GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS RESOURCE CONSULTANTS …

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS

RESOURCE CONSULTANTS

QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALISTS

2903 A 4th Ave •••• Conway, South Carolina 29527 •••• (843) 438-8253 FAX (843) 438-8255

9547 U.S. Highway 78 •••• Ladson, South Carolina 29456 •••• (843) 277-2518 FAX (843) 410-1182

March 28, 2017

Burroughs & Chapin 8820 Marina Parkway Myrtle Beach, SC 29572

Attn: Mr. Tom Needham

RE: Geotechnical Investigation and Foundation and Pavement Recommendation Brixx Pizza Commercial Duplex Horry County, South Carolina GeoMetrics No. BP-BC01-G1M

Dear Mr. Needham:

As authorized, GeoMetrics Consulting, LLC, has completed a geotechnical investigation and engineering analyses for the above referenced project. This report describes our findings from the geotechnical investigation. Included in this report are a brief description of the soil conditions encountered, the field and laboratory testing procedures and the results of our analysis. GeoMetrics understands that the project consists of the proposed construction of a one story 6,500 square foot commercial duplex facility located off Kings Highway (US Hwy 17, Bus) between 79th and 82nd Avenue North in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

INTRODUCTION A geotechnical investigation was performed within the proposed Brixx Pizza duplex facility. The primary objectives of this study were to gather information on the subsurface conditions at the site and to develop general recommendations for site preparation and the proposed foundations.

A site plan depicting the soil test boring locations is presented in Appendix I - Figures. The soil test boring logs are located in Appendix II - Soil Test Boring Logs. The laboratory results are presented in Appendix III – Laboratory Results. This report completes the geotechnical investigation outlined in the approved work plan.

FIELD EXPLORATION Two CPT soundings were performed using a track-mounted, direct-push rig that hydraulically advanced a fifteen (15) cm2 standard electro-piezocone through the underlying soil sub-strata. The CPT soundings were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 5778. The electro-piezocone directly measures and digitally records the point stress (Qt), local friction (Fs), and soil pore water pressure (u2) as the piezocone penetrates continuously through the soil strata during testing. Point stress is the measured stress in tons per square foot (tsf) placed on the tip of the electro-piezocone. The sleeve friction is the measured stress in tons per square foot on a friction sleeve located above the base of the cone tip of the piezocone. The pore water pressure is measured at the pore pressure element located behind the friction sleeve, in tons per square foot (tsf). A total of five shallow soil test borings were advanced manually with a bucket auger. Soil samples were collected and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer tests (ASTM STP-399) were performed at regular intervals to

N:\GEOTECHNICAL\BP-BC01-G1M Brixx Pizza\Report\BP-BC01-G1M Brixx Pizza.doc 2

boring termination depths. One infiltration test was also conducted on site. Testing was accomplished using a Turf-Tec® IN10 double-ring infiltrometer, in general accordance with ASTM D 3385. The locations of the borings and infiltration test are shown on the boring location plan included in Appendix I – Figures. The soil test boring logs are located in Appendix II - Soil Test Boring Logs. Collected soil samples were transported to the laboratory for further testing. The soils were visually examined and classified in general accordance with AASHTO M-245, ASTM D-2488 and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

LABORATORY TESTING Selected soil samples were tested in the laboratory to determine applicable physical and engineering properties. The laboratory testing program included determination of particle-size distribution (ASTM D422/AASHTO T-88), natural moisture content (ASTM D2216/AASHTO T-265), moisture-plasticity relationship (ASTM D4318/AASHTO T-89/90), and moisture density relationship (ASTM D698/AASHTO T-99). The tests were used to determine the behavioral characteristics of the soils as well as to verify field classifications described above. The laboratory results are presented in Appendix III – Laboratory Results.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The site is located in Horry County, South Carolina, which lies within the Lower Coastal Plain of the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. This province is characterized by sedimentary deposits of varying age and thickness. Specifically, the project site is located in the Lower Coastal Plain of South Carolina which is dominated by a series of low relic beach terraces which step downward toward the ocean. These terraces are the remnants of beaches that were formed in the relatively recent geologic past and typically consist of both beach barrier and back barrier facies. Based on topographic information obtained from Google Earth®, this site has an approximate average elevation between 33 feet above mean sea level (msl). This elevation places the site on the Talbot Terrace of the Lower Coastal Plain.

According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Soil Survey of Horry County, South Carolina, the near surface soils encountered on-site are predominately of the Lakeland (36B) fine sand series. This soil type are found near sandy marine deposits along coastal areas. They are excessively drained, low in organic matter content, and rapidly permeable. The shrink-swell potential is low. This soil type is poorly suited for most urban uses unless provisions are made for adequate drainage.

The site is currently paved with bituminous pavement. Beneath the pavement the geotechnical soundings and borings indicate soil stratification can be essentially classified by a single stratum. Variations in soil composition within each stratum may occur; however, general behavioral characteristics should be similar. This stratum extends to the depth of exploration at approximately 35 feet beneath the existing ground surface. It is comprised of loose to very dense poorly graded sands containing varying amounts of non-plastic silts and low plasticity fine grained materials. The point stress (Qt) for the soils of this stratum ranged from 3.78 to 414.95 tsf. The sleeve friction (Fs) ranged from 0.15 to 3.71 tsf and the pore water pressure (u2) varied from 0.00 to 0.87 tsf. The Dynamic Cone Penetrometer resistance values in the upper 5 feet of this stratum, when converted to Standard Penetration Resistance (N60), ranged from 5 to 12 blows per foot of penetration.

Indicated in the table below are the results of the laboratory testing of selected soil samples.


Laboratory Testing Results

Boring ID

Soil Description Depth USCS Class

MC %

% Finer than #200

LL PL PI

HA-1 Coquina Base 0.5 ft SM 14.0 20.6 NP NP NP

HA-1 Light brown poorly

graded SAND 5 ft SP 3.3 1.9 NP NP NP



HA-3 Dark brown poorly


HA-4 Brown poorly graded

SAND 2 ft SP 5.4 2.9 NP NP NP



MC: Moisture content; LL: Liquid Limit; PL: Plastic Limit; PI: Plasticity Index; NP: Nonplastic.

GROUNDWATER One test pits were excavated within the alignment of the proposed exfiltration drainage system at the subject property coinciding with the location of infiltration tests. The elevation of the seasonal high water table was determined at each location by noting the depth along the wall of the test pit at which soil mottling began to occur or by noting the depth along the wall of the test pit at which the soil was noted to be visibly wet. At the location of infiltration testing, the seasonal high water table was not encountered to a depth of 8 feet below existing grades. Ground water elevations will be largely controlled by climatic and seasonal conditions. The ground water surface is subject to rise on a regular basis as a result of precipitation and/or infiltration. Capillary rise within the soil pore spaces will also affect groundwater levels. Establishing good site drainage prior to construction and maintaining good site drainage during and after construction can minimize the effects of shallow and/or fluctuating ground water.

INFILTRATION TESTING One infiltration tests were performed in the areas proposed to be paved with pervious concrete Testing was accomplished using a Turf-Tec® double-ring infiltrometer, in general accordance with ASTM D 3385. At infiltration location, the 18-inch deep rings of the double ring apparatus were driven four inches into the soil approximately four feet below grade. Water was introduced into the inner and outer rings until a constant head could be maintained in the outer ring. After stabilizing the water level in the outer ring, the inner ring was filled with water to a depth of approximately 12 inches and the rate of water level decline was measured with a rule and stopwatch. Measurements were continued until the incremental infiltration rate stabilized. The infiltration rate for each location is the final cumulative infiltration rate. The results of the tests are as follows:


Test Location (33.74974° N, 78.81399° W)

Elapsed Time

(h:mm:ss)

Time Increment

(hr)

Total Infiltration

(in)

Incremental Infiltration

(in)

Incremental Infiltration

Rate (in/hr)

Cumulative Infiltration

Rate (in/hr)

0:00:00 0.00 0.00 0 0

0:01:00 0.02 1.50 1.50 90.00 90.00

0:05:00 0.07 8.13 6.63 99.38 97.50

0:15:00 0.17 17.13 9.00 54.00 68.50

0:30:00 0.25 22.00 4.88 19.50 44.00

1:00:00 0.50 24.25 2.25 4.50 24.25

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS The southeastern United States has complex geologic history. Specific geologic structures or faults capable of generating large seismic events have not been well identified. The Charleston Epicentral Area includes the area around Charleston and Bowman, South Carolina. An abnormally high historic seismic activity level distinguishes this area from the remainder of the Coastal Plain, which has virtually no recorded seismic activity. In August, 1886, one of the most destructive seismic events in U.S. history struck the Charleston area. This seismic event had an epicenter approximately 90 miles southwest of the proposed building site. This earthquake of epicentral intensity of Mercalli Magnitude X was perceptible over an area of more than two million square miles. More than 400 seismic events of lesser intensity have been recorded in the Charleston/Summerville area. The earthquake ground motion parameters used in this report were obtained from maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey which take into consideration the Charleston Epicentral Area seismic history.

Construction in Horry County is subject to the requirements of the International Building Code, 2015 edition. According to the International Building Code, a seismic event having a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years is to be used as the design seismic event. This seismic event is also termed the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE). Such an event has a return period of approximately 2,500 years. Based on seismic maps published by the U.S. Geologic Survey, the mapped peak ground acceleration for this site is 0.227g (7.31 ft/sec2).

The Site Class for this site was determined in general accordance with the International Building Code and ASCE 7. Site Class definitions are given in the table below.


Site Class Definitions

Site Class

Soil Profile Name

Average Properties in top 100 feet

Soil Shear Wave Velocity, vs, (ft/s)

Standard Penetration

Resistance, N

Soil Undrained Shear Strength, su,

(psf)

A Hard Rock vs > 5,000 Not Applicable Not Applicable

B Rock 2,500 < vs ≤ 5,000 Not Applicable Not Applicable

C Very dense soil and soft rock 1,200 < vs ≤ 2,500 N > 50 su ≥ 2,000

D Stiff soil profile 600 ≤ vs ≤ 1,200 15 ≤ N ≤ 50 1,000 ≤su ≤ 2,000

E Soft soil profile vs < 600 N < 15 su < 1,000

E -

Any profile with more than 10 feet of soil having the following characteristics:

Plasticity Index, PI > 20; Moisture content, w ≥ 40%; and,

Undrained shear strength, su < 500 psf.

F -

Any profile containing soils having one or more of the following characteristics:

Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic loading such as liquefiable soils, quick and highly sensitive clays, collapsible weakly cemented soils;

Peats and/or highly organic clays (H > 10 feet of peat and/or highly organic clay, where H = thickness of soil);

Very high plastic clays(H > 25 feet with PI > 75); and, Very thick soft/ medium stiff clays (H > 120 feet.

Based on the information contained in the table, the soils at this site appear to meet the criteria for Site Classes D, or F. To determine which Site Class is to be used at this site a liquefaction analysis was conducted. The liquefaction analysis was conducted using the most recent Ishihara and Yoshimine simplified procedure for determining liquefaction potential. The degree of excess pore water generation is a function of the initial density of the sand layer, its fines (silt sized particles or smaller) content, and the level and duration of seismic shaking. If the layer is initially loose enough, pore pressures can be generated which exceed the confining stress. At this state, effective intergranular stresses between the sand grains do not exist and a complete loss of shear strength is experienced. This loss of strength is termed liquefaction. As pore pressures dissipate following the cessation of earthquake shaking, intergranular contact is re-established within the sands; however, the sands may form in a more compact structure than previously existed. This would result in some volume change of the soil with resulting surface settlements.

Based on the non-cohesive composition of the soils in the sand stratum of the investigated soil profile, potential for liquefaction exists at this site. The anticipated total thickness of liquefiable soils is estimated to be approximately 15 feet, and liquefaction induced settlements are predicted to be approximately 3.6 inches with differential settlements varying from 1.8 to 2.4 inches. Recent studies1 indicate that settlements of this magnitude are likely to cause light to no damage as indicated in the table below. The amount of anticipated settlement was determined using the procedures developed by Ishihara and Yoshimine.

1 Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992) ”Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During

Earthquakes”


Relation between approximate settlements and damage extent (Ishihara, 1992)

Extent of damage Settlements

(in) Phenomena on the ground surface

Light to no damage 0 ~ 4 Minor cracks

Medium damage 4 ~ 12 Small cracks, oozing of sand

Extensive damage 12 ~ 28 Large cracks, spouting of sands,

large offsets, lateral movement

According to the Code, since this site has the potential for liquefaction the site is classified Site Class F; however, since the fundamental period of the structures is likely to be less than 0.5 second the site coefficients Fa and Fv may be determined as if the site were classified Site Class D. GeoMetrics has developed the smoothed spectral acceleration curve for this site. The design spectral response (SDS) is calculated to be 0.423g (13.62 ft/sec2) while the 1-second design spectral response (SD1) is 0.228g (7.34 ft/sec2). A graphic representation of the MCE design response spectrum for this site is provided in Appendix I – Figures.

SITE PREPARATION These guidelines discuss general site grading issues that should be implemented by the selected site-grading contractor. The recommendations are not intended to replace the project plan notes or specifications. Should any discrepancies be noted between these recommendations and other project documents, the more stringent specification should be observed.

Soil test boring data and site reconnaissance indicate that the in-situ near surface soils are generally coarse-grained (i.e. sands) which are typically only moderately moisture sensitive. Nevertheless, these soils should be manipulated and maintained under controlled conditions. Excess moisture will cause loosening and loss of strength. It will be imperative that the site be graded to allow for storm water runoff. We anticipate the near surface moisture contents being greater after extended periods of wet weather.

Select fill materials should be used to raise the site grades and to replace unsuitable material, if necessary. All fill soils should be placed in compacted lifts of no more than twelve inches in thickness. All fill soil should be compacted to 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-698). Based on laboratory testing, the near surface on-site soils appear to be suitable for use as fill materials. Select fill soils should meet the criteria shown in the table below.

Recommended Select Fill Gradation

USCS Classification

Passing #200 Sieve (%)

Liquid Limit (%)

Plasticity Index (%)

Maximum Dry Density (lb/ft3)

Organic Content

(%)

SP <5 NP NP >105 <1

SP-SM <12 <40 <10 >100 <1

All fill soils should be placed with moisture contents not exceeding three percent (3%) over optimum. It is the responsibility of the grading contractor to select the most appropriate fill soil for the site conditions and time of year. Although a fill criterion has been established, many variations


in composition are possible, each having varying characteristics of moisture sensitivity, drying and compaction. It is essential that the grading contractor have extensive experience in using local fill soils in difficult site applications. It will be the responsibility of the contractor to use whatever means and methods are necessary to properly import, place, dry and compact all fill soils. Depending on the location and conditions of the fill placement, the grading contractor should determine whether static or dynamic compacting is appropriate.

GeoMetrics recommends a testing interval of no less than one compaction test for every 2,000 square feet per lift of placed fill. This applies to the select fill materials used to obtain the proposed finished grades. For fill and backfill areas having areas less than 2,000 square feet, a testing frequency of 3 tests per lift should be used. For trenches, a testing interval one test for every 250 linear feet of trench should be used.

ORGANIC MATERIAL Based on the soil borings, approximately four inches or less of surface organic soils and organic debris will typically be encountered in unpaved areas of the site. The thickness of topsoil may vary naturally across the site. Localized areas having deeper organic materials may be encountered.

If the removal of buried organic material extends below the ground water table, the excavation should be backfilled with #57 stone or other open graded stone to approximately six (6) inches above ground water table. A soil separation fabric such as TNS R060 or equivalent should be placed on top of the stone. This fabric will prevent granular backfill from entering the void spaces in the stone. Properly compacted backfill meeting the criteria discussed later in this report should be used. Regardless of the extent of organics encountered across the site, all organic soils and debris must be removed from within structural and pavement areas.

If placement of fill is necessary to bring the lot to required grades, such fill should be placed in compacted lifts of no more than 12 inches thickness. Compaction of each lift of fill to 95% of maximum density as determined by ASTM D698 should be verified by testing.

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS The subsurface investigation reveals potentially liquefiable non-cohesive soils at this site. Unless a determination is made that building structural systems cannot be designed to withstand the predicted liquefaction induced settlement without catastrophic failure, a shallow foundation system is recommended for support of the proposed structure.

A shallow foundation system consisting of a monolithic slab with thickened, turned down edges is recommended for support of the proposed structure where wall loads are no greater than four kips per linear foot.

Geotechnical exploration of the site reveals loose to medium dense consistency fine to medium grained sands near the surface of this site. The results of the analysis for the allowable bearing capacity and projected settlement magnitudes reveal an average maximum allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot for the proposed structures, provided soil compaction and drainage recommendations for the site are followed.

The foundation systems should consist of monolithically placed, thickened edge concrete slabs-on-grade. The thickened edges should extend at least 12 inches beneath the finished exterior grade and should have a width of at least 16 inches to protect against general and/or punching shear failure of the bearing soils. The turned-down edge foundations should slope upwards into the slab-on-grade at 1V:1H. Reinforcing steel from the foundations should extend into the slab-on-grade.


A representative of the Geotechnical Engineer should perform foundation inspections to confirm that the design allowable soil bearing capacity is applicable. The foundation bearing surface evaluations should be performed using a combination of visual observation, hand rod probing, and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer testing (ASTM STP-399).

If the foundation is constructed during the “wet” weather season, additional excavation may be required. Wet footing subgrade soils should be removed to drier material and the undercut material replaced with either properly compacted backfill or an open-graded aggregate, such as No. 57 or No. 67 stone. If the depth of undercutting is greater than two feet, the foundation excavation should be widened one foot in both directions.

Each foundation excavation should be thoroughly cleaned of loose and deleterious material and compacted using a mechanical tamper prior to placing any steel or concrete. Soft, loose, or otherwise questionable soils should be stabilized by compacting in-place or by removing such unsuitable soil and replacing with a competent material. After foundation excavations have been stabilized, a six-inch lift of crushed stone (No. 57 or No. 67) should be placed in the bottom of the excavation to promote effective drainage. Prior to placing concrete, longitudinal reinforcing steel should be placed properly within all foundation elements in order to further stabilize the foundation system.

Based on the allowable bearing capacities previously indicated and the use of Schmertmann’s procedure, the total static settlements are anticipated to be less than one inch. Differential settlements will be on the order of one-half the total or one-half inch. This settlement is applicable for wall loads less than three kips per linear foot and with contact pressures no greater than 2,000 psf.

It is imperative that the slab-on-grade bearing soils be compacted to the required density in order to provide stability beneath the floor slabs and anticipated live loads. The modulus of subgrade reaction, k, was developed by Westergaard as a measure of soil strength beneath slabs-on-grade that do not support column and/or wall loads. The values of k beneath the floor slabs increase with additional densification and stability.

Using Beam-on-Elastic foundation theory on the strength of soils beneath floor slabs not supporting structural loads, a Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) of 175 pounds per cubic inch may be used to design slabs-on-grade. Proper compaction of the fill soils is critical to the performance of these soils as structural support for the slab-on-grade. The required design slab thickness will be a function of the soil k-value. An enhanced k-value would result in a thinner required design slab thickness. Enhanced k-values may be achievable through the placement of properly compacted select fill. The grade slab should be suitably reinforced and jointed in general accordance with requirements of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) and local construction practices. The joints should be flexible enough to allow for a small amount of independent movement between adjoining sections of grade slab without causing damage.

A granular mat, consisting of free-draining coarse granular material should be provided between the floor slab and the sub-grade soil. The use of granular material will help limit water migration from the sub-grade soils to the floor slab. This layer should have a minimum thickness of four inches. A vapor retarder such as a high density polyethylene sheet or similar material should be placed over the granular mat. The vapor retarder should be a Class A material. This material will aid in the reduction of moisture migration.


PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The long-term traffic pattern will likely consist of passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks with periodic use by heavy-duty delivery and refuse collection vehicles. Pavements have been designed to accommodate 10,000 18-kip equivalent single axle loads (ESALs) over a 20-year design life in the case of standard duty pavements, and 75,000 ESALs for heavy duty pavements. Construction traffic will impose at least as severe loads as the design traffic, as is the case with most developments. It will be essential that construction traffic be controlled and that access be limited once pavements are placed.

According to the soil test borings and site reconnaissance, the near surface soils will exhibit “fair” to “good” Soil Support Values. A Soil Support Value of 2.5, a Terminal Serviceability Index of 2.0 and a Structural Number of 2.76 were used for design of the heavy duty flexible pavement; a Structural Number of 1.96 was used for the light duty flexible pavement. Depending upon the severity of the unstable soils, if encountered, additional excavation and/or the installation of geo-grid may be required. We recommend that any unstable areas (pumping more than two inches) be excavated a minimum of twelve inches and replaced with a good granular select fill. Marginal areas (pumping less than two inches) should be covered with one layer of geo-grid such as Tensar BX 1200. Should such excavation be required, both the excavation and backfill procedures should be closely monitored.

All of the issues mentioned in this section must be evaluated prior to preparing a final pavement design; however, the following pavement sections have been identified and developed based upon the soils encountered during the field investigation, the anticipated traffic, construction cost considerations, and experience with similar developments.

Recommended Pavement Sections

Heavy Duty – Flexible (Truck parking and traffic)

Sub-base: Twelve inches – Compacted, non-rutting subgrade Base: Eight inches - Graded Aggregate Base Course (SCDOT §305) Binder: One and one half inches – HMA Intermediate Course (SCDOT §402, Type C) Surface: One and one half inches - HMA Surface Course (SCDOT §403, Type C) Light Duty – Flexible (Auto and light truck parking)

Sub-base: Twelve inches – Compacted, non-rutting subgrade Base: Six inches - Graded Aggregate Base Course (SCDOT §305) Surface: Two inches - HMA Surface Course (SCDOT §403, Type C) Heavy Duty – Rigid (Dumpster Pads)

Sub-base: Twelve inches – Compacted, non-rutting subgrade Base: Four inches - Graded Aggregate Base Course (SCDOT §305) Surface: Six inches - Portland Cement Concrete Surface Course (SCDOT § 501)

All pavement components (base, asphalt and concrete) should meet the latest SCDOT requirements (Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, 2007 Edition).

The base course should be placed in a maximum six-inch compacted lift thicknesses and compacted to ninety-eight percent (98%) of the soils’ modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557/AASHTO T-180). All proposed base-course materials should be approved by the Engineer prior to placement on-site. Once the sub-base has been developed, placement of the base course


can be initiated. The G.A.B. should be placed at or near optimum moisture content (± 3%). G.A.B. having moisture contents higher than three percent (3%) above optimum should be stockpiled and allowed to dry before placement.

Damage and/or distress of the pavement can occur from careless equipment operation. Also, damage of the pavement edges can occur from excessive loading. Precautions should be taken to minimize the impact of the construction traffic on the pavements by limiting access and properly monitoring all construction operations.

The recommended pavement cross-section has been determined based on structural performance criteria associated with the Site Preparation section of this report and from locally established and accepted good engineering practice. It is recommended that in-place compaction tests be performed on the fill soils and base course material in order to verify sufficient density.

Reinforced concrete slab pavements are recommended for repetitive heavy axle load areas (e.g.: dumpster pad areas and/or loading docks) in order to provide a more durable wearing surface. Reinforced concrete slab pavements should also be utilized in areas adjacent to buildings, which are difficult to access with paving equipment and rollers. The concrete used in the rigid pavement should have a minimum modulus of rupture 475 psi (fc’ = 3,000 psi), a maximum slump of 4 inches, and air entrainment of 5% (± 1%). In addition, the concrete should meet the requirements of the Portland Cement Association (PCA). Pavement joints, reinforcing and details should be designed in accordance with the applicable PCA standards.

Subgrade under-drains (aggregate or strip, as appropriate) should be installed adjacent to all pavements where landscape irrigation systems are present. The under-drains should be installed at such a depth that the excess runoff is collected and proper slope can be achieved to remove the runoff. This will help prevent the base and sub-base from becoming saturated from excess runoff.

STANDARD OF CARE GeoMetrics Consulting, LLC, has performed this engineering study in a manner consistent with the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar circumstances. The design recommendations in this report incorporate industry standards and procedures and are based on the in-situ soil conditions encountered in the test borings, the laboratory testing program, the analysis of the site and subsurface conditions, and previous experience. If subsurface conditions are discovered during construction that differ from the soils encountered during the field investigation, GeoMetrics should be contacted to evaluate the impact of the identified conditions on the pavements. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Burroughs & Chapin and their design team for the specific application to the proposed development of a one story 6,500 square foot commercial duplex facility located off Kings Highway (Hwy 17 Bus) between 79th and 82nd Avenue North in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

Sincerely,

GeoMetrics Consulting, LLC

Jeremy D. Cox, E.I.T. James B. Jensen, P.E. Associate Geotechnical Engineer Principle

APPENDIX I

Figures

Figure 1

1

115

15

17

17

176

176

178

178

178

17A

21

21

21

221

221

25

25

25

278

278

29

301

301

321

321

321

378

378

401

501

52

52

521

521

601

601

601

701

76

76

76

78

20

20

26

85

26

385

77

95

95

26

95

Congaree Swamp NM

Ninety Six NHS

Cowpens NB

Kings Mountain NMP

Great Pee Dee River

Santee river

Brood River

L. Greenwood

L. Jocassee

L. Keowee

L. Moultrie

Wateree L.

L. Wylie

Hartwell Res.

L. Marion

L. Murray

ABBEVILLE

AIKEN

ALLENDALE

ANDERSON

BAMBERG

BARNWELL

BEAUFORT

BERKELEY

CALHOUN

CHARLESTON

CHEROKEE

CHESTER

CHESTERFIELD

CLARENDON

COLLETON

DARLINGTON

DILLON

DORCHESTER

EDGEFIELD

FAIRFIELD

FLORENCE

GEORGETOWN

GREENVILLE

GREENWOOD

HAMPTON

HORRY

JASPER

KERSHAW

LANCASTER

LAURENS

LEE

LEXINGTON

MCCORMICK

MARION

MARLBORO

NEWBERRY

OCONEE

ORANGEBURG

PICKENS

RICHLAND

SALUDA

SPARTANBURG

SUMTER

UNION

WILLIAMSBURG

YORK

Andrews

Bamberg

Calhoun Falls

Clover

Edgefield

Fairfax

Fountain Inn

Great Falls

Hampton

Kingstree

Landrum

Loris

Lugoff

Manning

Moncks Corner

Murrells Inlet

Pageland

Pendleton

Springdale

Springfield

St. Matthews

Walhalla

Whitmire

Williston

Winnsboro

Barnwell

Beaufort

Belton

Bennettsville

Brookdale

Chester

Darlington

Dillon

Hartsville

Lake City

Mullins

Newberry

Parris Island

Walterboro

York

Anderson

Florence

Rock Hill

Spartanburg

Aiken

Berea

Cayce

Conway

Easley

Gaffney

Georgetown

Goose Creek

Greenwood

Hilton Head Island

Ladson

Laurens

Mount Pleasant

Myrtle Beach

Orangeburg

Seven Oaks

Sumter

Union

Wade Hampton

Charleston

Greenville

North Charleston

Columbia

Brixx Pizza

Vicinity Map Brixx Pizza

Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

Prepared For:

Burroughs & Chapin Co., Inc. Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

GeoMetrics No.

BP-BC01-G1M

March 24, 2017

Figure 2

Location Map Brixx Pizza


Prepared For:


GeoMetrics No.

BP-BC01-G1M

March 24, 2017

Figure 3

Boring Location Plan Brixx Pizza


Prepared For:


GeoMetrics No.

BP-BC01-G1M

March 22, 2017

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

MCE Spectral

Acceleration, Sa(g)

Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground MotionSite Class F Fa = 1.450 Fv = 2.168

3

Latitude = 33.74994° N Longitude = 78.81443° W

5% Structural Damping

SDS = 0.423g

SD1 = 0.228g

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

MCE Spectral

Acceleration, S

Period, T (sec)

NOTES:1. 2% Probability of Exceedancein 50-Year Seismic Event;2. Spectral Acceleration Curve reduced by 1/3 per IBC 1615.2.43. Fa and Fv determined as permitted by Note b, Table 1615.2 (vibration period taken as < 0.5 sec) Burroughs & Chapin Company, Inc.


GeoMetrics No:BP-BC01-G1M

Design Response SpectrumBrixx Pizza


March 22, 2017spect accel.xls

Figure No:4

T0= 0.107 sec

TS= 0.534 sec

APPENDIX II

Soil Boring Logs

Sands-Clean Sand to SiltySand

Sand Mixtures-Silty Sandto Sandy Silt




Electronic File Name: B21M1702C.DAT

Depth(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Friction RatioRf

(%)2 4 6 8

Tip Resistanceqt

(tsf)40 80 120 160

Sleeve Frictionfs

(tsf)1 2 3 4 -0.6 0.8 2.2 3.6

u0

Pore Pressureu2

(tsf)-0.6 0.8 2.2 3.6

1.758 ft

Cone Size:

35.8 ftMaximum Reaction Force

Brixx PizzaMyrtle Beach, SC

C-1

Total Depth:Termination Criteria:

Date:Estimated Water Depth:

Rig/Operator:

Project Number :17-026

Page 1 of 1

Mar. 21, 2017

M. Cox | J. Croom

CP

T R

EP

OR

T -

ST

AN

DA

RD

BR

IXX

PIZ

ZA

.GP

J D

F S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

3/

23/1

7

Northing:Easting:

Elevation:

Depth(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

SBT Fr NormalizedMAI = 1(1990)

1 10 100

Equivalent N60

>>

>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>

>>

Cone Penetration Test C-1






Electronic File Name: B21M1701C.DAT

Depth(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Friction RatioRf

(%)2 4 6 8

Tip Resistanceqt

(tsf)40 80 120 160

Sleeve Frictionfs

(tsf)1 2 3 4 -0.6 0.8 2.2 3.6

u0

Pore Pressureu2

(tsf)-0.6 0.8 2.2 3.6

1.756.5 ft

Cone Size:

35.2 ftMaximum Reaction Force

Brixx PizzaMyrtle Beach, SC

C-2

Total Depth:Termination Criteria:

Date:Estimated Water Depth:

Rig/Operator:

Project Number :17-026

Page 1 of 1

Mar. 21, 2017

M. Cox | J. Croom

CP

T R

EP

OR

T -

ST

AN

DA

RD

BR

IXX

PIZ

ZA

.GP

J D

F S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

3/

23/1

7

Northing:Easting:

Elevation:

Depth(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

SBT Fr NormalizedMAI = 1(1990)

1 10 100

Equivalent N60

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>

Cone Penetration Test C-2

Asphalt 1 1/4"Coquina Base, yellowish brown, 51/2"

Medium dense poorly graded SAND,light brown, SP

Loose poorly graded SAND, lightbrown, SP

Boring terminated at 5 ft

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

0.1

0.6

1.0

5.0

13

7

6

5

8

12

7

4

5

7

11

8

6

6

7

12

8

6

6

8

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer ForShallow In-situ Testing (Sowers &Hedges)

N V

alue

Drilling Method: Manual Auger with Continuous Sampling

Ref:

COMMENTS

Gra

phic

Brixx Pizza

BP-BC01-G1M

Log


(msl

)

2nd

incr

.

3rd

incr

.

LOG OF BORING No. HA- 1Location:

Offset:

Casing Length: N/A

Water Level: Not encountered

1st

incr

.

Supervisor: Jared DunnDate Drilled: March 21, 2017

Casing Length: N/AD

epth

(ft) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Sam

ple

Dep

th(f

t)

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Ele

vatio

n

Ground Elevation (msl):

2903A Fourth AvenueConway, South Carolina 29527

Phone: (843) 438-8253FAX: (843) 438-8255

PE

NE

LOG

BP

-BC

01-G

1M.G

PJ

3/2

5/1

7

Asphalt 1 1/4"Coquina Base, yellowish brown, 9"

Medium dense poorly graded SAND,light brown, SPLoose poorly graded SAND, lightbrown, SP


0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

0.1

0.9

1.0

5.0

11

6

5

5

5

10

8

7

4

5

11

7

6

5

4

11

7

6

5

5


N V

alue


Ref:

COMMENTS

Gra

phic

Brixx Pizza

BP-BC01-G1M

Log


(msl

)

2nd

incr

.

3rd

incr

.


Offset:

Casing Length: N/A


1st

incr

.


Casing Length: N/AD

epth


Sam

ple

Dep

th(f

t)

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Ele

vatio

n



Phone: (843) 438-8253FAX: (843) 438-8255

PE

NE

LOG

BP

-BC

01-G

1M.G

PJ

3/2

5/1

7

Asphalt 2 1/4"Coquina Base, yellowish brown, 6"

Medium dense poorly graded SAND,dark brown, SP



0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

0.1

0.6

3.0

5.0

10

12

10

8

9

8

12

8

8

10

11

13

10

9

10

11

12

10

9

10


N V

alue


Ref:

COMMENTS

Gra

phic

Brixx Pizza

BP-BC01-G1M

Log


(msl

)

2nd

incr

.

3rd

incr

.


Offset:

Casing Length: N/A


1st

incr

.


Casing Length: N/AD

epth


Sam

ple

Dep

th(f

t)

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Ele

vatio

n



Phone: (843) 438-8253FAX: (843) 438-8255

PE

NE

LOG

BP

-BC

01-G

1M.G

PJ

3/2

5/1

7

Topsoil

Loose poorly graded SAND, brown,SP



0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

0.3

3.0

5.0

8

7

8

8

10

7

7

7

6

9

9

7

10

12

13

9

7

9

10

12


N V

alue


Ref:

COMMENTS

Gra

phic

Brixx Pizza

BP-BC01-G1M

Log


(msl

)

2nd

incr

.

3rd

incr

.


Offset:

Casing Length: N/A


1st

incr

.


Casing Length: N/AD

epth


Sam

ple

Dep

th(f

t)

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Ele

vatio

n



Phone: (843) 438-8253FAX: (843) 438-8255

PE

NE

LOG

BP

-BC

01-G

1M.G

PJ

3/2

5/1

7

Coquina Base, yellowish brown, 61/2"



0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

0.5

5.0

10

6

5

5

7

8

5

5

5

6

9

6

6

7

7

10

6

6

6

7


N V

alue


Ref:

COMMENTS

Gra

phic

Brixx Pizza

BP-BC01-G1M

Log


(msl

)

2nd

incr

.

3rd

incr

.


Offset:

Casing Length: N/A


1st

incr

.


Casing Length: N/AD

epth


Sam

ple

Dep

th(f

t)

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Ele

vatio

n



Phone: (843) 438-8253FAX: (843) 438-8255

PE

NE

LOG

BP

-BC

01-G

1M.G

PJ

3/2

5/1

7

GC

US

CS

_LE

GE

ND

01/

03/1

1

PT

OH

CH

MH

OL

CL

ML

SC

SM

LIQUID LIMITLESS THAN 50

GM

GP

GW

DESCRIPTIONSTYPICAL

LETTERGRAPHSYMBOLSMAJOR DIVISIONS

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

LIQUID LIMITGREATER THAN 50

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNTOF FINES)

SANDS WITHFINES

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITHHIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS

NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

SILTSAND

CLAYS

SP(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

CLEAN SANDS

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNTOF FINES)

GRAVELS WITHFINES

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

CLEANGRAVELS

SILTSAND

CLAYS

MORE THAN 50%OF COARSEFRACTIONPASSING ON NO. 4SIEVE

SANDAND

SANDYSOILS

MORE THAN 50%OF COARSEFRACTIONRETAINED ON NO.4 SIEVE

GRAVELAND

GRAVELLYSOILS

MORE THAN 50%OF MATERIAL ISSMALLER THANNO. 200 SIEVE SIZE

FINEGRAINED

SOILS

MORE THAN 50%OF MATERIAL ISLARGER THAN NO.200 SIEVE SIZE

COARSEGRAINED

SOILS

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -SILT MIXTURES

SW

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TOHIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGHPLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS ORDIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND ORSILTY SOILS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANICSILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TOMEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLYCLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,LEAN CLAYS

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINESANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY ORCLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEYSILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAYMIXTURES

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILTMIXTURES

POORLY-GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NOFINES

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -CLAY MIXTURES

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NOFINES

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLEOR NO FINES

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLYSANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

APPENDIX III

Laboratory Analysis

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

Specimen Identification


U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

4 200

medium

%Gravel %Sand %Silt

204 10 40 100

D60 D30

COBBLESfine

14.0

Cu

0.5

%Clay

2 1 3/4 3/8

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER

coarse fine

3

37.50

PERCENT

FINER

BY

WEIGHT

1.04

MC% LL

SAND

D100

PL PI Cc

GRAVEL

Classification

0.180

NP NP NPCoquina Base

20.624.7 54.7

SILT OR CLAY

D10

coarse

6

HA- 1 0.5

HA- 1


Phone: (843) 438-8253FAX: (843) 438-8255

PROJECT JOB NO.DATE

Brixx Pizza - Myrtle Beach, South Carolina BP-BC01-G1M3/25/17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100




4 200

medium

%Gravel %Sand %Silt

204 10 40 100

0.1829

D60 D30

COBBLESfine

3.3

Cu

5.0

%Clay

2 1 3/4 3/8



coarse fine

3

2.00

PERCENT

FINER

BY

WEIGHT

0.29

MC% LL

SAND

D100

PL PI Cc

GRAVEL

Classification

0.215

NP NP NPLight brown poorly graded SAND, SP

1.90.0 98.1

SILT OR CLAY

D10

coarse

0.87 1.6

6

HA- 1 5.0

HA- 1


Phone: (843) 438-8253FAX: (843) 438-8255

PROJECT JOB NO.DATE


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100




4 200

medium

%Gravel %Sand %Silt

204 10 40 100

0.1817

D60 D30

COBBLESfine

4.8

Cu

2.0

%Clay

2 1 3/4 3/8



coarse fine

3

4.75

PERCENT

FINER

BY

WEIGHT

0.30

MC% LL

SAND

D100

PL PI Cc

GRAVEL

Classification

0.216


2.60.0 97.4

SILT OR CLAY

D10

coarse

0.86 1.6

6

HA- 2 2.0

HA- 2


Phone: (843) 438-8253FAX: (843) 438-8255

PROJECT JOB NO.DATE


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100




4 200

medium

%Gravel %Sand %Silt

204 10 40 100

0.1765

D60 D30

COBBLESfine

6.1

Cu

3.0

%Clay

2 1 3/4 3/8



coarse fine

3

4.75

PERCENT

FINER

BY

WEIGHT

0.37

MC% LL

SAND

D100

PL PI Cc

GRAVEL

Classification

0.256

NP NP NPDark brown poorly graded SAND, SP

3.70.0 96.3

SILT OR CLAY

D10

coarse

1.00 2.1

6

HA- 3 3.0

HA- 3


Phone: (843) 438-8253FAX: (843) 438-8255

PROJECT JOB NO.DATE


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100




4 200

medium

%Gravel %Sand %Silt

204 10 40 100

0.1818

D60 D30

COBBLESfine

5.4

Cu

2.0

%Clay

2 1 3/4 3/8



coarse fine

3

9.50

PERCENT

FINER

BY

WEIGHT

0.33

MC% LL

SAND

D100

PL PI Cc

GRAVEL

Classification

0.225

NP NP NPBrown poorly graded SAND, SP

2.90.8 96.3

SILT OR CLAY

D10

coarse

0.84 1.8

6

HA- 4 2.0

HA- 4


Phone: (843) 438-8253FAX: (843) 438-8255

PROJECT JOB NO.DATE


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100




4 200

medium

%Gravel %Sand %Silt

204 10 40 100

0.1818

D60 D30

COBBLESfine

4.8

Cu

4.0

%Clay

2 1 3/4 3/8



coarse fine

3

4.75

PERCENT

FINER

BY

WEIGHT

0.29

MC% LL

SAND

D100

PL PI Cc

GRAVEL

Classification

0.214


2.10.0 97.9

SILT OR CLAY

D10

coarse

0.88 1.6

6

HA- 5 4.0

HA- 5


Phone: (843) 438-8253FAX: (843) 438-8255

PROJECT JOB NO.DATE


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

NP

NP

NP

NP

NP

NP

Coquina Base

Light brown poorly graded SAND, SP


Dark brown poorly graded SAND, SP

Brown poorly graded SAND, SP


NP

NP

NP

NP

NP

NP

Specimen Identification LL PL PI Fines Classification

PLASTICITY

INDEX

CL-ML

CL

ML

CH

MH

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

HA- 1

HA- 1

HA- 2

HA- 3

HA- 4

HA- 5

0.5

5.0

2.0

3.0

2.0

4.0

NP

NP

NP

NP

NP

NP

ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS

20.6

1.9

2.6

3.7

2.9

2.1

Phone: (843) 438-8253FAX: (843) 438-8255


PROJECT JOB NO.DATE


APPENDIX IV

Liquefaction Analysis

LiquefyPro CivilTech Software USA www.civiltech.com

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSISBrixx Pizza Commercial Duplex


Hole No.=C-1 Water Depth=6.5 ft Magnitude=7.4

Acceleration=.227g

(ft)0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Medium to fine grained poorly graded

SANDs with various non-plastic silt content

Shear Stress Ratio

CRR CSR fs1Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential

0 0.5Soil DescriptionFactor of Safety

0 51Settlement

SaturatedUnsaturat.

S = 3.60 in.

0 (in.) 10

fs1=1

Documents

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS RESOURCE CONSULTANTS …