER: J. Cain

NORTHING: 574490
EASTING: 1446603
2nd 6in / REC
3rd 6in / RQD
REMARKS

(blows/ft)
10
20 30
N VALUE
BLOW COUNT
/ CORE DATA
1st 6in / RUN #
SPT REC. (in.)

SAMPLE TYPE
SAMPLE NO.
(feet-MSL)
ELEVATION
WATER LEVEL
LOG
(feet)
GRAPHIC
DEPTH
60 80

FILL: SILTY CLAY (CH) - soft, red brown
SS-1
FILL: CLAYEY SILT (MH) - soft to firm, red

brown
765.6
SS-2
SS-3
ALLUVIUM: CLAY (CH) - firm, grayish brown,

with medium to fine sand
760.6
10
SS-4
RESIDUUM: SANDY SILT (ML) - stiff, gray

brown
755.6
15
SS-5
10
10
SANDY SILT (ML) - stiff, tan gray

HC
20
750.6
25
745.6
SS-6
SS-7
11
13
11
13
NOTES:

Page 1 of 1
North Park Pond Dam

PROJECT:
HA-1
BORING LOG:
DATE PERFORMED: 3/19/2012
ELEVATION: 757.4 Feet
PERFORMED BY: BPC / NP
BORING DEPTH: 6 Feet
NORTHING:
EASTING:
WATER LEVEL: 0.5 Feet on 3/20/2012
574504
1446539
NOTES: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Testing

performed in general accordance with ASTM STP399.
Northing and Easting interpolated from provided
drawing and should be considered approximate.
HAND AUGER / DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER SOUNDING RECORD

DEPTH
(FEET)
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

Resistance (Blows/1-3/4")
DESCRIPTION
10
15
0.0
0 - 0.3
0.3 - 1.8
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC) - very loose, brown orange

(saturated)
2
2
2
1.0
2.0
1.8 - 3.5
0
0
0
ALLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND (SC) - very loose, gray

(saturated)
3.0
4.0
ALLUVIUM: SILTY CLAY (CH) - firm, gray

(wet)
5.0
Depth (feet)
3.5 - 6
7
7
6.0
5
7.0
Hand auger terminated at 6 feet due to caving soils

8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0

Phone: (704) 523-4726 Fax: (704) 525-3953
20
25
North Park Pond Dam

PROJECT:
HA-2
BORING LOG:
DATE PERFORMED: 3/19/2012
ELEVATION: 762.1 Feet
PERFORMED BY: BPC / NP
BORING DEPTH: 10 Feet
NORTHING:
EASTING:
WATER LEVEL: 6 Feet on 3/20/2012
574518
1446593
NOTES: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Testing

performed in general accordance with ASTM STP399.
Northing and Easting interpolated from provided
drawing and should be considered approximate.
HAND AUGER / DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER SOUNDING RECORD

DEPTH
(FEET)
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

Resistance (Blows/1-3/4")
DESCRIPTION
10
15
20
25
0.0
0 - 0.2

2
0.2 - 1
FILL: SANDY CLAY (CL) - soft, red orange
3
3
1.0
1-3
RESIDUUM: SILTY CLAY (CH) - firm, orange tan gray
2.0
6
6
3.0
3 - 4.3
SANDY SILT (ML) - stiff, red orange,

with clay lenses and rock fragments
4.0
24
25
5.0
CLAYEY SILT (MH) - stiff, gray tan orange

Depth (feet)
4.3 - 6
6.0
13
17
20
7.0
6 - 10
CLAYEY SILT (MH) - stiff, white orange gray,

with medium to fine sand
8.0
25
9.0
10.0
25
11.0
Hand auger terminated at 10 feet

12.0

Phone: (704) 523-4726 Fax: (704) 525-3953
ROD SOUNDING LOG

PROJECT
TEST
NUMBER
North Park Pond Dam

RS-1

ELEVATION
DEPTH
757.4 Feet
10 Feet
DEPTH
(ft)
NORTH
574,506
DRILL
METHOD
EAST
1,446,535
DRILLER
Rod Sounding
BLOW COUNT
DATE
4/4/2012
L. Campos
NOTES
BLOWS PER FOOT
0.5 ft
0.5 ft
TOTAL
13
20
13
16
29
17
16
33
22
30
52
25
50
75
100
10
15
Terminated at 10 feet
Form No. TR-D422-3
Revision No. 0
Particle Size Analysis of Soils
Revision Date: 02/20/08
ASTM D422
S&ME Project #:
Project Name:
Client Name:
Address:
Boring #:
Location:
Sample Description:
1.5"
Quality Assurance
S&ME, Inc. ~ 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard ~ Charlotte, NC 28273

1351-12-039 Phase 1
Report Date:
North Park Pond Dam
Test Date(s):
W.K. Dickson
Sample #: S-6
Sample Date:
Offset:
Elevation:
White Orange Gray Clayey Silt w/Medium to Fine Sand (MH)
HA-2
1" 3/4" 1/2"
4/4/12
3/24-4/4/12
3/8"
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
3/14/12
6.5-10'
#200
100%
90%
80%
Percent Passing
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
Particle Size (mm)

< 300 mm (12") and > 75 mm (3")
< 75 mm and > 4.75 mm (#4)
< 4.75 mm and >2.00 mm (#10)
< 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm (#40)
Cobbles
Gravel
Coarse Sand
Medium Sand
Maximum Particle Size:

Silt & Clay (% Passing #200):
Apparent Relative Density (Assumed)
Liquid Limit
Coarse Sand:
Description of Sand and Gravel
Mechanical Stirring Apparatus A
References / Comments / Deviations:
#20
85.0%
2.700
52
0.0%
Rounded
Fine Sand
Silt
Clay
Colloids
Gravel:
Total Sand:
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit
Medium Sand:
Angular
Dispersion Period:
0.0%
15.0%
39.7%
32
1.1%
Hard & Durable
1 min.
< 0.425 mm and > 0.075 mm (#200)

< 0.075 and > 0.005 mm
< 0.005 mm
< 0.001 mm
Dispersing Agent:
Silt
Clay
Colloids
Plastic Index
Fine Sand:
Soft
61.0%
24.0%
20
13.9%
Weathered & Friable
Sodium Hexametaphosphate:
40 g./ Liter
ASTM D 4318, D 854, D 2487
Luis Campos
Project Engineer
Technical Responsibility
Signature
Position
Date
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.
S&ME, Inc. - Corporate
3201 Spring Forest Road

Raleigh, NC. 27616
1351-12-039 Phase 1 HA-2 S-6 (6.5-10') Hydro.xls

Page 1 of 1
Form No. TR-D422-3
Revision No. 0
ASTM D422
S&ME Project #:
Project Name:
Client Name:
Address:
Boring #:
Location:
Sample Description:
1.5"
Quality Assurance

1351-12-039 Phase 1
Report Date:
North Park Pond Dam
Test Date(s):
W.K. Dickson
B-2
Sample #: S-3
Offset:
Orange Brown Medium to Fine Sandy Clay (CH)
1" 3/4" 1/2"
3/8"
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
4/4/12
3/24-4/4/12
Sample Date:
Elevation:
3/14/12
6-7.5'
#200
100%
90%
80%
Percent Passing
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
Particle Size (mm)

< 300 mm (12") and > 75 mm (3")
< 75 mm and > 4.75 mm (#4)
< 4.75 mm and >2.00 mm (#10)
< 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm (#40)
Cobbles
Gravel
Coarse Sand
Medium Sand

Liquid Limit
Coarse Sand:
#10
68.5%
2.700
61
0.4%
Rounded
Fine Sand
Silt
Clay
Colloids
Gravel:
Total Sand:
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit
Medium Sand:
Angular
Dispersion Period:
0.0%
31.5%
29.8%
26
9.3%
Hard & Durable
1 min.
< 0.425 mm and > 0.075 mm (#200)

< 0.075 and > 0.005 mm
< 0.005 mm
< 0.001 mm
Dispersing Agent:
Silt
Clay
Colloids
Plastic Index
Fine Sand:
Soft
26.0%
42.5%
35
21.8%
Weathered & Friable
40 g./ Liter
ASTM D 4318, D 854, D 2487
Luis Campos
Project Engineer
Signature
Position
Date

Raleigh, NC. 27616
1351-12-039 Phase 1 B-2 S-3 (6-7.5') Hydro.xls

Page 1 of 1
Form No. TR-D422-3
Revision No. 0
ASTM D422
S&ME Project #:
Project Name:
Client Name:
Address:
Boring #:
Location:
Sample Description:
1.5"
Quality Assurance

1351-12-039 Phase 1
Report Date:
North Park Pond Dam
Test Date(s):
W.K. Dickson
B-1
Sample #: S-5
Offset:
Grayish Brown Clay w/Medium to Fine Sand (CH)
1" 3/4" 1/2"
3/8"
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
4/4/12
3/24-4/4/12
Sample Date:
Elevation:
3/14/12
13.5-15'
#200
100%
90%
80%
Percent Passing
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
Particle Size (mm)

< 300 mm (12") and > 75 mm (3")
< 75 mm and > 4.75 mm (#4)
< 4.75 mm and >2.00 mm (#10)
< 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm (#40)
Cobbles
Gravel
Coarse Sand
Medium Sand

Liquid Limit
Coarse Sand:
#10
82.4%
2.700
52
0.1%
Rounded
Fine Sand
Silt
Clay
Colloids
Gravel:
Total Sand:
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit
Medium Sand:
Angular
Dispersion Period:
0.0%
17.6%
33.1%
28
3.9%
Hard & Durable
1 min.
< 0.425 mm and > 0.075 mm (#200)

< 0.075 and > 0.005 mm
< 0.005 mm
< 0.001 mm
Dispersing Agent:
Silt
Clay
Colloids
Plastic Index
Fine Sand:
Soft
41.4%
41.0%
24
13.6%
Weathered & Friable
40 g./ Liter
ASTM D 4318, D 854, D 2487
Luis Campos
Project Engineer
Signature
Position
Date

Raleigh, NC. 27616
1351-12-029 Phase 1 B-1 S-5 (13.5-15') Hydro.xls

Page 1 of 1

Geotech NorthParkPondWaterQual

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Geotech NorthParkPondWaterQual

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

North Park Pond Dam

W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc.

April 24, 2012

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

EXPLORATION PROCEDURES ............................................................................................ 2

AREA GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................ 5

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 9

GENERAL EARTHWORK/CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .................................... 12

SITE PREPARATION ......................................................................................................... 12

LIMITATIONS OF REPORT ................................................................................................. 15

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

S&ME Project No. 1351-12-039

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

S&ME Project No. 1351-12-039

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

S&ME Project No. 1351-12-039

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

S&ME Project No. 1351-12-039

2.1.3 Rod Soundings

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

S&ME Project No. 1351-12-039

Atterberg Limits Test: Atterberg Limits testing determines the plasticity

AREA GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Physiographic Provinces of North Carolina

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

S&ME Project No. 1351-12-039

Typical Piedmont Weathering Profiles (After Sowers/Richardson, 1983)

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

S&ME Project No. 1351-12-039

locations are described below. Additionally, Generalized Subsurface Profiles (Figures 3,

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

S&ME Project No. 1351-12-039

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

S&ME Project No. 1351-12-039

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.2.1 Existing Conditions

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

S&ME Project No. 1351-12-039

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

S&ME Project No. 1351-12-039

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

S&ME Project No. 1351-12-039

GENERAL EARTHWORK/CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

S&ME Project No. 1351-12-039

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

S&ME Project No. 1351-12-039

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

S&ME Project No. 1351-12-039

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

S&ME Project No. 1351-12-039

The assessment of site environmental conditions and the determination of contaminants

SITE VICINITY MAP

TEST LOCATION PLAN

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (feet)

CH, High Plasticity Clay

SM, Silty Sand

MH, High Plasticity Silt

ML, Low Plasticity Silt

9751 SOUTHERN PINE BOULEVARD

Diagram: Generalized Subsurface Profile

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (feet)