EARTHENGINEERINGINCORPORATED

Geo technical Engineers & Geologists

REPORT OFGEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

SCOTT HALL BUILDING ADDITIONGLOUCESTER COUNTY COLLEGE

1400 TANYARD ROADSE WELL

GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NEW JESERY

Prepared For: Gloucester County College1400 Tanyard RoadSewell, New Jersey 08080

EEl Project No. 25130.JO

January 20, 2012 (Revision #1)

Corporate Headquarters Southern Newv Jersey Central Pennsylvania Lehigh Valley15 W Germantown Pike, Suite 200 403 Commerce Lane 5010 Ritter Road, Suite 116 149 Main Street

East Norriton, PA 19401 West Berlin, NJ 08091 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Emmaus, PA 18049(610)277-0880 FAX 277-0878 (856)768-1001 FAX 768-1144 (717)697-5701 FAX 697-5702 (610)967-4540 FAX 967-4488

www.earthengineering.com eei@earthengineering.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................. .......................................... 1

I1. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS.................................................. 1

111. FIELD INVESTIGATION .............................. ..................................... 2

IV. LABORATORY TESTING.................................................................. 3

V. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................. 5Geology .................................................................................... 5Soils ....................................................................................... 5Groundwater ....................................................... ........................ 8

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 8Site Preparation............................................................................ 10Backfill and Compaction................................................................... 11Foundation Design Parameters............................. ............................. 12Excavation................................................................................ 14Dewatering................................................................................ 14

VII. GENERAL SOIL PROPERTIES ............................................. ............ 14

VilI. SITE SEISMIC CONDITIONS ........................................................... 15

IX. CONSTRUCTION QUALITY CONTROL ................................................ 15

X. LIMITATIONS ............................................................................. 16

APPENDIX

SITE LOCATION MAPBORING LOCATION PLANTEST BORING PROFILES

LABORATORY TEST RESULTSTEST BORING LOGS

I. INTRODUCTION

This report was prepared for Gloucester County College of Sewell, New Jersey and

contains the results of a geotechnical engineering investigation conducted for the proposed

building addition to be constructed at the Scott Hall Building located within the Gloucester

County College campus. The purpose of this investigation has been to define the stratification

of the subsurface soils and the engineering properties of these materials across the project site.

Based on the results of our field investigation and laboratory testing, geotechnical design

recommendations have been formulated.

The scope of work for this project included a subsurface field investigation, geologic

analysis of site conditions, laboratory testing program, and a geotechnical engineering analysis

of the data obtained. This investigation was performed in general accordance with EEl

Proposal No. WB-4597. This report summarizes the results of the work performed and

provides recommendations regarding foundation design, soil strength conditions, and general

foundation installation criteria.

1I. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS

The project site is located at 1400 Tanyard Road in Sewell, Gloucester County, New

Jersey. The proposed construction area currently consists of a grass covered tract of land

situated within the southeastern portion of the Gloucester County College campus. The subject

property is referenced on local tax maps as Block 417, Lot 1. The site is bordered to the south

and east by College Drive, to the north by the campus Library and Student Services buildings,

with the western portion of the project site bordered by an asphalt paved student/faculty parking

lot associated with the college campus. The topography within the project area slopes steeply

to gently downward from east to west. Based on site plans provided by Federici and Akin,

topographic estimates indicate maximum relief across the area of investigated is approximately

9.0 feet. The location of existing site features and the proposed building addition is presented

on the Boring Location Plan, EEl Drawing No. 25130.JQ-B-101, found within the Appendix. The

location of the site in reference to the surrounding area is presented on the Site Location Map,

also found within the Appendix,

Information provided to EEl by Garrison Architects indicates the proposed development

of the site will consist of constructing an addition to the existing Scott Hall Building. The Base

Bid Addition is expected to be one (1) story in height with a partial basement level and a

footprint measuring approximately 4,659 square feet. The Alternate Bid Addition is expected to

be one (1) story in height with a partial basement level and a footprint measuring approximately

9,241 square feet in plan area. The building is anticipated to be constructed using conventional

steel and masonry construction methods with bearing wall loads ranging from 4.9 to 5.8 kips

per foot. The finished first floor elevation for the proposed addition is expected to be situated at

an approximate elevation of +92.12 feet, while the finished basement floor elevation of the

proposed addition is expected to be situated at an approximate elevation of +82.12 feet. Based

on the existing topography, cuts up to approximately 4.4 feet and fills up to approximately 3.1

feet are expected to achieve the proposed grading within the area of the building addition.

III. FIELD INVESTIGATION

A series of three (3) standard earth borings, designated as B-i through B-3, were

performed to complete the proposed scope of work. The test borings were conducted by F.M.

& W. Drilling of Bellmawr, New Jersey on December 16 1h , 2011. The test boring program was

supervised by representatives of Earth Engineering Incorporated who field located the test

2

borings. It should be noted that the presence of underground utilities influenced the location of

test boring B-3. The location of each of the test borings is shown on the Boring Location Plan.

The test borings were conducted within the general footprint area of the proposed

building addition and extended downward to depths of 25.0 feet each below the existing ground

surface. The test borings were advanced using a truck mounted drill rig equipped with hollow

stem augers and split spoon samplers. Split-spoon samples, conducted in accordance with

ASTMV standard D1586, were taken throughout the entire depth of the borings. Standard

Penetration Test (SPT) values were recorded for each sample. The SPT values, which are a

measure of soil density and consistency, are the number of blows required to drive a 2-inch

(outer diameter) split-barrel sampler one foot using a 140-pound weight dropped 30 inches.

The number of blows required to advance the sampler over the 12 inch interval from 6 to 18

inches is considered the "N' value, or the SPT value which is recorded on the Boring Profiles,

EEl Drawing No. 25130.J0, Sheet 1 of 1, found within the Appendix. Test boring logs

containing sample depths, descriptions of materials encountered, and SPT values are also

included within the Appendix.

IV. LABORATORY TESTING

All soil samples were taken to EEl's soils laboratory and visually classified by our

engineers. In addition to visual classification, one (1) representative soil sample recovered from

the subsurface investigation was subjected to laboratory analysis. The laboratory testing

conducted on the sample consisted of standard classification testing, in accordance with ASTM

standard D2487, to verify visual classifications and to establish engineering parameters

required for foundation design analysis. The tests performed included Particle Size Analysis

(ASTM D422), Atterberg Limits Determination (ASTM D4318), and Natural Moisture Content

3

(ASTM D2216).

A Unified Soil Classification System (USOS) Group Symbol and ASTM Group Name

have been assigned to the soil based on the laboratory testing. The results of the laboratory

testing conducted on the representative soil sample are presented below in Table 1. A

gradation curve, graphically depicting the results of the particle size analysis, is presented

within the Appendix.

- TABLE I -Standard Classification Test Results

Boring Location TB-i & B-2

Sample Depths 2.5' - 8.0'

Stratum jStratum 11

Particle Size Distribution

Percent Passing Sieve 1.5' 100

3/4' 100

3/6 "100

NQ 4 100

NQ 10 99.8

NQ 40 99.4

NO 100 96.8

NII200 70.7

Atterberg Limits _____________

Liquid Limit Non-Plastic

Plastic Limit Non-Plastic

Plasticity Index Non-Plastic

Natural Moisture Content (percent) 21.3

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Group Symbol ML

ASTM Group Name Silt with Sand

4

V. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Geology

According to the Bedrock Geological Map of the Central and Southern New Jersey

prepared by the United States Geological Service in 1998, the area of investigation lies within a

geologic structural region known as the Coastal Plain. The Coastal Plain consists generally of

poorly consolidated sediments of Tertiary and Cretaceous age. The geologic formation of the

Coastal Plain sediments within the area of the project site is known as the Hornerstown

Formation (geologic symbol - Tht). This formation is of the lower Paleocene, Danian age and

consists predominately of sand, glauconite, fine to medium-grained, locally clayey, massive,

dark-gray to dusky-green; weathers dusky yellow or red brown, extensively bioturbated, locally

has a small amount of quartz at base. Glauconite grains are typically dark green and have

botryoidal shapes. The Hornerstown weathers readily to iron oxide because of its high

glauconite content. Based on the soil samples retrieved during the investigation, the residual

soils encountered within the test borings are characteristic of the Hornerstown Formation

described above.

Soils

Each of the soil samples recovered from the test boring investigation were examined

and visually classified by EEl, both in the field and in the laboratory. The surface of the site in

the area of the proposed construction was covered by topsoil ranging from approximately 7.0 to

12.0 inches in thickness. It should be noted that the determination of "topsoil" was a cursory

field evaluation not supported by laboratory testing. The topsoil's ability to support plants

and/or vegetation was not determined or implied by EEl. In addition, the depth or thickness of

topsoil is expected to vary across the project site area and may be more or less than those

stated above. It should also be noted that a 4.0 inch layer of asphalt was identified beneath the

5

surf icial topsoil in test boring B-1. This asphalt layer appears to represent a previously paved

walkway which once provided access between campus facilities.

Underlying this surficial material, the subsurface soil conditions encountered during the

investigation were generally uniform. Based upon the classifications of the soils, a generalized

subsurface soil profile was developed which consists of one (1) fill layer and three (3) naturally

occurring soil strata. Cross-sections of each test boring displaying the various strata and other

information obtained from the field investigation are included within the Appendix on the Boring

Profiles. The test boring information is also shown on the Boring Logs included within the

Appendix. A general description of the soils encountered is as follows:

FILL

The soil designated as FILL was only encountered in test boring B-3 immediately

beneath the surf icial topsoil and extended downward to a depth of approximately 1 .5 feet below

the existing ground surface. This soil was found to consist primarily of dark brown to orange to

brown fine to medium sand with varying secondary constituent amounts silt and gravel. The

FILL appears to represent soil placed during previous site construction activities.

An SPT (N) value of 10 blows on the sampling barrel per foot of penetration was

recorded during the sampling of this soil. Based on the SPT (N) value, the FILL material exists

in a loose density state. Visual classification of the FILL shows this soil to be marginally

granular and non-plastic.

STRATUM I

The soil designated as Stratum I was encountered in test borings B-i and B-3

immediately below the topsoil/asphalt layer or FILL soils and extended downward to depths

measuring approximately 2.5 (B-i) and 4.0 (B-3) feet below the existing ground surface. This

soil was found to consist primarily of brown to orange fine to coarse sand with varying

6

secondary constituent amounts of gravel and silt.

An SPT (N) value of 14 blows on the sampling barrel per foot of penetration was

recorded during the sampling of this soil. Based on the SIPT (N) value, the soils of Stratum I

exist in a medium dense state. Visual classification of Stratum I shows this soil to be generally

granular and non-plastic.

STRATUM 11

The soil designated as Stratum 11 was encountered in each test boring immediately

below the surficial topsoil and/or Stratum I and extended downward to depths ranging from

approximately 14.0 to 20.0 feet below the existing ground surface. This soil was found to

consist primarily of reddish orange to brown to tan fine sand with varying secondary constituent

amounts of silt.

SPT (N) values ranging from 6 to 13 blows on the sampling barrel per foot of

penetration were recorded during the sampling of this soil. Based on these SPT (N) values, the

soils of Stratum 11 exist in a loose to medium dense state. In general, the soils of Stratum 11

were found to be marginally granular. However, the upper zones of Stratum 11 were found to

contain abundant interlayers of gray to greenish gray sandy silt. Laboratory tests conducted on

a representative sample of the upper zones of Stratum 11 show this soil to be primarily fine-

grained (silt), non-plastic, and possess a natural moisture content of 21.3%. The upper zones

of Stratum 11 have been classified under the USOS classification system as Silt with Sand,

USOS group symbol of ML.

STRATUM III

The soil designated as Stratum Ill was encountered in each of the test borings

performed immediately below Stratum 11 and extended downward to the termination depths of

the test borings at approximately 25.0 feet below existing ground surface. This soil was found

7

to consist primarily of dark green to orange to brown silt with varying secondary constituent

amounts of fine to medium sand and clay.

SIPT (N) values ranging from 10 to 20 blows on the sampling barrel per foot of

penetration were recorded during the sampling of this soil. Based on these SPT (N) values, the

soils of Stratum Ill were found to range from stiff to very stiff in consistency. Visual

classification of Stratum Ill shows this soil to be generally fine-grained (silt and clay) and range

from slightly-plastic to non-plastic.

Groundwater

The static groundwater level was not encountered in any of the test borings performed

during the field investigation. Mottling of the soils, which maybe an indication of seasonal high

groundwater, was also not encountered during the investigation. It should be noted that these

observations were made at the time of the drilling operation and groundwater table elevations

may vary with daily, seasonal, and climatic variations.

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The geotechnical investigation has revealed that the proposed construction area is

underlain by the non-plastic, marginally granular soils referenced as FILL which are underlain

by the non-plastic, primarily granular soils of Stratum 1; which are underlain by the non-plastic,

marginally granular soils of Stratum 11; which are ultimately underlain by the slightly plastic to

non-plastic, fine-grained (silt and clay) soils of Stratum Ill.

As previously discussed, a building finished basement floor elevation of approximately

+82.12 feet is currently under consideration and is used for analysis within this report.

Construction at or near the anticipated bottom of foundation elevation (approximately +81.12

feet) will situate the base of the foundation elements on or above the Stratum I and/or Stratum

8

11 soils. Based on the geotechnical engineering data collected from the site, it is EEl's opinion

that the soils of Stratum 1, Stratum 11, and/or structural fill placed under engineering control are

capable of supporting foundation loads imposed by the installation of the proposed building

addition using a shallow foundation system.

Additionally, slab elements can be supported on the soils of Stratum 1, Stratum 11, and/or

structural fill placed under engineering control assuming the building pad is thoroughly proof-

rolled and compacted. Proof-rolling and subsequent fill placement to achieve the proposed

building pad subgrade elevation should be field inspected by a qualified representative of the

Geotechnical Engineer of Record.

Support of the soils beneath the existing Scott Hall Building foundations must be

maintained during construction to prevent settlement. Therefore, at no time shall the soils

below the existing footings be left unsupported. In order to avoid imparting additional load on

the existing adjacent building foundations, the base of new foundations should match the base

elevation of adjacent existing footings. Alternately, foundations bearing at different elevations

should be positioned (or stepped) so that the base of the closest points of the adjacent

foundations is located one horizontal to one vertical from the other. If these conditions cannot

be achieved, then shoring or underpinning of the existing foundations will be required.

The actual need and design of a shoring or underpinning system will be based on the

existing foundation bottom elevation and the material type below the existing foundation

elements. It is noted that the design of the shoring or underpinning system necessary to

provide support of the existing foundation elements is beyond the scope of this report.

Foundation construction between the existing Scott Hall Building and the proposed

basement slab level of the addition is expected to situate portions of the new foundation

elements on suspected fill soils placed during initial construction of the Scott Hall Building. Due

9

to site access issues, EEl was unable to investigate the subsurface material underlying this

portion of the proposed building addition. However, based on the fact that these fill soils were

utilized for support of the existing Scott Hall Facility, EEl expects that these soils will be suitable

for support of the proposed building addition provided they are absent of organic/deleterious

materials and that site preparation procedures are performed in accordance with this report.

Ultimately, the suitability of the fill soils for support of the building addition foundations should

be evaluated at the time of construction by a qualified representative of the Geotechnical

Engineer of Record.

The recommendation to support the proposed building addition on shallow foundations

is provided under the premise that site preparations as described in this report are followed.

Site preparation procedures are required to prepare the proposed foundation areas for

satisfactory support of the structure and will include removal of any unsuitable or deleterious

material encountered below the surface and proof rolling of the site. Details regarding site

development requirements are presented below.

Site Preparation

Initial site preparation measures should include the complete removal of all asphalt,

concrete walkway, and any deleterious materials including organics, topsoil, trees, and root

mass from within structural areas. Structural areas should be defined as those within the

confines of the proposed structure and areas extending a minimum of 5 feet beyond the

proposed building footprint. Structural areas should also include all paved areas and those

covered by concrete.

Following removal of these materials and immediately prior to the placement of any

structural fill, the proposed construction area should be proof-rolled and compacted. it is

recommended that a steel drum vibratory roller having a minimum static weight of 10 tons be

10

utilized for this purpose. Proof-rolling and compaction procedures are necessary to compact

and verify the integrity of the upper zones of the soils. Visual observation revealed portions of

the FILL exhibit elevated moisture contents. The elevated moisture state of these soils may

result in soft/loose zones that appear during the proof-rolling effort. Soft/loose zones of soil

attributed to excessive soil moisture can be aerated and dried in-place. Following adequate

drying time, the soils can be densified in-place. Alternately, any soft/loose zones of soil can be

removed and replaced with structural fill, as outlined in the Backfill and Compaction section of

this report. The proof-rolling effort should be observed and evaluated by a qualified

representative of the Geotechnical Engineer of Record.

Backfill and Compaction

Following the site preparation as discussed above, structural fill required to elevate the

site to the planned subgrade elevations may be placed. Any imported structural or load bearing

soil which is required should meet the following criteria:

- Free of organic matter, ash, cinders, and demolition debris

- Particle size distribution that is well graded

- Plasticity index less than 10

- less than 15 percent by weight rock fragments larger than 3", less than30 percent by weight larger than 3/4" and less than 30 percent by weightsmaller than the No. 200 sieve.

As previously discussed, visual evaluation performed on the FILL material along with

visual evaluation and laboratory testing performed on representative samples of Stratum I and

Stratum 11 show these soils are suitable for use as structural fill during site development. It

should be noted that the FILL and Stratum 11 soils contain large amounts of fine grained

material (silt and fine sand) which will prove difficult to place under engineering control during

adverse weather conditions. Currently, the Stratum 11 soils appear to exist in an excessively

11

moist state. These soils will require significant aeration and drying time if they are to be utilized

as structural fill. Aeration and drying of excessively moist soils are best accomplished in warm

dry summer months. No other sources of on-site soils are expected to be available during

development of the site. The recommendation for use of on-site soils as structural fill is based

on analysis of soil samples retrieved from the test borings. Confirmation of soil suitability

should be made during construction by a qualified geotechnical engineer.

Structural fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding ten (10) inches in loose thickness

and compacted with a smooth-drum vibratory roller having a minimum static weight of 10 tons.

The optimum lift thickness and number of repetitive passes with compaction equipment

necessary to achieve the required percentage compaction values should be determined in the

field with test passes of the chosen compaction equipment. All fill should be placed at the

optimum moisture content ± 3% as determined in accordance with ASTM standard D1557 and

compacted to a minimum percentage of the maximum dry density as indicated in Table 11.

- TABLE 11 -COMPACTION CRITERIA________

Fill Area Percent of Maximum Dry Density as___________________________________per ASTM Standard D 1557

Foundation Support Fill 95 __

Foundation Backfill 95

Slab-On-Grade, Parking Areas 95

Non-Structural ____ _______92

Foundation Design Parameters

After site preparation operations have been satisfactorily completed, native soil and/or

structural fill may be utilized for the support of the proposed building addition using shallow

foundation systems. The soil bearing conditions at the site were evaluated based on the

information derived from this investigation. The following conclusions and engineering

12

recommendations are provided regarding the proposed foundation elements:

- Shallow foundations consisting of conventional wall foundations may be used tosupport the structure.

- Wall foundations for the structure should not be less then 1 .5 feet in width.

- Foundations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000pounds per square foot (3000 PSF). The natural soils of Stratum 1, Stratum 11,and/or structural fill placed under engineering control are capable of supportingfoundation loads imposed by the installation of the proposed building additionusing a shallow foundation system.

- Exterior foundations and those in unheated areas should be placed a minimumof three (3) feet below final exterior grade to minimize the potential for frostheave.

- All foundation bottoms should be completely cleaned of loose material or debrisimmediately prior to the placement of concrete.

- The actual bearing conditions of the soil at the foundation subgrade elevationshould be confirmed in the field during excavation, by inspection under thesupervision of a Professional Engineer qualified in Geotechnical Engineering.

Given the above recommendations and design parameters, it is anticipated that total

settlement of the structure will not exceed 1.0 inches with maximum differential settlement of

foundation elements estimated to be less than 0.5 inches based on an allowable soil bearing

pressure of 3000 PSF.

It is emphasized that caution should be exercised in order not to disturb any foundation

subgrade soils. Should the foundation subgrade be disturbed during excavation, the soils

should be compacted in place or removed and replaced with structural fill. It is also

recommended that footing excavation and placement of concrete be performed during fair

weather conditions. Installation of the foundations should be carried out in accordance with

applicable ACl guidelines, under the direction of a licensed professional engineer.

13

Excavation

Excavation during site construction will take place in the soils referenced as FILL,

Stratum 1, and/or Stratum 11. Excavation of weathered or competent bedrock is not anticipated.

In general, these soils should provide minimal excavation difficulties using conventional

equipment and techniques.

Sloping, benching, or shoring of all construction excavation should be conducted in

accordance with 29 CER 1926, Subpart P. A competent person as defined by the

aforementioned regulation is required to confirm the stability of all excavations during

construction. The actual excavation wall slopes, benching, or shoring should be field

determined and should be based on the required depth of excavations and on the soil types

encountered.

Dewatering

As stated previously, groundwater was not encountered during the field investigation.

Therefore, removal of groundwater during foundation construction is not anticipated.

VII. GENERAL SOIL PROPERTIES

The lateral earth pressures that may be used for design purposes of retaining walls or

walls constructed below grade are shown in Table I1l. Retaining walls which are restrained from

deflection such as loading dock, basement, or other structure walls, should be designed for the

at rest (KO) condition. Retaining walls which are free to deflect such as landscaped walls should

be designed for the active (Ka) condition. The data for the FILL, Stratum I, Stratum 1I, and

Stratum Ill soils were determined based upon the laboratory testing and visual classification of

the site soil samples compared to generally accepted published values for the various

14

properties. It is recommended that a drainage system be installed for walls constructed below

grade. The presence of a drainage system will serve to minimize hydrostatic pressures caused

by water trapped against the walls.

-TABLE III -

Soil Properties For Computation of Lateral Loads

Soil Property FILL Stratum I Stratum 11 Stratum III

Angle of Internal Friction 30." 2.' 30.0" 28,00

Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure - Ka 0.33 0.31 0.33 0.36

Coefficient of Pssive Earth Pressure - Kp 3.00 3.25 3.00 2.77

Coefficient of At Rest Earth Pressure - K, 0.50 0.47 0.50 0.53

Coefficient of Sliding Friction 0.50 0.47 0.50 0.53

Moist Unit Weight (pcf) 120.0 125.0 120.0 115.0

ViII. SITE SEISMIC CONDITIONS

According to the 2006 International Building Code IBC Section 1615.1.1 Site Class

Definitions, and based on data from the borings and calculations performed by EEl, the

average properties in the top 100 feet correspond to Site Class D.

IX. CONSTRUCTION QUALITY CONTROL

The proposed development of this site will include earthwork activities, the quality of

which directly impacts the validity of the recommendations presented in this report. Based

upon past experience, the most effective and economical earthwork inspection is obtained

through the presence of a qualified representative of the Geotechnical Engineer of Record

during the placement of fill, and the installation of the foundation elements. Therefore, proof-

15

rolling, placement of the fill, and verification of the foundation subgrades should be tested and

confirmed by Earth Engineering Incorporated.

X. LIMITATIONS

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon the

subsurface data collected, details stated in this report, and the assumption that the subsurface

conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by the data acquisition activities

performed. Should conditions arise which differ from those specifically stated herein, our office

should be notified immediately so that our recommendations can be reviewed and revised, if

necessary.

Unless specifically indicated to the contrary in this report, the scope of this report is

limited to only investigations and evaluations of the geotechnical aspects of the site conditions

and does not include any considerations of potential site pollution or contamination. This report

offers no facts or opinions related to potential pollution or contamination on the site. The

procedures followed during the subsurface exploration, and the analyses and conclusions

contained herein, have followed generally accepted practices of geotechnical engineering. EEl

provides no other warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the professional advice

provided under the terms of EEl's agreement and included in this report. The conclusions and

recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that recognized proper,

construction practices will be followed throughout construction.

16

It is emphasized that this analysis was made for the proposed addition to be constructed

at the Scott Hall Building located within the Gloucester County College in Sewell, Gloucester

County, New Jersey. Earth Engineering Incorporated does not assume any responsibility in

using this report to generate foundation design other than at the specific site addressed.

Respectfully submitted,Earth Engineering Incorporated

Donato 0. DiRoccoSenior Geologist - New Jersey Division

Thomas B. Louis, P.E.Director - New Jersey DivisionNew Jersey Professional EngineerLicense Number GE-40918

17

APPENDIX

SITE LOCATION MAPBORING LOCATION PLANTEST BORING PROFILES

LABORATORY TEST RESULTSTEST BORING LOGS

It

it I

~I I l Ii IF ~- T IIF )I II Ii- -

FI F

t FF

Ft I 0

F I

f-,.~ r~gt,.@2bF N5rsW7r.ado t up le Alrgteefd

Sit Locati Map IScot HalBidngAdtoGluese Count Colg

F140 -7-- d oaSeel locse ConyewJre

EARTH

ENGINERIN

IF COPORFEFetcb a Enier & eloit

LLI

-J ~<zou

Ld- <

o <

co C14

1)

(nd

. %46

LL

0

0U WOLLL J

o Z

ouC-ju n

0 a.

110

L)

23

a) 30 >

C a:0 D

ca > ( 0:

o , (U~ - C

03(

('4 0.-.-. - -LL

o 0)

z

C3)C:

p z00 a

L) (V3

0

a00

O-Oal) 03IA31

Particle Size Analysis of Soils3" 11121 3/," W" W4 N21 0 N240 N21 00 N2200

100 7 Tr

~70-

S50-

S40

2 30

20-j

10 I _

1010 1 0.1 0.01

Sieve Opening, mm

SAs-rec'd water content: 21.3 moist Odor: NR Particle Size_____S% Gravel: 0.0 Coarse: 0.0 Fine: 0.0 US Standard Sieve Size Diameter, mm % Finer

% Sand: 29.3 Coarse: 0.2 Medium: 0.4 Fine: 28.7 3"75 ____

Gravel description: light brown, subrounded Coarse 11/2" 38.1 _____

__________________________ GRAVEL _____ 3/4" 19.0 ____

Sand description: light brown, subroundled Fin 9.5 ______

Fin N4 4.75 100.0Consistency: firm Hardness: NR Coarse N2 10 -2.00 99.8Cementation: NR Dry Strength: NR Medium NL) 40 0.425 9.

Structure: homogeneous Dilatency: NR SAND Ne 100 0.150 96.8Reaction to HCI: NR I Toughness: NR FieN2 200 0.075 70.7

USCS Classification: MIL, silt with sand .( Cav Size~ 0.0053 rI'lAASHTO Classification: A-4 0. 0ji~ ic,

__________________________ G: NR fC,,: N/A C - N/A

Project: 25130.JO - Scott Hall @ Gloucester County College LIL: NP P1L: NP PI: NPSClient: Federici & Akin, P.A. _________EARTH Corp FIQ

Sample: B-1:S-2 & B-2:S-4 ENGINEERING 610-277-0880

-Det- 2.5--- -8.0'D Central PA

Decito:Light brown silt, some fine sand 403 Commerce Ln - West Berlin NJ 0g8091761-50tel 856-768-1001 fax 856-768-1144 Lehigh Vailey

Remarks:

Clsiiaino Sois $II D 248-0 D 2488-0 Deeme 2221

ENGIN ERINGBORING BORING ____FF1N ERN SHEET --- OF

I NCORPORATED LOG DATE: START-1 2/1811

PROJECT~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ NAM Dct Hall2 Addtio !- GC RJC OAIN lwl.GocserCutNwJre

Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists SRAEND 1/61

PROJECT NUMBER 5130.J-4________ INSPECTOR NAME D. DiRocco______

EQUIPMENT USED CME-55 Truck Mounted Drill Rig DRILLER NAME/COMPANY F. M. & W. Drilling _________

DRILLING METHODS AuJer and Split Spoon Sampler ______________

AUGER: SIZE: ________ AUGER DEPTH:__ WATER. DEPTH: DRY TIME: .~ __DATE: ____

CHECKED BY: -______________, DATE: - -__ __ _ DEPTH: - TIME: ___ DATE: ____

____NOT ENCOUNTERED F-1

zZD in - r) I-- of

P O~ a- W > C Z 0-1 2o W> 0 0

a.c DESCRIPTION REMARKS0. Oz a:,

) cc a:

-0.0 DEP0.7 Topsoil F1 8VIO

10.0' NA N-0 Asphalt ______________8

2.0o__ __ __ Stratum I - Tan Fine to Coarse SAND with8 / 25 Gravel, Little Silt 8.

1.32. 84AS.tu0I-Brw ITSm laLtl2 Fin 13NASrtom Mediumow SndSoeCly Ltl

4.0 __ 5 _ 4.0 825

5 Stratum 11 - Light Brown SILT, Some Fine

3 4 1.5' NA to Medium Sand, Trace to Little Clay

-6.0 51 &0 50.5

6 Stratum 11 - Tan and Orange (Laminated)

4 1.5' NA SILT, Some Fine to Medium Sand, Little to5 Trace Clay

-8.0- _ _ 5 __________ _ 8.0 78,5

3 Stratum 11 - Tan and Orange Fine to5 54 1.2' -NA Medium SAND, Some Silt

-10.0 IT _ 3

.14.0 14.0 7253 .~ Stratum 11 - Green Fine to Medium SAND Mottled with Orange @ 14.0'

7 .5 NA and SILT, Little Clay

/6.0 10___

19.0-.---.._________ _______67.5

3 Stratum 11 - Green Fieto Medium SAND

7 55 1.6' NA .200o and SILT, Trace Clay ____ 66.5Stratum III - Green Fine to Co-arse SANDb

-21.0 Q ___ - __ 7_ and SILT

23T0______ 21~0 63 54 Stratum III - Green Fine to Coarse SAND

8 57 1.8' NA and SILT, Trace Clay

2509 ____25.0 51 5EO @ 25.0'

~D DRY, M= MOIST, W WET

BORNGBORING 0-ppmENGINEERING BOIGSHEET1 OF ___

LINCORPORATEfl LOG DATE: START 12/1611

Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists SURFACEELEV. (PT) 8-. 5. 7

PROJECT NAME Scott Hall Addition (a) GCC PROJECT LOCATION -- E0Gocse j! New Jem~e

PROJECT NUMBER 25130.JO ___INSPECTOR NAME D. DiRocco

EQUIPMENT USED CM-5TukMutdDilRg - DRILLER NAME/COMPANY F. M. & W. Drillig___

DRILLING METHODS Auger and Spit Spoon Sampler ________________________

AUGER: SIZE: ______ AUGER DEPTH: WATER: DEPTH: DRY TIME:____ DATE:-____

CH/ECKED BY: ______ _______ DATE:______ DEPTH: -____ TIME:_____ DATE:_____

_______NOT ENCOUNTERED 71

zFE. U- Uuj >- W z 0U- ~ a ZLI >O~ t- ( ~ LU

-0 0 zDESCRIPTION REMARKS

Cn 0 (0V

120 3 . 2.0 Medium Sand, Trace Clay53

4 0 6LADSmilht, race CLay ande Grave

3 1.4' NA 30t Medium SAND and SILY Trae.la

6-4 1.8'o eSit rc Ca n rae 17

3. SoeMtlig 60

45 1.6' NA

5

100 6

140 14.0 71.74 Stratum III - Green Fine to Medium SAND

6 58 1.9' NA and SILT, Little Ca

19, 667

_ 4 Stratum lII- Green Fine to Coarse SAND,

7 15 NA Some to Little Silt, Trace Clay

8 N21.0f5 141506. K, 1 -- 60 6.7 OB @25.0'

D =DRY, M MOIST, W - WET

WN I E R N BOI G 3RING NO. B--9-3ENINERN B RIGSHEET 1 OF 11

GeINCORPORATED LOG DATE START__1216111END 1-j2I16I11

Getechnical Engineers & Geologists ELE(l) 46

PROJECT NAME Scott Hall Addition P~ GC POJC LCTION Sewell, Gloucester CountNwere

PROJECT NUMBER 25130.JO INSPECTOR NAME D. DiRocco_____________

EQUIPMENT USED CME-55 Truck Mounted Drill Rig _____DRILLER NAMEICOMPANY F. M. & W. Drilling

DRILLING METHODS Auger and Split Spoon Sampler__ ______________________________

AUGER SIZE: ________ AUGER DEPTH. __ WATER: DEPTH: DRY TIME: ______DATE:______

CHECKED BY: ___ ___________ DATE: ____ DEPTH: -____ TIME: ______DATE:______

___ ___ ___NOT ENCOUNTERED Q

z SW~ LLW 0

Z U Lii U) W -

0 W> 0 I

n_ - 0 O -Ou ) o 0 cDESCRIPTION REMARKSw U)j 0 L U (

.U% Oz W WL U)~ ~

_______ ___ ___ ___ __ DIEPTH Ft FVATONI

302 0.6 Topsoil 8.

1 2.0' -NA Fill - Light Brown SILT, Little Fine to

8 5 Medium Sand and Clay 83.1

52 .'N9 Stratum I - Brown SILT, Some Fine to

4 ___. 40 Medium Sand and Gravel, Little Clay 80,6_ 5 ,. Stratum 11 - Light Brown SILT, Little Fine to Moist @ 4.0'

5 1,5' NA Medium Sand

10 5 . 78664 Stratum Il -Tan to Orange SILT, Little

-4 5 2.0' NA .70 Fine to Medium Sand, Trace Clay 77,66 5Stratum it - Tan to Orange SILT, Some

60 4__ Fine to Medium Sand, Trace ClaySoeMtln@8.

5 5 4 1.5' NA

140 6 4 14.2 70.4

Stratum Ill - Green Fine to Coarse SAND,6 6 1.8' NA Some Clay, Little Silt

190 __________ 65,6

_ 4 Stratum Ill - Green Fine to Coarse SAND,7 6 1.3' NA Trace Silt and Clay

2101

58 NA

60 __ 12 1__ 25,0 ___ ___59.6

EOB @25.0'

D DRY, M MOIST, W WET

110Jp"N I" O INGll E3ORING NCO 8---3

Gt ENl GINEERING SHEET -- L OF

EIN O P R T DLOG DATE: START 12-116111eoernc Enriners& (1rn4~cEND -1-2/16/11

0et-hia nines&Gooit SURFACE

ELEV. (FET) 84.6

PROJECT NAME Scott Hall Addition A GOC PROJECTILOCATION Sewell, Gloucester County ew Jersey

PROJECT NUMBER 25130.JO INSPECTOR NAME D. DiRocco

EQUIPMENT USED CME-55 Truck Mounted Drill Rig DRILLER NAME/COMPANY F. M. & W. Drilling

DRILLING ME IHODS Auger and Split Spoon Sampler___ ________________________________

AUGER; SIZE: _______ AUGER DEPTH:__ WATER; DEPTH: DRY TIME: ______DATE*______

CHECKED BY;:____________ DATE: - -____ DEPTH: -____ TIME: _____DATE:_____

___ ___NOT ENCOUNTERED F-1

Wc LL W >- cc 0Z J L r W W ] -W 0 LU > 0 F

-j ' C~ 0 1- DESCRIPTION REMARKSLI< 0j =o 0-

(aL 3Z Ld co 0

____ ___ ____DEPTH FR FVATlO"_00- 2 __ 0.6 Topsoil 8.

- - 1 3 7 2.0' -NA .5 Fill -Light Brown SILT, Little Fine to 8.Medium Sand and Clay 8.

2 59 1.1' NA Stratum I - Brown SILT, Some Fine to40 ____ 9 ____ 40Medium Sand and Gravel, Llite Clay 86

-5 Stratum It - Light Brown SILT, Little Fine to Moist @4.0'5-31' -N Medium Sand

5

4 trtm tTan to Orange SILT, Little-4 5 2.0' 7 N70 Fine to Medium Sand, Trace Clay 77,

5 Stratum it - Tan to Orange SILT, Some

4Fine to Medium Sand, Trace Clay Some Mottling @8.0'

5 5 4 1.5' NA

-- 142 Stratum IIl - Green Fine to Coarse SAND,10

6 6 1.8' NA Some Clay, Little Silt

19.0190 6564 Stratum IlI - Green Fine to Coarse SAND,

7 6 8 1.3' NA Trace Silt and Clay

210( 11 _

5- 8 6I8'NA

EOB @25.0'

D =DRY, M =MOIST, W= WET