Universal - Summit General Contractors

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

FIRESTONE – BRYTON TOWN CENTER CANE CREEK DRIVE AT PREYSING STREET

HUNTERSVILLE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

UES PROJECT NO. 1630.1600068.0000 UES REPORT NO. 1417573

PREPARED FOR:

Rock Properties, Inc. 145 Lincoln Avenue

Winter Park, Florida 32789

PREPARED BY:

Universal Engineering Sciences 3040 Business Park Drive, Suite F

Norcross, Georgia 30071 (770) 242-6438

December 30, 2016

Consultants in: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspection Offices in: Orlando • Daytona Beach • Fort Myers • Gainesville • Jacksonville • Ocala • Palm Coast • Rockledge • Sarasota • Miami

St. Augustine • Panama City • Fort Pierce • Leesburg • Tampa • West Palm Beach • Atlanta, GA

Universal ENGINEERING SCIENCES

3040 Business Park Drive, Suite F Norcross, GA 30071 (770) 242-6438 Fax (770) 242-6980

www.UniversalEngineering.com

LOCATIONS: Atlanta Daytona Beach Fort Myers Fort Pierce Gainesville Jacksonville Kissimmee Leesburg Miami Ocala Orlando (Headquarters) Palm Coast Panama City Pensacola Rockledge Sarasota Tampa West Palm Beach

December 30, 2016 Rock Properties, Inc. 145 Lincoln Avenue Suite B Winter Park, FL 32789 Attention: Mr. Gregg Zuckerman, Project Manager Reference: Report of Geotechnical Exploration Firestone – Bryton Town Center

Cane Creek Drive at Preysing Street Huntersville, NC 28078 UES Project No. 1630.1600068.0000 UES Report No. 1417573

Dear Mr. Zuckerman: Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (Universal) has completed a geotechnical exploration at the above referenced site in Huntersville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The scope of our exploration was planned in conjunction with and authorized by you. This exploration was performed in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. The following report presents the results of our field exploration with a geotechnical engineering interpretation of those results with respect to the project characteristics as provided to us. We have included soil and groundwater conditions at our boring locations and geotechnical recommendations for site preparation, foundation design and pavement design. We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you on this project and look forward to a continued association. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you should have any questions, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed. Respectfully Submitted, UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC.

Ram Mogulla, P.E. Thomas A. Tye, P.E Senior Engineer North Carolina License #023430

NC COA F-0516

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................. 2

2.0 PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 2

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................ 3 3.2 GEOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 3 3.3 TOPOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... 3

4.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ........................................................................................................... 3

4.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICE ...................................................................................... 3 4.2 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 4

5.0 FIELD EXPLORATION ...................................................................................................................................... 5

6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................ 5

6.1 GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE ............................................................................................... 5 6.2 GROUNDWATER .................................................................................................................. 6

7.0 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................................................. 6

8.1 ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 6 8.2 BEARING PRESSURE ........................................................................................................... 7 8.3 FOUNDATION SIZE ............................................................................................................... 7 8.4 BEARING DEPTH ................................................................................................................. 7 8.5 BEARING MATERIAL ............................................................................................................ 7 8.6 SETTLEMENT ESTIMATES .................................................................................................... 7 8.7 FOOTING EVALUATIONS ....................................................................................................... 8 8.8 FLOOR SLABS ..................................................................................................................... 8 8.9 SEISMIC, LIQUEFACTION, AND GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS ................................................. 8

9.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 9

9.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................ 9 9.2 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS ......................................................................................................... 9 9.3 RIGID PAVEMENT ................................................................................................................ 9 9.4 PAVEMENT MATERIALS ...................................................................................................... 10

10.0 SITE PREPARATION ...................................................................................................................................... 11

10.1 GENERAL .......................................................................................................................... 11 10.2 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION .................................................................................. 12 10.3 USE OF EXCAVATED SOILS AS STRUCTURAL FILL ............................................................... 12 10.4 UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES .......................................................................................... 12 10.5 EXCAVATED SLOPES AND FILL EMBANKMENTS ................................................................... 13 10.6 EXCAVATIONS ................................................................................................................... 13

11.0 CLOSURE ..................................................................................................................................................... 13

ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table I: Generalized Soil Profile ......................................................................................... 6 Table II: Flexible Pavement Design ..................................................................................... 9 Table III: Rigid Pavement Design ......................................................................................... 9

APPENDICES

Site Location Map .......................................................................................................... 1-1 Boring Location Plan ...................................................................................................... 2-1 Boring Logs .................................................................................................................... 2-2 Key to Boring Logs Sheet .............................................................................................. 2-3 GBC Document .............................................................................................................. 3-1

Firestone – Bryton Town Center UES Project No. 1630.1600068.0000 Huntersville,Mecklenburg County, North Carolina UES Report No. 1417573

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

We have prepared this executive summary solely to provide a general overview of the geotechnical considerations which may affect the development of the project site. Do not rely on this executive summary for any purpose except that for which it was prepared. Rely on the full report for information about findings, recommendations, and other concerns.

Based on the completed subsurface exploration, UES did not find adverse geotechnical considerations that would affect the design or construction of the proposed development on shallow foundations. In general, the site is developable. Geotechnical considerations that will impact the planned development and may add some additional costs to the land development include the following:

Fill material was encountered to depths ranging from 3 to 11 feet at the site. The fill is moderately well compacted and no deleterious material was encountered at any of the boring locations except B-1. Some root matter and wood chips were encountered at 10 feet below ground surface.

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings at the time of drilling. The borings caved in after drilling at depths ranging from 6 ½ to 23 feet after drilling. Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be anticipated throughout the year, primarily due to seasonal variations in rainfall, surface runoff, and other factors that may vary from the time the borings were conducted.

We recommend a system of shallow foundations bearing in the existing fill soils or new structural fill soils with a maximum bearing pressure of 2,000 psf.

Based on the site specific geotechnical subsurface data, and IBC 2012 site class definitions, section 1615, the seismic site classification will be site class D (stiff soil profile). We believe that due to the high fines (silt) content within the on-site soils that the site’s susceptibility to liquefaction is low.


2

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The site is currently a vacant lot located in the southeast quadrant of Cane creek drive and Preysing Street in Huntersville, NC. The proposed development will consist of one single story steel framed structure with slab on grade construction and approximately 7,700 sq-ft (sf) in area. We assume the shop lifts will all be above-ground and bolted on special subsurface structures. The conceptual site plan and general information used for this proposal was provided by you.

Our study included drilling of 8 SPT borings; four (4) in each corner of the proposed structure and the remaining in the proposed parking and drive areas, as depicted on the provided Boring Location Plan, Figure 2-1, in the Appendix.

Should any of the above information or assumptions made by UES be inconsistent with the planned development and construction, we request that you contact us immediately to allow us the opportunity to review the new information in conjunction with our report and revise or modify our engineering recommendations accordingly, as needed.

2.0 PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS

The geotechnical exploration was planned and executed according to UES proposal No. 1630.1216.00007 dated December 9, 2016.

Preliminary structural loading information was not provided by the client at the time of this exploration. The foundation loads for the purpose of preliminary calculations were assumed as the following:

- Interior Columns: 40 Kips

- Walls: 3 kip/foot

Two types of pavement sections may be required at the project: standard duty pavement and heavy duty pavement. The standard duty pavement will have primarily car and pickup truck traffic, while the heavy duty pavement section will have periodic heavy traffic (i.e. weekly or biweekly garbage trucks).

UES must review the final site and grading plans and structural design loads to validate all recommendations rendered herein. Without such a review, our recommendations may not be applicable, resulting in potentially unacceptable performance of site improvements for which UES will not be responsible or liable. Depending on the finalized details of the development, alterations to the recommendations provided herein and/or additional field work may be warranted.


3

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

3.1 GENERAL

The site is located in the southeast quadrant of Cane creek drive and Preysing Street in Huntersville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The “Overall Plan”, dated 12-06-2016, provided to us by you and prepared by American Civil Engineering Co. Based on this “overall plan”, the development consists of a 7,700 sf Firestone Auto Care Facility on the western portion of the site and the associated parking and entrance are planned on the east and south side of the lot. The site was clear and vacant at the time of drilling.

3.2 GEOLOGY

The site is located in the Charlotte belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina, an area underlain by ancient igneous and metamorphic rocks. The residual soils in the Piedmont are the result of the chemical and physical weathering of the underlying parent rock. The weathering profile usually results in fine-grained clayey silts and silty clays near the surface, where weathering is more advanced. With depth, sandy silts and silty sands are found, often containing mica. Below the residual soils, partially weathered rock is often found as a transition above relatively unweathered rock. In local practice, partially weathered rock is arbitrarily defined as residual soils with Standard Penetration Resistances in excess of 100 blows per foot (50 blows per 6 inches), and which can be penetrated by a power auger. The upper surface of bedrock is generally very erratic and the depth at which bedrock is encountered can vary greatly. Typically, bedrock is encountered at shallow to moderate depths. This typical profile can be altered by the process of erosion and deposition and recent development.

3.3 TOPOGRAPHY

According to information obtained from Google Earth satellite imagery, the ground surface elevation across the site area is approximately +817 to +825 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The site appears to be relatively level.

4.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

4.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICE

This report presents an evaluation of site conditions on the basis of geotechnical procedures for site characterization, with special attention to potential problems that may impact the proposed development. The recovered samples were not examined, either visually or analytically, for chemical composition or environmental hazards. We would be glad to provide you with a proposal for these services at your request.

The services conducted by Universal during our geotechnical exploration are as follows:

Drill 8 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings; four (4) within the area of the proposed structure to depths of 20 to 35 feet below ground surface (bgs) and the remaining four (4) to depths of 10 feet, or refusal, whichever comes first.

Secure samples of representative soils encountered in the soil borings for review, laboratory analysis and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer.


4

Measure the existing site groundwater levels and provide an estimate of the seasonal high groundwater level at the boring locations.

Assess the existing soil conditions with respect to the proposed construction.

Prepare a report which documents the results of our exploration and analysis with geotechnical engineering recommendations for site preparation, foundation design and pavement design.

4.2 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Rock Properties, Inc., and their affiliates, successors, and assigns. This report should aid the architect/engineer in the design of the proposed commercial structure. The scope is limited to the specific project and locations described herein. Our description of the project's design parameters represents our understanding of the significant aspects relevant to soil and foundation characteristics. In the event that any changes in the design or location of the structures as outlined in this report are planned, we should be informed so the changes can be reviewed and the conclusions of this report modified, if required, and approved in writing by UES. UES cannot be held responsible for problems arising from changes about which we are not informed.

The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan and from other information as referenced. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between the boring locations. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until the course of construction. If variations become evident, it will then be necessary for a re-evaluation of the recommendations of this report after performing on-site observations and/or testing during the construction period and noting the characteristics of the variations.

All users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for UES to attempt to locate any man-made buried objects or identify any other potentially hazardous conditions that may exist at the site during the course of this exploration. Therefore no attempt was made by UES to locate or identify such concerns. UES cannot be responsible for any buried man-made objects or subsurface hazards which may be subsequently encountered during construction that are not discussed within the text of this report. We can provide this service if requested.

Borings for a typical geotechnical report are widely spaced and generally not sufficient for reliably detecting the presence of isolated, anomalous surface or subsurface conditions, or reliably estimating unsuitable or suitable material quantities. Accordingly, UES does not recommend relying on our boring information to negate presence of anomalous materials or for estimation of material quantities unless our contracted services specifically include sufficient exploration for such purpose(s) and within the report we so state that the level of exploration provided should be sufficient to detect such anomalous conditions or estimate such quantities. Therefore, UES will not be responsible for any extrapolation or use of our data by others beyond the purpose(s) for which it is applicable or intended.

For a further discussion of the scope and limitations of a typical geotechnical report please review the document attached within the Appendix, "Important Information about This Geotechnical Engineering Report" prepared by GBC.


5

5.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

SPT borings were performed in general accordance with the procedures of ASTM D-1586 (Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils). The SPT drilling technique involves driving a standard split-barrel sampler into the soil by a 140-pound hammer, free falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler 1 foot, after an initial seating of 6 inches, is designated the standard penetration resistance, or N-value, an index to soil strength and consistency. All borings were advanced using hollow stem auger drilling techniques. SPT sampling was performed on 2.5 feet intervals to a depth of 10 feet, and on 5 feet intervals thereafter.

The SPT soil borings were performed with a truck mounted drilling rig. Horizontal and vertical survey control was not provided for the test locations prior to our field exploration program. Universal located the test borings by using the provided site plan, measuring from existing on-site landmarks shown on an aerial photograph. The indicated test locations should be considered approximate and are shown in the Appendix, on the Boring Location Plan.

6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE

The results of our field exploration and laboratory analysis, together with pertinent information obtained from the SPT borings, such as soil profiles, penetration resistance and groundwater levels are shown on the boring logs included in the Appendix. The Key to Boring Logs, Soil Classification Chart is also included in the Appendix. The soil profiles were prepared from field logs after the recovered soil samples were examined by a Geotechnical Engineer. The stratification lines shown on the boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and may not depict exact subsurface soil conditions. The actual soil boundaries may be more transitional than depicted. A generalized profile of the soils encountered at our boring locations is presented in Table I. For detailed soil profiles, please refer to the attached boring logs.

Surface Materials: Surface materials generally consisted of topsoil, approximately 2 to 3 inches thick in the borings performed. Topsoil is a dark colored surficial material with a high organic content and is generally unsuitable for structural support. Some variation in topsoil thickness should be anticipated during site stripping operations.

Fill Soils: Fill is any material that has been transported and deposited by man. Fill material was encountered in all of the boring locations to depths ranging from 3 to 11 feet. The fill is described as loose to medium dense silty sands (SM) with standard penetration test values (N-values) generally ranging from 6 to 18 blows per foot (bpf) with average N-values ranging from 9 to 15 bpf in the areas of the proposed buildlings.

Residual Soils: Beneath the topsoil and asphalt, residual soils of the Charlotte Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina were encountered. These soils were generally classified as loose to very dense micaceous silty sands with standard penetration rates between 6 and 84 bpf with an average N-value of 7 to 15 bpf.

Partially Weathered Rock: Partially Weathered Rock (PWR) was not encountered in any of the soil test borings performed. PWR is defined here as any material encountered with N-values of 100 bpf or greater.

The following table displays the general subsurface profile encountered within the proposed development.


6

Table 1 - Generalized Soil Profile

Soil Typical depth or

thickness Soil Description Consistency Range

Range of SPT “N” Values

(blows/ft)

Surface Material (Topsoil) 2-3 inches NA NA NA

Fill 3 to 11 feet Silty Sands Loose to Medium Dense 5 to 23

Residuum Between 0 and 20+

feet Silty Sands Loose to Very Dense 8 to 49

Partially Weathered Rock Not Encountered NA NA NA

6.2 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings performed. Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be anticipated throughout the year, primarily due to seasonal variations in rainfall, surface runoff, and other factors that may vary from the time the borings were conducted.

7.0 LABORATORY TESTING

The soil samples recovered from the field exploration program were placed in sealed plastic bags and returned to our soils laboratory, where a member of our geotechnical staff visually classified the samples in general accordance with ASTM D 2488 (Unified Soil Classification System). These classifications can be found on the attached Boring Logs in the Appendix.

8.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are made based upon a review of our understanding of the proposed construction, and experience with similar projects and subsurface conditions. The applicability of geotechnical recommendations is very dependent upon project characteristics such as improvement locations, and grade alterations. UES must review the final site and grading plans to validate all recommendations rendered herein. Additionally, if subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, which were not encountered in the borings, report those conditions immediately to us for observation and recommendations.

8.1 ANALYSIS

Based on the results of the soil borings, the subsurface soils within the proposed building areas appear to be variable in consistency from loose to medium dense and stiff.

In general, if soft soils are present, we recommend complete removal of soft soils and replacement with the compacted structural fill. In the proposed parking and driveway areas, a selection of adequate remediation method will greatly depend on weather conditions prior to the pavement construction. Remediation may include selective undercut, moisture conditioning, placement in lifts and compaction, or complete removal and replacement with the compacted


7

structural fill. Any soils containing organic materials will be required to be replaced with structural fill free of deleterious materials. It is our opinion that proposed structures can be supported on properly designed and constructed shallow foundation systems. Provided that the site preparation recommendations outlined in this report are followed, the parameters outlined below may be used for foundation design.

8.2 BEARING PRESSURE

The final floor elevations of the proposed structures were not provided. Localized undercutting of foundations may be required if unsuitable material is encountered during foundation excavation. We recommend all footing excavations are thoroughly evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to concrete placement at the time of construction.

Provided our suggested site preparation procedures are followed, we recommend designing shallow footing foundations for a maximum allowable net soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable net bearing pressure is that pressure that may be transmitted to the soil in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure. The allowable bearing pressure should include dead load plus sustained live load.

8.3 FOUNDATION SIZE

For continuous wall foundations, the minimum footing width should comply with the current local building code, but under no circumstances should be less than 12 inches. The minimum width recommended for an isolated column footing is 24 inches. Even though the maximum allowable soil bearing pressure may not be achieved, these width recommendations should control the size of the foundations.

8.4 BEARING DEPTH

The base of all footings should be below the frost depth determined by the local building code. We recommend the bearing depth at least 18 inches below finished grade elevation. We recommend stormwater and surface water be diverted away from the building exterior, both during and after construction, to reduce the possibility of erosion beneath the exterior footings.

8.5 BEARING MATERIAL

The foundations may bear on either the compacted suitable native soils or compacted structural backfill. The bearing level soils should exhibit a density of at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor) as described in Section 10.2 of this report. In addition to compaction, the bearing soils must exhibit stability and be free of "pumping" conditions.

8.6 SETTLEMENT ESTIMATES

Post-construction settlement of the structure will be influenced by several interrelated factors, such as (1) subsurface stratification and strength/compressibility characteristics of the bearing soils to a depth of approximately twice the width of the footing; (2) footing size, bearing level, applied loads, and resulting bearing pressures beneath the foundation; (3) site preparation and earthwork construction techniques used by the contractor, and (4) external factors, including but not limited to vibration from off-site sources and groundwater fluctuations beyond those normally anticipated for the naturally-occurring site and soil conditions which are present.


8

Our settlement estimates for the structure are based upon adherence to our recommended site preparation procedures presented in Section 10.0 of this report. Any deviation from these recommendations could result in an increase in the estimated post-construction settlement of the structures. Furthermore, should building loads change from those assumed by us, greater settlements may be expected.

Using the recommended maximum allowable bearing pressure, the assumed maximum structural loads, and the field test data which we have correlated into the strength and compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils, we estimate the total post-construction vertical settlement of the proposed structures to be on the order of 1 inch or less.

Differential settlement results from differences in applied bearing pressures and the variations in the compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils. Assuming our site preparation recommendations are followed, we anticipate post-construction differential settlement of less than ½ inch.

8.7 FOOTING EVALUATIONS

All footings excavations should be evaluated by a Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of concrete at the time of construction. It should be anticipated that localized undercutting of select areas may be required because of variations in the soil matrix, fill quality and/or contractor means and methods. If undercut, the unsuitable soils may be replaced with No. 57 crushed stone, over-poured with concrete or placed back with clean compacted structural fill.

8.8 FLOOR SLABS

Conventional floor slabs may be supported upon the compacted fill and should be structurally isolated from other foundation elements or adequately reinforced to prevent distress due to differential movements.

For the slab design in the vicinity of car lifts, we recommend using a subgrade modulus (k) of 150 pounds psi/inch, which can be achieved by compacting the subgrade soils as recommended in this report and a minimum of 8 inches of 57 stone be placed below the slab.

For the slab design in other general areas, we recommend using a subgrade modulus (k) of 125 pounds psi/inch, which can be achieved by compacting the subgrade soils as recommended in this report and a minimum of 4 inches of 57 stone be placed below the slab.

We recommend using a sheet vapor barrier (in accordance with North Carolina Building Code requirements) beneath the building slab-on-grade to help control moisture migration through the slab.

8.9 SEISMIC, LIQUEFACTION, AND GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS

Based on the site specific geotechnical subsurface data, and IBC 2012 site class definitions, section 1615, the seismic site classification will be site class D (stiff soil profile). We believe that due to the high fines (silt) content within the on-site soils that the site’s susceptibility to liquefaction is low.


9

9.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 GENERAL

We were not provided traffic loading data; however, we have prepared the pavement design based on our experience with similar soils and projects, and an assumed CBR value of 4 percent. Design procedures are based on the AASHTO “Guide for Design of Pavement Structures” and associated literature. Based on the subsurface conditions, and assuming our grading recommendations will be implemented as specified, the following presents our recommendations regarding typical pavement sections and materials.

We recommend that a proofroll be performed with a heavily-loaded tandem axle dump truck or similar rubber-tired equipment to determine if there is any unsuitable material located throughout the proposed building area. Any areas that deflect excessively under proofrolling should be undercut, as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer, to confirm that all unsuitable materials are removed and to prevent unnecessary undercutting of suitable materials. Remediation may include undercutting and replacement with compacted structural fill, installation of geogrid, or the use of additional graded aggregate base.

9.2 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS

It is our opinion that the flexible pavement should consist of a surface course of asphaltic concrete and a base course of granular material. Granular material is necessary for structural support and to help drain rainwater that seeps below the pavement. The thicknesses of our design are summarized in the following table:

TABLE II - FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN

9.3 RIGID PAVEMENT

Based on our past experience with similar type developments, we recommend the following rigid pavement design:

TABLE III – RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN

RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN (Minimum Thickness)

Standard Duty (Inches)

Heavy Duty (Inches)

Portland Cement Concrete 5 6 Graded Aggregate Base 4 4

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN

(Minimum Compacted Thickness)

Standard Duty (inches)

Heavy Duty (inches)

Asphalt Surface Course 9.5 mm SuperPave Mix

1.0 2.0

Asphalt Binder Course 19 mm SuperPave Mix

2.0 2.0

Aggregate Base Course 6.0 8.0


10

9.4 PAVEMENT MATERIALS

Flexible Pavements

The aggregate base course should consist of graded aggregate base. This base course should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by the Modified Proctor compaction test (ASTM D1557, Method C). To confirm that the base course has been uniformly compacted, in-place field density tests should be performed by a qualified engineering technician, and the area should be methodically proof-rolled under his evaluation. In addition, all asphalt material and paving operations should meet applicable specifications of the Asphalt Institute and North Carolina Department of Transportation.

Sufficient tests and inspections should be performed during pavement installation to confirm that the required thickness, density, and quality requirements of the specifications are followed.

Our experience indicates that an overlay may be needed in approximately 8 to 10 years due to normal weathering of the asphaltic concrete. Additionally, some areas could require repair and maintenance in a shorter time period.

Rigid Pavements

The concrete mix design should result in a minimum compressive strength of 4000 psi at 28 days and a minimum flexural strength of 600 psi at 28 days. It is recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of crushed stone base underlie the concrete pavement. This granular layer will help provide additional support, provide drainage, and will help with the long-term performance of the concrete pavements. All materials, designs, and workmanship for rigid pavements should meet the applicable requirements of the NCDOT’s Standard Specifications.

General

The performance of the flexible and rigid pavements will be influenced by a number of factors including the actual condition of subgrade soils at the time of pavement installation, installed thicknesses and compaction, and drainage. The subgrade soils should be reevaluated by thorough proofrolling immediately prior to base placement and paving and any unstable areas repaired. This recommendation is very important to the long-term performance of the pavements and slabs. Areas adjacent to pavements (embankments, landscaped island, ditching, etc.) which can drain water (rainwater or sprinklers) should be designed so that water does not seep below the pavements. This may require the use of french drains or swales.

Curbing

Use of extruded curb or elimination of curb entirely, can allow lateral migration of irrigation water from the abutting landscape areas into the base and/or interface between the asphaltic concrete and base. This migration of water may cause base saturation and failure and/or separation of the asphaltic concrete wearing surface from the base with subsequent rippling and pavement deterioration. For extruded curbing, we recommend that an underdrain be installed behind the curb wherever anticipated storm, surface, or irrigation waters may collect. In addition, landscape islands should be drained of excess water buildup using an underdrain system. Alternatively, we recommend that curbing around the landscape sections adjacent to the parking lots be constructed using full depth curb sections.

Construction Traffic

Light duty roadways and incomplete pavement sections will not perform satisfactorily under construction traffic loadings. We recommend that construction traffic (construction equipment,


11

concrete trucks, sod trucks, garbage trucks, dump trucks, forklifts, etc.) be re-routed away from these roadways or that the pavement section be designed for these loadings.

10.0 SITE PREPARATION

10.1 GENERAL

Site preparation will include: clearing any surface vegetation, trees and grass, stripping topsoil, organics, roots and other deleterious materials, followed by surface densification, proof-rolling, compaction of existing subgrade, and filling with structural fill or cutting to construction grade. Special care should be exercised to completely remove all existing buried structures, underground utilities, and buried remains from the areas of planned development where required. All structural fill placed in these excavations should be carefully monitored and meet or exceed the standards and recommendations outlined in this report. We recommend a Geotechnical Engineering Technician monitor the subterranean demolition process as well as all site preparation on a full time basis to ensure provided recommendations are followed and care is taken to completely remove the afore mentioned structures and materials.

Special attention should be given to the subgrade after demolition, stripping, and lowering of site grades where necessary, prior to placement of structural fill, foundations, slabs, or pavements. The exposed subgrade should be evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer to confirm that all unsuitable materials have been removed. To aid the Engineer during this evaluation, the exposed subgrade should be methodically proof-rolled with a heavily loaded tandem axle dump truck or similar rubber-tired equipment throughout the subgrade area to identify if unsuitable soils that require remediation are encountered. Proof-rolling not only helps reveal the presence of any unstable or otherwise unsuitable surface materials, but will densify the exposed subgrade for new fill placement and building support.

Any areas that deflect excessively under proof-rolling or that are deemed soft/loose or wet should be undercut, as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer, and backfilled with a select fill or stone. Material for replacement of loose, soft, organic, or wet soils is typically a graded aggregate base or #57 sized crushed stone, compacted structural fill, or geogrid. All undercutting should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer to confirm that all unsuitable materials are removed and to prevent unnecessary undercutting of suitable materials.

If soft soils or organic laden soils are present, we recommend complete removal of soft/ unsuitable soils and replacement with the compacted structural fill. In the proposed parking and driveway areas, a selection of adequate remediation method will greatly depend on weather conditions at prior to the pavement construction. Remediation may include selective undercut, moisture conditioning, placement in lifts and compaction, or complete removal and replacement with the compacted structural fill.

Partially Weathered Rock (PWR) was not encountered in any of the boring locations to the depths explored. Auger refusal (indicating presence of rock) was encountered at approximately 32 feet below ground surface at boring B-2. Although auger refusal and PWR were not encountered to depths of 20 feet, this does not completely eliminate the possibility of existing rock or PWR in unexplored areas that may impact the planned development of the site, as we currently understand it, using conventional construction practices. If rock is encountered during mass grading which was revealed by the boring survey, difficult excavation conditions (heavy ripping and blasting) will be required to achieve proposed grades, for trench excavations, or installation of utility lines.


12

Excavation techniques may vary based on the weathering of materials, fracturing, and jointing in the rock, and the overall stratigraphy of the site. Actual field conditions usually display a gradual weathering progression with poorly defined and uneven boundaries between layers of different materials. We recommend that the following definitions for rock in earthwork excavation be included in bid documents (see Massive Rock Excavation and Trench Excavation sections) below:

Low to Moderately High Consistency Residual Soils - These materials can be excavated by routine earthmoving equipment. That is, mass excavation can be accomplished by bulldozer, pushed or self-propelled scrapers with light to hard pre-loosening of the higher consistency soils by tractor drawn rippers. A moderately heavy front end loader should be able to excavate these materials unassisted. Local excavation for shallow utility trenches and foundations can be accomplished by a tracked excavator.

10.2 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION

All fill placed in pavement and embankment areas outside the building pad should be free of deleterious materials and uniformly compacted to at least 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as compared to a laboratory Standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D-698). We recommend that the building pad area fills and upper 12 inches of fill placed in the pavement area subgrade be compacted to at least 98 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as compared to a laboratory Standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D-698). The fill should be uniformly spread and compacted in lift thicknesses of 6 to 8 inches (loose measure), and the moisture content should be controlled to within plus or minus 3 percent of optimum.

It is very important that all fill is uniformly well-compacted. Accordingly, a qualified engineering technician working under the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer should monitor fill placement. In addition to this visual evaluation, the technician should perform a sufficient number of in-place field density tests to confirm compaction.

10.3 USE OF EXCAVATED SOILS AS STRUCTURAL FILL

Based on our visual observations and testing data from the soil test borings, we believe that generally, with the exception of the surficial topsoil, vegetation, asphalt and base course, the onsite soils classified according to the United Soil Classification System as SM such as those encountered in the borings may be reused as structural fill but they will require careful moisture control due to clay and silt content within the soil profile. Any existing topsoil may be used in landscape areas. It should be noted that the on-site soils, due to high fines, will be difficult to work with during the wetter months of the year. If these soils are wet, they may exhibit longer than normal drying times. During wet months, care should be taken to “seal off” the soils prior to any significant rain fall. We recommend that the contractor be equipped to control moisture by both wetting and drying the soils. In addition, heavy construction equipment (trucks, lifts, lulls) with large tires may significantly deteriorate the consistency of onsite soils if operated during wet soil conditions. Care should be taken to prevent deterioration as best as possible.

10.4 UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES

All fill placed in underground utility trenches should be placed and compacted as outlined in this section. However, our experience indicates that compacting soils in utility trenches is difficult to perform and achieving the required degree of compaction is difficult, especially below the spring-line of pipes. Accordingly, we recommend that if the required compaction of the utility


13

trench backfill cannot be achieved, flowable fill or crushed stone (No. 57) should be used to backfill the trench up to at least the pipe spring-line. Rock, boulders, whether crushed or not, should not be used as trench backfill.

10.5 EXCAVATED SLOPES AND FILL EMBANKMENTS

All fill placed in embankments should be uniformly compacted to a similar requirement as discussed previously. It is difficult to compact soil at the face of slopes. Therefore, it will be necessary to construct the slopes outside their design limits, and then cut them back; leaving the exposed face well compacted. This is very important to the performance of the slopes and we advise special care be used. Also, existing grade that will underlie new fill embankments should be benched in order for soil compaction to be accomplished in a horizontal plane. The benching will tie the new fill into the existing grade and reduce the potential for slippage or slope stability failure at the interface of existing grade and new fill embankment.

We recommend that the face of slopes and embankments be protected by establishing vegetation or mulching as soon as practical after grading. Rainwater runoff should be diverted away from the crest of slopes. It is very important that all factors associated with slopes be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications.

Construction of the slopes should be specifically monitored by the Geotechnical Engineer or his designated representative, and the Engineer should closely review field density reports for the embankments.

Based on the subsurface data gathered as part of this geotechnical exploration and our experience, if these recommendations are followed, slopes no steeper than 2H:1V and less than 10 feet maximum vertical height for this project site should have a global stability factor of safety of at least 2.

10.6 EXCAVATIONS

Excavations should be sloped as necessary to prevent slope failure and to allow backfilling. As a minimum, temporary excavations greater than 4 feet depth should be sloped in accordance with OSHA regulations (29 CFR Part 1926) dated October 31, 1989. Where lateral confinement will not permit slopes to be laid back, the excavation should be shored in accordance with OSHA requirements. During excavation, excavated material should not be stockpiled at the top of the slope within a horizontal distance equal to the excavation depth. Provisions for maintaining workman safety within excavations is the sole responsibility of the contractor.

11.0 CLOSURE

Our interpretation of the site soil and groundwater conditions is based on our general knowledge of the area and the subsurface borings performed. UES did not identify geotechnical considerations that will significantly impact the planned development of the site, as we currently understand it, using conventional construction practices. Standard methods of surficial stripping and removal of surface materials and topsoil, excavation, proof-rolling, compaction, selective undercut and replacement with the structural fill should adequately prepare the site. Universal should provide the inspection services during the site preparation procedures to confirm that the earthwork operations meet the intent of the recommendations presented in this report.

An important aspect of the success of the construction process is the transfer of information between all concerned parties to start of any activities on-site. As such, Universal Engineering Sciences strongly recommends that a pre-construction meeting be held with the


14

following representatives in attendance at a minimum: General contractor, site (earthwork) contractor, civil and structural engineer, underground utility contractor, and UES geotechnical engineer and materials testing technician. At this meeting, UES would describe in detail the geotechnical considerations that would impact the construction process and future serviceability of the improvements.

TOPSOIL: Approximate thickness - 2 inches.FILL: medium dense, pale red gray to darkbrown black, silty SAND (SM), some asphalt,mottled, moderate cementation, iron oxidestaining

loose, pale red orange to light brown, siltySAND (SM), moderate cementation, iron oxidestaining

loose, dark brown to dark red, silty SAND (SM),moderate cementation, iron oxide staining, traceroot matter and wood chips

RESIDUUM: medium dense, tan to pale pink,silty SAND (SM), trace clay, moderatecementation

Loose, tan to pale brown, silty SAND (SM),weak cementation

Boring terminated at 20.0 ft.

15

12

9

6

12

9

4-7-8

3-6-6

3-3-6

2-2-4

4-5-7

4-4-5

PROJECT:

HSA, SPT

LL PI

1 of 1

REMARKS: DATE OF READING:

SECTION:

BORING DESIGNATION: SHEET:

PROJECT NO.: 1630.1600068.0000

REPORT NO.: 1417573

CLIENT: Rock Properties, Inc.

LOCATION: Huntersville, NC

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

DESCRIPTION

Firestone-Bryton, NC

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

B-1

DATE STARTED: 12/27/16

DATE FINISHED: 12/27/16

DRILLED BY: Ameridrill, Inc.

0

5

10

15

20

ATTERBERGLIMITS

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCESBORING LOG

DEPTH(FT.)

-200(%)

MC(%)

K(FT./DAY)

Cane Creek Drive at Preysing Street

Huntersville, North Carolina

WATER TABLE (ft):

BO

RIN

G_L

OG

163

0.16

000

68.0

000

FIR

ES

TO

NE

- B

RY

TO

N T

OW

N C

EN

TE

R, N

C.G

PJ

201

410

05_

UE

S.G

DT

12

/30

/16

BLOWSPER 6"

INCREMENT

N(BLOWS/

FT.)

SAMPLE

SYMBOL

W.T.POCKET

PEN.(tsf)

TOPSOIL: Approximate thickness - 3 inches.FILL: medium dense, pale red pink to lightbrown, silty SAND (SM), moderate cementation,iron oxide staining

RESIDUUM: medium dense, light orange totan, silty SAND, weak cementation, iron oxidestaining

Medium dense, pale brown to light red orange,silty SAND (SM), mottled, weak cementation,iron oxide staining

Loose to medium dense, dark red brown to verydark red orange, silty SAND (SM), mottled,weak cementation, iron oxide staining

Very dense, very dark brown, silty SAND (SM)

Auger refusal at 33.0 ft.

15

15

18

13

11

6

7

84

5-6-9

6-7-8

5-7-11

4-4-9

3-4-7

3-3-3

3-3-4

21-37-47

PROJECT:

HSA, SPT

LL PI

1 of 1


SECTION:


PROJECT NO.: 1630.1600068.0000

REPORT NO.: 1417573




DESCRIPTION


TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

B-2




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

ATTERBERGLIMITS

TYPE OF SAMPLING:


DEPTH(FT.)

-200(%)

MC(%)

K(FT./DAY)



WATER TABLE (ft):

BO

RIN

G_L

OG

163

0.16

000

68.0

000

FIR

ES

TO

NE

- B

RY

TO

N T

OW

N C

EN

TE

R, N

C.G

PJ

201

410

05_

UE

S.G

DT

12

/30

/16

BLOWSPER 6"

INCREMENT

N(BLOWS/

FT.)

SAMPLE

SYMBOL

W.T.POCKET

PEN.(tsf)

TOPSOIL: Approximate thickness - 2 inches.FILL: medium dense, light red orange to redtan, silty SAND (SM), iron oxide staining

RESIDUUM: loose, red orange to dark pink,silty SAND (SM), mottled, iron oxide staining

Loose, pale orange pink to light red orange, siltySAND (SM), mottled, weak cementation, ironoxide staining

Loose, pale tan to white, silty SAND, someLimestone, weak cementation


12

9

6

7

8

7

7-6-6

2-4-5

2-3-3

2-3-4

3-3-5

5-3-4

PROJECT:

HSA, SPT

LL PI

1 of 1


SECTION:


PROJECT NO.: 1630.1600068.0000

REPORT NO.: 1417573




DESCRIPTION


TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

B-3




0

5

10

15

20

ATTERBERGLIMITS

TYPE OF SAMPLING:


DEPTH(FT.)

-200(%)

MC(%)

K(FT./DAY)



WATER TABLE (ft):

BO

RIN

G_L

OG

163

0.16

000

68.0

000

FIR

ES

TO

NE

- B

RY

TO

N T

OW

N C

EN

TE

R, N

C.G

PJ

201

410

05_

UE

S.G

DT

12

/30

/16

BLOWSPER 6"

INCREMENT

N(BLOWS/

FT.)

SAMPLE

SYMBOL

W.T.POCKET

PEN.(tsf)

TOPSOIL: Approximate thickness - 3 inches.FILL: loose, pale orange pink to very light red,silty SAND (SM), some, weak cementation, ironoxide staining

RESIDUUM: loose, pale red orange, silty SAND(SM), mottled, weak cementation, iron oxidestaining

Loose, light brown with white, silty SAND (SM),mottled, weak cementation


9

8

6

7

7

10

3-4-5

3-4-4

2-3-3

2-3-4

3-3-4

3-4-6

PROJECT:

HSA, SPT

LL PI

1 of 1


SECTION:


PROJECT NO.: 1630.1600068.0000

REPORT NO.: 1417573




DESCRIPTION


TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

B-4




0

5

10

15

20

ATTERBERGLIMITS

TYPE OF SAMPLING:


DEPTH(FT.)

-200(%)

MC(%)

K(FT./DAY)



WATER TABLE (ft):

BO

RIN

G_L

OG

163

0.16

000

68.0

000

FIR

ES

TO

NE

- B

RY

TO

N T

OW

N C

EN

TE

R, N

C.G

PJ

201

410

05_

UE

S.G

DT

12

/30

/16

BLOWSPER 6"

INCREMENT

N(BLOWS/

FT.)

SAMPLE

SYMBOL

W.T.POCKET

PEN.(tsf)

TOPSOIL: Approximate thickness - 2 inches.FILL: medium dense, light red, silty SAND(SM), some rock fragments, iron oxide staining

RESIDUUM: medium dense, pale brown to tan,silty SAND (SM), trace rock fragments, Rockfragments are partially weathered

Medium dense, pale red white to dark red, siltySAND, Traces of secondarily weatheredlimestone


18

22

15

19

5-7-11

7-9-13

4-6-9

5-8-11

PROJECT:

HSA, SPT

LL PI

1 of 1


SECTION:


PROJECT NO.: 1630.1600068.0000

REPORT NO.: 1417573




DESCRIPTION


TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

P-1




0

5

10

ATTERBERGLIMITS

TYPE OF SAMPLING:


DEPTH(FT.)

-200(%)

MC(%)

K(FT./DAY)



WATER TABLE (ft):

BO

RIN

G_L

OG

163

0.16

000

68.0

000

FIR

ES

TO

NE

- B

RY

TO

N T

OW

N C

EN

TE

R, N

C.G

PJ

201

410

05_

UE

S.G

DT

12

/30

/16

BLOWSPER 6"

INCREMENT

N(BLOWS/

FT.)

SAMPLE

SYMBOL

W.T.POCKET

PEN.(tsf)

TOPSOIL: Approximate thickness - 2 inches.FILL: medium dense, pale tan, silty SAND (SM)

RESIDUUM: medium dense, pale tan, siltySAND (SM), trace weathered feldspar, ironoxide staining


9

13

17

16

3-3-6

5-6-7

5-7-10

4-7-9

PROJECT:

HSA, SPT

LL PI

1 of 1


SECTION:


PROJECT NO.: 1630.1600068.0000

REPORT NO.: 1417573




DESCRIPTION


TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

P-2




0

5

10

ATTERBERGLIMITS

TYPE OF SAMPLING:


DEPTH(FT.)

-200(%)

MC(%)

K(FT./DAY)



WATER TABLE (ft):

BO

RIN

G_L

OG

163

0.16

000

68.0

000

FIR

ES

TO

NE

- B

RY

TO

N T

OW

N C

EN

TE

R, N

C.G

PJ

201

410

05_

UE

S.G

DT

12

/30

/16

BLOWSPER 6"

INCREMENT

N(BLOWS/

FT.)

SAMPLE

SYMBOL

W.T.POCKET

PEN.(tsf)

TOPSOIL: Approximate thickness - 2 inches.FILL: medium dense, pale red, silty SAND(SM), some rock fragments, iron oxide staining

RESIDUUM: loose to medium dense, light redto red, sandy SAND (SM), weak cementation,iron oxide staining


15

15

11

8

6-6-9

5-6-9

3-5-6

2-4-4

PROJECT:

HSA, SPT

LL PI

1 of 1


SECTION:


PROJECT NO.: 1630.1600068.0000

REPORT NO.: 1417573




DESCRIPTION


TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

P-3




0

5

10

ATTERBERGLIMITS

TYPE OF SAMPLING:


DEPTH(FT.)

-200(%)

MC(%)

K(FT./DAY)



WATER TABLE (ft):

BO

RIN

G_L

OG

163

0.16

000

68.0

000

FIR

ES

TO

NE

- B

RY

TO

N T

OW

N C

EN

TE

R, N

C.G

PJ

201

410

05_

UE

S.G

DT

12

/30

/16

BLOWSPER 6"

INCREMENT

N(BLOWS/

FT.)

SAMPLE

SYMBOL

W.T.POCKET

PEN.(tsf)

TOPSOIL: Approximate thickness - 2 inches.RESIDUUM: loose, dark red to purple, siltySAND (SM), mottled, weak cementation, ironoxide staining


6

7

7

8

3-2-4

2-3-4

3-3-4

3-3-5

PROJECT:

HSA, SPT

LL PI

1 of 1


SECTION:


PROJECT NO.: 1630.1600068.0000

REPORT NO.: 1417573




DESCRIPTION


TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

P-4




0

5

10

ATTERBERGLIMITS

TYPE OF SAMPLING:


DEPTH(FT.)

-200(%)

MC(%)

K(FT./DAY)



WATER TABLE (ft):

BO

RIN

G_L

OG

163

0.16

000

68.0

000

FIR

ES

TO

NE

- B

RY

TO

N T

OW

N C

EN

TE

R, N

C.G

PJ

201

410

05_

UE

S.G

DT

12

/30

/16

BLOWSPER 6"

INCREMENT

N(BLOWS/

FT.)

SAMPLE

SYMBOL

W.T.POCKET

PEN.(tsf)

ENGINEERING SCIENCES UNIVERSAL KEY TO BORING LOGS

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP

SYMBOLS TYPICAL NAMES

GW Well-graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

CLEAN GRAVELS

GP Poorly graded gravels and

gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GM Silty gravels and gravel-sand-silt mixtures

GRAVELS50% or more of coarse fraction

retained on No. 4 sieve

GRAVELS WITH FINES

GC Clayey gravels and gravel-sand-clay mixtures

SW** Well-graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines

CLEAN SANDS

5% or less passing No. 200 sieve SP** Poorly graded sands and

gravelly sands, little or no fines

SM** Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures

CO

AR

SE

GR

AIN

ED

SO

ILS

M

ore

than

50%

ret

aine

d on

the

No.

200

sie

ve*

SANDS More than

50% of coarse fraction

passes No. 4 sieve

SANDS with 12% or more passing No. 200 sieve SC** Clayey sands, sand-clay

mixtures

ML Inorganic silts, very fine sands,

rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands

CL Inorganic clays of low to

medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, lean clays

SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit 50% or less

OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity

MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diamicaceous fine sands or

silts, elastic silts

CH Inorganic clays or clays of high plasticity, fat clays

OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity

FIN

E-G

RA

INE

D S

IOLS

50

% o

r m

ore

pas

ses

the

No.

200

sie

ve*

SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit

greater than 50%

PT Peat, muck and other highly organic soils

*Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75 mm) sieve** Use dual symbol (such as SP-SM and SP-SC) for soils with more than 5% but less than 12% passing the No. 200 sieve

RELATIVE DENSITY (Sands and Gravels)

Very loose – Less than 4 Blow/Foot Loose – 4 to 10 Blows/Foot

Medium Dense – 11 to 30 Blows/Foot Dense – 31 to 50 Blows/Foot

Very Dense – More than 50 Blows/Foot

CONSISTENCY (Silts and Clays)

Very Soft – Less than 2 Blows/Foot Soft – 2 to 4 Blows/Foot Firm – 5 to 8 Blows/Foot Stiff – 9 to 15 Blows/Foot

Very Stiff – 16 to 30 Blows/Foot Hard – More than 30 Blows/Foot

RELATIVE HARDNESS (Limestone)

Soft – 100 Blows for more than 2 Inches Hard – 100 Blows for less than 2 Inches

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION

N-Value No. of Blows of a 140-lb. Weight Falling 30 Inches Required to Drive a Standard Spoon 1 Foot

WOR Weight of Drill Rods

WOH Weight of Drill Rods and Hammer

Sample from Auger Cuttings

Standard Penetration Test Sample

Thin-wall Shelby Tube Sample (Undisturbed Sampler Used)

RQD Rock Quality Designation

Stabilized Groundwater Level

Seasonal High Groundwater Level (also referred to as the W.S.W.T.)

NE Not Encountered

GNE Groundwater Not Encountered

BT Boring Terminated

-200 (%) Fines Content or % Passing No. 200 Sieve

MC (%) Moisture Content

LL Liquid Limit (Atterberg Limits Test)

PI Plasticity Index (Atterberg Limits Test)

NP Non-Plastic (Atterberg Limits Test)

K Coefficient of Permeability

Org. Cont. Organic Content

G.S. Elevation Ground Surface Elevation

Geotechnical-Engineering Report

Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and ProjectsGeotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a constructor — a construction contractor — or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one — not even you — should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read the Full ReportSerious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only.

Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on a Unique Set of Project-Specific FactorsGeotechnical engineers consider many unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk-management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report that was:• not prepared for you;• not prepared for your project;• not prepared for the specific site explored; or• completed before important project changes were made.

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed

from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;

• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure;

• the composition of the design team; or• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes—even minor ones—and request an

assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.

Subsurface Conditions Can ChangeA geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.

Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional OpinionsSite exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ — sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

A Report’s Recommendations Are Not FinalDo not overrely on the confirmation-dependent recommendations included in your report. Confirmation-dependent recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s confirmation-dependent recommendations if that engineer does not perform the geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the recommendations’ applicability.

A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject to MisinterpretationOther design-team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly

Important Information about This

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

problems. Confront that risk by having your geo technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical construction observation.

Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s LogsGeotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and GuidanceSome owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.

Read Responsibility Provisions CloselySome clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help

others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.

Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with MoldDiverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold-prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services performed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved.

Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer for Additional AssistanceMembership in the Geotechnical Business Council of the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you GBC-Member geotechnical engineer for more information.

8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017

e-mail: [email protected] www.geoprofessional.org

Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document

is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without

being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

Documents

Universal - Summit General Contractors