SWA000140_Soils/Geotechnical Report_20220406

GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING
REPORT
t-r
West End Development
Robinhood Road and Meadowlark Drive
Winston Salem, North Carolina
PREPARED FOR:
Adams Property Group
2298 Mt. Pleasant Street
Charleston, South Carolina 29403
NOVA Project Number: 10705-2020024
July 23, 2020
NOVA
PROFESSIONAL I PRACTICAL I PROVEN

N OVA
July 23, 2020
ADAMS PROPERTY GROUP
2298 Mt. Pleasant Street
Charleston, South Carolina 29403
Attention: Mr. Jack Coupland
Development & Acquisitions
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report
PROPOSED WEST END DEVELOPMENT
Robinhood Road & Meadowlark Drive
Winston Salem, North Carolina
NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
Dear Mr. Coupland:
NOVA Engineering and Environmental, Inc. (NOVA) has completed the authorized Geotechnical
Engineering Report for the proposed West End Development in Winston Salem, North Carolina.
This work was performed in general accordance with NOVA Proposal Number 005-20205382
Revision 1 dated June 1, 2020. This report briefly discusses our understanding of the project
at the time of the subsurface exploration, describes the geotechnical consulting services
provided by NOVA, and presents our preliminary findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
We appreciate your selection of NOVA and the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you
have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
NOVA Engineering and Environmental, Inc.
k�'� A-11�
Kyle Russell
Staff Professional
Copies Submitted: Addressee (electronic)
i
avid E. P *a PE. k • }
Senior Proj(� ''
NC P.E. Licen, *8i�Q►-,.�
Digitally signed by
David E. Penalva
Date: 2020.07.23
18:35:22-04'00'
PROFESSIONAL I PRACTICAL I PROVEN
417 Minuet Lane, Suite D, Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
NOVA North Carolina License No: C-2807
t. 980.321.4100 / f. 980.321.4099 / usanova.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
2.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................
2
3.0
SU6SRUFACE PROFILE..................................................................................................5
3.1
GEOLOGY.........................................................................................................................................5
3.2
EXPLORATION PROGRAM...................................................................................................................6
3.3
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.................................................................................................................6
3.4
LABORATORY TESTING.......................................................................................................................8
4.0
GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT......................................................................................
9
5.0
GENERAL SITE PREPARATION.....................................................................................12
5.1
SITE PREPARATION........................................................................................................................
12
5.2
FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION.................................................................................................
12
5.3
DIFFICULT EXCAVATION..................................................................................................................
15
5.4
WATER SOFTENED SOILS AND LOW LYING AREAS.............................................................................
16
6.0
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS GENERAL............................................................................17
7.0
SLAB ON GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................19
8.0
BELOW GRADE WALLS................................................................................................21
8.1
CAST IN PLACE WALLS...................................................................................................................
21
8.2
MSE WALLS.................................................................................................................................
22
9.0
SLOPES........................................................................................................................24
10.0
SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION....................................................................................
25
11.0
PAVEMENTS.................................................................................................................26
11.1
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT......................................................................................................................
26
11.2
RIGID PAVEMENTS.........................................................................................................................
27
12.0
SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES...........................................................................................
29
13.0
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS................................................................................30
13.1
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS.........................................................................................................
30
13.2
SUBGRADE................................................................................................................................
30
APPENDICES
Appendix - Figures and Maps
Appendix B - Subsurface Data
Appendix C -Qualifications of Recommendations

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
1.0 INTRODUCTION
NOVA Engineering and Environmental, Inc. (NOVA) has completed a geotechnical assessment
for the proposed West End Development in Winston Salem, North Carolina. Our services have
been performed in general accordance with NOVA Proposal Number 005-20205382 Revision
1 dated June 1, 2020 which was authorized by your office on June 4, 2020.
The purpose of this study was to conduct a field exploration program of subsurface soil
conditions within the proposed areas of development across the site and to develop
recommendations for site preparation, foundation design, retaining wall design parameters,
slab on grade support, and pavement design for the planned improvements. This report
presents a brief review of NOVA's understanding of the project, a discussion of our field work
and subsurface conditions as disclosed by geotechnical data, and recommendations for site
preparation, foundation design, slab -on -grade design, and other geotechnical considerations
applicable to the proposed construction.
N OVA Page 1

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Our understanding of the site and requirements for this project is based on information
provided by Adams Property Group and a review of preliminary concept drawings prepared by
Stimmel Associates, PA.
The Subject Property consists of three (3) land parcels totaling approximately 34 acres located
at 5220, 5264 and 5284 Robinhood Road in Winston Salem, Forsyth County, North Carolina.
According to the Forsyth County Geographic Information System (GIS) database, the Subject
Property is identified by Parcel Numbers 5896-55-3561, 5896-55-6034 and 5896-55-6694
and includes the following:
• 5896-55-3561 - located at 5284 Robinhood Road, developed with one (1) two-story
residence constructed in 1940 and encompasses approximately 7.41 acres.
• 5896-55-6694 - located at 5264 Robinhood Road, developed with one (1) 1.5-story
residence constructed in 1952 and encompasses approximately 0.41-acres.
• 5896-55-6034 - located at 5220 Robinhood Road, developed with one (1) 1.5-story
residence constructed in 1938 and encompasses approximately 26.25 acres.
A Site Location Map depicting the location of the Subject Property is included in Appendix A.
The approximate latitude and longitude coordinates of the Subject Property are 36.1195 ° North
and 80.3685' West, respectively.
The Subject Property is currently developed with three (3) single family residences that range
from 1.5 to 2-stories in height and were constructed between 1938 and 1952. The single-
family residences range from 1,544 to 1,904 square feet of heated living space. The Subject
Property contains multiple sheds and attached/detached garage structures. The site also
contains greenspace including trees, grass and low -growing vegetation.
Based on Forsyth County GIS topographical information and our observations, the Subject
Property has a rolling topography dominated by a north -south trending ridgeline passing
through the western half of the site. Elevations fall from this ridgeline to the west, south and
east. The total relief across the site is about 50 feet. Several low-lying creek and ravine areas
were noted in the central -southern wooded portions of the site during our site visits.
It is our understanding that the project will consist of the construction of a shopping center
and a multi -family residential complex. The shopping center (grocery/retail buildings) is to be
located within the northeastern portion of the site and will be anchored by an approximately
50,000 square foot food store with an attached 4,200 square foot retail/restaurant space.
Three (3) other stand-alone 7,200 square foot retail buildings will also be developed within
the shopping center. The residential complex will consist of eight (8) buildings, including a
clubhouse and pool located to the south and west of the shopping center. One (1) SWM device
N OVA Page 2

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
and five (5) retaining walls are to be constructed to support the development of the western
and southern sides of the site. Additional site improvements will include parking and drive
areas as well as underground utilities. An overall site plan is presented below.
Size_ 7,2045E H- �•Y•••
Fo Pdni 60' x 120'
Paddng Req.Ired Based en All—ien
Parklna Provided: 40 spaces+1-
Commercial Parcel
Size: L SA—e e-
Tolel Recall! Rt. ..v
Retail! Restat w Parking Provided:
Faad Store'
We anticipate that the Shopping Center will be of CMU block and steel frame construction,
with column and wall loads of up to about 180 kips and 5 kips perfoot, respectively, and slab
loads on the order of 150 to 200 pounds per square foot. The retail structures are anticipated
to be light gauge steel structures with maximum wall and column loads on the order of 4 kips
per linear foot and 50 kips, respectively. The residential structures will likely be of wood frame
construction with wall loads of about 5 kips per linear foot or less. Several of the residential
structures will be three/four level split structures with cast -in -place basement walls
approximately 11 feet in height.
Existing grades at the food store footprint currently range from 880 in the east to 893 feet-
MSL in the southwest corner of the building footprint. The proposed finished floor elevation
for the foot store is 881 feet-MSL. Therefore, cuts and fills on the order of up to 12 feet and
1 foot respectively are anticipated to reach proposed finished grades in the food store
footprint. The proposed food store footprint is currently occupied by a residence with
N OVA Page 3

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
supporting structures (detached garages and sheds), asphalt paved driveway and below grade
utilities.
Existing grades at the outparcel retail/restaurant buildings currently range from 886 to 870
feet-MSL between the three (3) separate building footprints. The proposed finished floor
elevations for the retail/restaurant buildings range from 875 to 880-feet MSL. Therefore, cuts
and fills on the order of up to 7 feet and 5 feet respectively are anticipated to reach proposed
finish grades in the retail/restaurant building footprints. The proposed retail/restaurant
building footprint in the area of Robinhood Road (boring B-3) is currently occupied by a
residence with a detached garage, gravel driveway and below grade utilities. The remaining
two (2) retail/restaurant building footprints (B-1 and B-2) are in generally wooded land areas.
Existing grades at the eight residential apartment complex buildings (including clubhouse)
footprints currently range from 857 in the south to 887 feet-MSL in the northern portion of
the building footprints. The proposed finished floor elevations for the split-level structures
range from 855 to 879 feet-MSL. Therefore, cuts and fills on the order of up to 21 feet and
14 feet respectively are anticipated to reach proposed finished grades in the residential
building footprints. The proposed residential building footprints are currently in densely
wooded areas.
It is our understanding that the unnamed roadways are to be constructed to meet City of
Winston-Salem Infrastructure Development Standards, dated November 2018. Anticipated
traffic loadings were not provided at the time of this report. Based on the provided preliminary
concept plan we understand that cuts on the order of 11 feet or less and fills on the order of
up to 13 feet or less are anticipated to reach finished grades across the parking lots and
roadways. Two retaining walls will be required in the southeastern and southwestern portions
of the site to provide grade change. It is our understanding that the walls will likely be
mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls. The retaining walls vary in height and are
anticipated to receive backfill material on the order of 6 to 28 feet.
N OVA Page 4

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
3.0 SUBSURFACE PROFILE
3.1 Geology
The site is located in the Milton Terrane of the Piedmont Physiographic Provence, a broad
northeasterly trending province underlain by crystalline rocks up to 600 million years old. The
Piedmont is bounded on the northwest by the Blue Ridge Range of the Appalachian Mountains,
and on the southeast by the Coastal Plain.
According to the "Geologic Map of North Carolina: Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Division of Land Resources, and the NC Geological Survey" by Rhodes
and Conrad, 1985, the site is generally underlain by gneiss, schist and metamorphosed intrusive
rocks.
Residual soils in the region are primarily the product of in -situ chemical decomposition of the
parent rock. The extent of the weathering is influenced by the mineral composition of the rock
and defects such as fissures, faults and fractures. The residual profile can generally be divided
into three zones:
• An upper zone near the ground surface consisting of red clays and clayey silts which
have undergone the most advanced weathering,
• An intermediate zone of less weathered micaceous sandy silts and silty sands,
frequently described as "saprolite", whose mineralogy, texture and banded
appearance reflects the structure of the original rock, and
• A transitional zone between soil and rock termed partially weathered rock (PWR).
Partially weathered rock is defined locally as material which may be penetrated by
soil augers, and which exhibits standard penetration resistances exceeding 100
blows per foot.
The boundaries between zones of soil, partially weathered rock, and bedrock are erratic and
poorly defined. Weathering is often more advanced next to fractures and joints that transmit
water, and in mineral bands that are more susceptible to decomposition. Boulders and rock
lenses are sometimes encountered within the overlying PWR or soil matrix. Consequently,
significant fluctuations in depths to materials requiring difficult excavation techniques may
occur over short horizontal distances.
Groundwater in the Piedmont typically occurs as an unconfined or semi -confined aquifer
condition. Recharge is provided by the infiltration of rainfall and surface water through the soil
overburden. More permeable zones in the soil matrix, as well as fractures, joints and
discontinuities in the underlying bedrock can affect groundwater conditions. The groundwater
table in the Piedmont is expected to be a subdued replica of the original surface topography.
N OVA Page 5

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
Groundwater levels vary with changes in season and rainfall, construction activity, surface water
runoff, and other site -specific factors. Groundwater levels in the Charlotte area are typically
lowest in the late summer -early fall and highest in the late winter -early spring, with annual
groundwater fluctuations of 4 to 8 feet. Consequently, the water table may be at different
elevations than indicated in this report at other times.
3.2 Exploration Program
As part of the current study, a total of thirty (30) soil test borings (B-1 through B-30) were
performed. Boring locations were established in the field by NOVA personnel using the provided
site plan and a handheld GPS device. The approximate locations are shown on Figure 3 in
Appendix A. Consequently, referenced boring locations are approximate. If increased accuracy
is desired bythe client, NOVA recommends that the boring locations and elevations be surveyed.
Soil Test Borings: The soil test borings were performed usingthe guidelines of ASTM Designation
D-1586, "Penetration Test and Split -Barrel Sampling of Soils". A hollow -stem auger drilling
process was used to advance the borings to depths of 2 1/2 to 34 feet below existing grades. At
regular intervals, soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4-inch I.D., 2.0-inch O.D., split -
tube sampler. The sampler was first seated six inches and then driven an additional foot with
blows of a 140-pound hammer falling30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive
the sampler the final foot is designated the "Penetration Resistance". The penetration
resistance, when properly interpreted, is an index to the soil strength and density.
Representative portions of the soil samples, obtained from the sampler, were placed in sample
containers and transported to our laboratory for further evaluation and laboratory testing.
Test Boring Records in Appendix B show the standard penetration test (SPT) resistances, or "N-
values", and present the soil conditions encountered in the borings. These records represent
our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on the field exploration data, visual
examination of the split -barrel samples, laboratory test data, and generally accepted
geotechnical engineering practices. The stratification lines and depth designations represent
approximate boundaries between various subsurface strata. Actual transitions between
materials may be gradual.
Groundwater: The groundwater levels reported on the Test Boring Records represent
measurements made at the completion of the soil test borings and 24 hours thereafter, where
noted. The soil test borings were subsequently backfilled with the soil cuttings.
3.3 Subsurface Conditions
The following paragraphs provide generalized descriptions of the subsurface profiles and soil
conditions encountered by the borings conducted during this study.
N OVA Page 6

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
The Test Boring Records in Appendix B should be reviewed to provide more detailed descriptions
of the subsurface conditions encountered at each boring location. These records represent our
interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on the field logs and visual observations of
samples by an engineer. The lines designating the interface between various strata on the
Boring Logs representthe approximate interface locations. The actual transition between strata
may be gradual. Groundwater levels shown on the Test Boring Records represent the conditions
at the time of drilling and 24 hours thereafter (where noted). It should be understood that soil
conditions may vary between boring locations.
Surface Materials: Approximately 3 to 8 inches of topsoil were encountered at sampling
locations B-1 through B-30. Loose gravel and asphalt paved driveways were observed on site;
however, the depths of these surface materials were not recorded as no borings were
advanced in these locations. Surficial topsoil, asphalt and gravel thicknesses can be erratic
and thicker zones of topsoil, asphalt and gravel should be anticipated. Additionally it should
be noted that mechanical clearing was required to access several of the boring locations
which may have affected the topsoil measurements made in the field. Thicker topsoils layers
and/or rootmats should be expected in the wooded portions of the site.
Existing Fill: No fill material was encountered in any of the borings drilled at this site. However,
based on the three (3) existing residences and supporting structures (detached garages and
sheds), it is likely that fill material has been placed in these areas during previous grading
operations.
Residual Soils : Residual soils were encountered beneath the topsoil material in all borings
(B-1 through B-30) except for boring B-2. The sampled residuum consisted of sandy/clayey
silts (ML), silty sand (SM), sandy/silty clays (CL) and moderate elasticity silts (ML/MH).
Standard penetration resistance values recorded in the residuum ranged from 4 to 55 bpf.
Partially Weathered Rock : Partially weathered rock (PWR) was encountered beneath the
topsoil and residuum in borings B-2, B-11 and B-15 at depths of 6 inches, 48-1/2 feet and
13-1/2 feet, respectively.
Auger Refusal Materials: Auger refusal materials were encountered at a depth of 3 to 5 feet
in boring B-2 (including one offset boring) and a depth of 49-1/2 feet in boring B-11. Auger
refusal materials are any very hard or very dense material which cannot be penetrated by a
power auger. Auger refusal often represents the surface of mass rock, or a large boulder,
pinnacle or resistant ledge of rock.
Groundwater: Groundwater was observed in borings B-11 and B-27 at depths of
approximately 8.5 and 13.3 feet below existing grades at 24 hours following the completion
N OVA Page 7

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
of drilling. Groundwater was not observed in the remaining borings (28); however; Borings B-
1, B-13 through B-18, and B-27 through B-30 caved at depths ranging from of 6.5 to 17 feet
below existing ground surface upon retrieval of the augers and caved depths can be indicative
of actual groundwater elevations.
A summary of conditions at the boring locations is included in Appendix B.
3.4 Laboratory Testing
A laboratory testing program was conducted to characterize materials existing at the site using
split -spoon samples recovered from the site. The laboratory test data are presented in Appendix
C. Selected test data are presented on the Test Boring Records attached in Appendix B. The
specific tests are briefly described below.
It should be noted that all soil samples would be properly disposed of 30 days following the
submittal of this NOVA subsurface exploration report unless you request otherwise.
Soil Classification
Soil classification provides a general guide to the engineering properties of various soil types
and enable the engineer to apply past experience to current problems. In our explorations,
samples obtained during drilling operations are observed in our laboratory and visually
classified by an engineer. The soils are classified according to consistency (based on number
of blows from standard penetration tests), color and texture. These classification descriptions
are included on our "Test Boring Logs". The classification system discussed above is primarily
qualitative; laboratory testing is generally performed for detailed soil classification. Using the
test results, the soils were classified using the Unified Soil Classification Systems. This
classification system and the in -place physical soil properties provide an index for estimating
the soil's behavior. The soil classification and physical properties obtained are presented in
this report.
California Bearing Ratio (CBR Tests
Two (2) CBR tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D1883 - Standard Test Method for
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of Laboratory -Compacted Soils to determine the ratio of pavement
subgrade, subbase and base coarse materials from laboratory compacted specimens.
N OVA Page 8

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
4.0 GEOTECH N ICAL ASSESSMENT
The following conclusions and recommendations are based on our understanding of the
proposed construction, site observations, our evaluation and interpretation of the field and
laboratory data obtained during this exploration, our experience with similar subsurface
conditions, and generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices.
Subsurface conditions in unexplored locations may vary from those encountered at specific
boring locations. If such variations are noted during construction, or if project development
plans are changed, we request the opportunity to review the changes and amend our
recommendations, if necessary.
Moisture Sensitive Soils: The soil test borings conducted as part of this study revealed a
subsurface profile consisting of a surface topsoil cover ranging from 3 to 8 inches in thickness,
underlain by residual soils. In general, the near surface soils consisted of firm to very stiff sandy
SILTS and lose to medium dense silty SANDS. The residuum generally appears suitable for
support of the proposed structures and pavements and re -use as structural fill. However, the
SILTs are likely to be moisture sensitive and prone to loss of strength when exposed to the
combination of wet weather and construction traffic. Also, these types of soils are difficult to dry
once they become wet. As such, care will be required during site gradingto protect the subgrade
from degradation due to inclement weather and construction traffic. The samples collected
generally appeared to be near assumed optimum moisture contents based on visual/manual
classification.
Potential Environmental Issues: The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), dated June
30, 2020 performed by NOVA in connection to the site has identified three (3) former heating
oil underground storage tanks (USTs) adjacent to the existing residences. The potential exists
for encountering contaminated soils in these areas. Contaminated materials that are disturbed
during construction will be considered a category of solid waste and will require appropriate
handling and disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal rules and regulations. It is
our experience that soil and/or groundwater environmental issues can have a significant impact
on the geotechnical aspects of the project. We recommend that the NOVA environmental
reports be reviewed by the design and construction team prior to commencing design and
construction activities to identify environmental concerns related to site development. At this
time there is no revealed evidence of environmental impacts to soil and groundwater at the site
which will limit earthwork activities.
Existing Structures: Based on the provided site plans, the razing of several structures will be
required as a part of this development. Prior to proceeding with construction, all slabs,
foundations, pavements, vegetation, root systems, topsoil and other deleterious non -soil
material should be stripped from the proposed construction area.
N OVA Page 9

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
Shallow Foundations: We recommend that the proposed structures be supported on
conventional shallow foundations designed for a maximum allowable soil bearing capacity of
2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). It should be noted that soft soils and shallow groundwater
were encountered in the central portion of the proposed food store structure. Based on the
actual finished grades and foundation bearing elevations, some remediation of the subgrade
and/or use of a reduced bearing capacity may be required. Once site plans are more developed
the foundation recommendations should be reviewed and new recommendations made, if
needed.
Difficult Excavation: Partially weathered rock (PWR) was encountered beneath topsoil and
residual soils in borings B-2, B-11 and B-15 at depths of 6 inches, 48-1/2 feet and 13-1/2
feet, respectively. Additionally, refusal to drilling methods was encountered within boring B-2
at a depth of 5 feet. This boring was offset and encountered similar conditions with refusal at
a depth of 3 feet. Cuts on the order of up to 6 feet will be required in this area to reach
proposed finished floor elevations. Difficult excavation techniques will be required to reach
finished grades and during foundation/utility installation in this area. Note that this condition
was isolated to this boring location only; however, as stated previously the weathering process
in the piedmont is variable and variations in depth to rock should be expected across the site.
It would be prudent to perform some additional exploration (test pits) in this area to further
delineate the vertical and horizontal extents of the shallow weathered rock and rock and to
evaluate their impacts on the proposed development.
Groundwater Control: Groundwater was encountered in borings B-11 and B-27 at depths of
approximately 8-1/2 and 13-1/2 feet below existing grades at 24 hours following drilling.
Groundwater was not noted in any of the other borings at 24 hours.
• Boring B-27 was performed in a low-lying area that is to be developed with a retaining
wall. It is not anticipated that groundwater will be encountered in this area during site
grading; however, soft soils which may require some remediation/stabilization prior to
construction of the proposed retaining wall will likely be encountered at the surface.
• Boring B-11 was performed in the center of the proposed food store which will require
cuts on the order of 6 to 12 feet to reach proposed finished floor elevations. It is likely
that groundwater and groundwater softened soils will be encountered during grading
and utility and foundation installation in this area. Some dewttering may be required to
lower the groundwater table to allow for subgrade and foundation preparation. The
groundwater encountered at boring B-11 was an anomaly compared to the other seven
(7) borings performed in this area; therefore, it would be prudent to perform some
supplemental studies (additional borings and/or test pits) to further evaluate the
groundwater level in this area and its impact on the proposed development.
MSE Retaining Walls: We understand that multiple retaining walls are planned for this project;
however, no wall design information was provided at the time of this report. An abundance of
granular material that would typically be considered suitable for use in mechanically stabilized
earth (MSE) retaining walls was not encountered in the borings. It may be prudent to perform
N OVA Page 10

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed West End Development
July 23. 2020
NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
some additional studies (test pits) once site and wall plans are further developed to try to
identify sources on site where wall backfill material can be sourced from. Alternatively, import
of wall backfill material should be planned for. However, once construction begins and actual
backfill soils identified, laboratory triaxial shear and classification testing may be required to
confirm suitability.
N OVA Page 11

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
5.0 GENERAL SITE PREPARATION
5.1 Site Preparation
Several structures that will require demolition currently occupy the site. Prior to proceeding with
construction, all slabs, foundations, pavements, vegetation, root systems, topsoil, and other
deleterious non -soil materials should be stripped from proposed construction areas. Clean
topsoil may be stockpiled and subsequently re -used in landscaped areas. Debris -laden
materials should be excavated, transported, and disposed of off -site in accordance with
appropriate solid waste rules and regulations. All existing utility locations should be reviewed
to assess their impact on the proposed construction and relocated/grouted in -place as
appropriate.
After clearing and stripping, areas, which are at grade or will receive fill should be carefully
evaluated by a NOVA geotechnical engineer. The evaluation should include proofrolling of the
subgrade with multiple passes of a 20 to 30 ton loaded truck, a 10 to 12 ton vibratory roller,
or other vehicle of similar size and weight. Vibratory compaction should be turned off and
static rolling should be performed if yielding conditions appear.
The purpose of the proofrolling is to locate soft, weak, or excessively wet soils present at the
time of construction. Unstable materials observed during the evaluation and proof -rolling
operations should be undercut and replaced with structural fill orstabilized in -place by scarifying
and re-densifying.
In the event that low consistency and/or debris laden fill materials are encountered during
construction, typical recommendations would include undercutting and backfilling with
structural fill and/or stabilizing in -place with fabric, stone, and/or other remedial techniques.
Actual remedial recommendations can best be determined by the geotechnical engineer in the
field at the time of construction.
The site should be graded during construction such that positive drainage is maintained away
from the construction areas, to prevent ponding of storm water on the site during and shortly
following significant rain events. The construction areas should also be sealed and crowned with
a smooth roller to minimize ponding water from storm events at the end of each day of work.
5.2 Fill Placement and Compaction
Fill Suitability: Materials required to backfill structural areas, undercut areas and buried utility
lines should generally consist of low plasticity soils meeting the requirements of Unified Soil
Classifications SC, SM, MIL, or CL. Residual materials which are excavated from the site should
be suitable for reuse as fill, except where they are found to contain excessive organic matter.
New fill should be placed in maximum 8-inch loose lifts and compacted to a minimum of 95%
of the maximum dry unit weight obtained in accordance with the Standard Proctor Test Method
(ASTM D698). Moisture contents should be maintained within ±2 percent of optimum moisture
N OVA Page 12

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
during placement and compaction. Field density tests should be conducted on a regular basis
to confirm the level of compaction is being achieved.
All materials to be used for backfill or compacted fill construction should be evaluated and, if
necessary, tested by NOVA prior to placement to determine if they are suitable for the intended
use. In general, based upon the boring results, the near surface sands such as those
encountered in the borings can be used as a structural fill as well as general subgrade fill and
backfill, provided that the fill material is free of rubble, clay, rock, roots and organics. Any off -
site materials used as fill should be approved by NOVA prior to acquisition.
Organic and/or debris -laden material is not suitable for re -use as structural fill. Topsoil,
mulch, and similar organic materials can be wasted in architectural areas. Debris -laden
materials should be excavated, transported, and disposed of off -site in accordance with
appropriate solid waste rules and regulations.
It should be noted that much of the soils encountered during our study are anticipated to be
moderately moisture sensitive and prone to loss of strength and/or degradation when
exposed to wet weather. Care should be taken during site grading to protect exposed
subgrade materials and stockpiled fill materials. Drying of soils which become wet will be
difficult.
Soil Compaction: Fill should be placed in thin, horizontal loose lifts (maximum 8-inch) and
compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698).
The upper 8 inches of soil beneath pavements and slab -on -grade should be compacted to at
least 98 percent. In confined areas, such as utility trenches or behind retaining walls, portable
compaction equipment and thinner fill lifts (3 to 4 inches) may be necessary. Fill materials
used in structural areas should have a target maximum dry density of at least 95 pounds per
cubic foot (pcf). If lighter weight fill materials are used, the NOVA geotechnical engineer
should be consulted to assess the impact on design recommendations.
Soil moisture content should be maintained within 3 percent of the optimum moisture content.
We recommend that the grading contractor have equipment on site during earthwork for both
drying and wetting fill soils. Moisture control may be difficult during rainy weather. Soils
excavated from below the groundwater table will likely require significant efforts to achieve
acceptable moisture contents prior to reuse as fill.
Filling operations should be observed by a NOVA soils technician, who can confirm suitability
of material used and uniformity and appropriateness of compaction efforts. He/she can also
document compliance with the specifications by performing field density tests using thin -
walled tube, nuclear, or sand cone testing methods (ASTM D 2937, D 2922, or D 1556,
respectively). One test per 400 cubic yards and every 2 feet of placed fill is recommended,
with test locations well distributed throughout the fill mass. When filling in small areas, at
least one test per day per area should be performed.
N OVA Page 13

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
Prior to initiating construction, the site should be properly prepared. First, all materials and
existing structures should be removed from the site. Any underground utilities which underlie
the building sites should be removed or rerouted wherever possible.
Based upon the planned finished grades in the area of boring B-2 we anticipate partially
weathered rock (PWR) and/or rock that requires difficult excavation techniques will be
encountered during site grading. The following guidelines have been prepared for the use,
placement, and compaction of PWR and/or blast rock within fill areas.
Approved fill areas where these materials may be used include landscaped areas or other
non-structural fill areas, provided the upper limit (elevation) of these materials is at least 2
feet below design subgrade elevations.
Preferably, the widespread use of these materials in structural fill areas should be avoided.
However, these materials may be placed in structural areas provided the upper limit of these
materials is at least 3 feet below design elevations of pavements and 5 feet beneath the
bottom of spread foundations.
Rock or PWR pieces with thicknesses over 3 inches should not be incorporated into the fills.
Soil should be intermixed with the PWR/rock materials in sufficient quantities to prevent void
formation within the mass. The soils should be at or near their optimum moisture content. Lift
thicknesses should be as thin as practical and should not exceed 1 foot prior to compaction.
Heavy compaction equipment will be required in order to adequately compact the soil matrix
to its required density and to break down PWR and/or rock. Additional effort will be required
to pulverize the dense materials in structural fill areas to provide a well -compacted, relatively
homogeneous fill. Our experience has been that these materials generally require at least 6
passes of heavy vibratory compaction equipment; however, we recommend that actual
compaction requirements be determined in the field.
Where fill contains substantial quantities of rock and cannot be adequately tested, its
placement and compaction should be observed on a full-time basis by a NOVA senior
engineering technician. The technician will note the stability of the rock fill based on
observations of compaction methods performed using heavy equipment. On a periodic basis,
the rock fill procedure should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to ensure that the
PWR/rockfill materials are properly placed and compacted, with sufficient soil fines to prevent
void formation.
Further recommendations relating to site preparation are presented in the following sections
of this report.
5.3
N OVA Page 14

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
5.4 Difficult Excavation
Very dense soils, PWR, and/or auger refusal materials were encountered within boring B-2
located in the northeastern portion of the site at depths above planned grades. As a result, we
anticipate that materials requiring difficult excavation techniques will be encountered during
site grading and utility/foundation excavations during construction, most notably in the
northeastern portion of the site.
As discussed in the geology section of this report, the weathering process is erratic and variations
in the PWR or rock profile can occur in small lateral distances. Therefore, it is likely that very
dense soils, PWR, and/or rock pinnacles or ledges requiring difficult excavation techniques may
be encountered in site areas intermediate of our boring locations.
Ripping: Mass excavation of very hard or very dense soils (> 50 bpf) and PWR will likely require
loosening the material with a large single -toothed ripper or track -mounted backhoe before
removal with conventional earthmoving equipment. In confined areas, such as utility trenches
and foundations, excavations of very hard or very dense soils (> 50 bpf) and PWR, may require
either the use of pneumatic tools or light blasting.
Blasting: Depending on the extent and depth of the dense materials and or auger refusal
materials, blasting operations may be required to remove the auger refusal materials.
Rock Gradation: The gradation of the material removed by ripping or blasting will be erratic,
particularly the upper zones of fractured rock. Re -use of these materials in fills will require
additional effort and control, as described in the Fill Placement report section.
Rock Definition: The definition of rock can be source of conflict during construction. If a
classified excavation contract is selected by the owner, the following definitions have been
incorporated into classified excavation specifications on other projects and are provided for
your general guidance.
We recommend that the determination and confirmation of difficult excavation materials be
performed by the NOVA geotechnical engineer in accordance with the project specifications.
Measurement of the quantities of difficult excavation materials should be performed by the
project surveyor.
N OVA Page 15

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
GENERAL EXCAVATION
Blast Rock Any material which cannot be excavated with a single -tooth
ripper mounted on a crawler tractor having a minimum draw
bar pull rated at not less than 56,000 pounds (Caterpillar D-
8K or equivalent) or by a Caterpillar 977 front-end loader or
equivalent, and occupying an original volume of at least one
(1) cubic yard.
TRENCH EXCAVATION
Trench Rock Any material which cannot be excavated with a backhoe having
a bucket curling force rated at not less than 25,700 pounds
(Caterpillar Model 225 or equivalent), and occupying an
original volume of at least one-half (1/2) cubic yard.
5.5 Water Softened Solis and Low Lying Areas
Groundwater was encountered above planned grades in borings B-11 located in the center of
the proposed food store which could have a significant impact on construction and the nature
and extent of remedial subgrade improvement. Additionally, boring B-27 was performed in a
low-lying area of the site and encountered soft soils near the existing grades. Stabilization of
the exposed subgrades prior to placement of fill or construction of the proposed retaining wall
in this area will likely be required. We believe it would be prudent to schedule construction
activities for the drier season of the year, typically late summer/early fall, when groundwater
levels and rainfall are usually near their yearly minimum.
Excavations below groundwater will require the installation of a dewatering system. Even after
the dewatering systems are installed, these residual materials will be water -softened and
subject to degradation due to the high groundwater levels. Construction traffic should be
minimized as much as practical to reduce the damage to the subgrade. However, regardless
of the protective measures taken, we anticipate that undercutting and stabilization of portions
of the residual soil subgrade will still be necessary in this portion of the site
In the event that unstable soils are encountered, typical recommendations would include
undercutting and replacing with structural fill/stone or stabilizing in -place with fabric and
stone, as described below. A temporary dewatering system will be required in the event that
groundwater exists at or near subgrade levels.
Stabilization of the exposed groundwater -softened subgrade will likely consist of a woven
geotextile overlain by 1 to 2 feet of surge stone capped with 6 to 12 inches of #57 stone and/or
compacted graded aggregate base (GAB). In deep fill areas (+6 feet) beneath architectural
structures or parking lots, the use of soil "bridge" lifts may also be possible to provide a stable
base upon which to subsequently compact structural fill. The actual extent and nature of the
required remedial measures can best be determined in the field at the time of construction.
N OVA Page 16

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
6.0 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Design: After the recommended site and subgrade preparation and fill placement, we
recommend that the proposed structure be supported by conventional shallow foundations.
Foundations bearing on undisturbed residual soils and/or compacted structural fill may be
designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The
aforementioned bearing pressure is based on the foundation bottoms being compacted to 95%
of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the foundation
bearing surface.
We recommend minimum foundation widths of 24 inchesfor ease of construction and to reduce
the possibility of localized shear failures. Exterior foundation bottoms should be at least 18
inches below exterior grades for protection against frost damage.
Settlement: Settlements for spread foundations bearing on the higher consistency residual
materials were assessed using SPT values to estimate elastic modulus, based on published
correlations and previous NOVA experience. We note that the settlements presented are based
on random field data and an assumed subsoil profile. Conditions may be better or worse in
other areas, however, we believe the estimated settlements are reasonably conservative. The
time rate of settlement was estimated based on NOVA's experience with similar data and soil
profiles/based upon the results of the consolidation testing.
Based on column loadings, soil bearing capacities and the presumed foundation elevations as
discussed above, we expect primary total settlement beneath individual foundations to be on
the order of 1 inch.
The amount of differential settlement is difficult to predict because the subsurface and
foundation loading conditions can vary considerably across the site. However, we anticipate
differential settlement between adjacent foundations could vary from 1/2 to 3/4inch. The final
deflected shape of the structure will be dependent on actual foundation locations and loading.
Foundation support conditions are highly erratic and may vary dramatically in short horizontal
distances. It is anticipated that the geotechnical engineer may recommend a different bearing
capacity upon examination of the actual foundation subgrade at numerous locations.
To reduce the differential settlement if lower consistency materials are encountered, a lower
bearing capacity should be used or the foundations should be extended to more competent
materials. In addition, foundation subgrades which are excavated into PWR/rock may need
to be slightly undercut with controlled structural fill placed between the PWR/rock and the
bottom of the foundation to produce some settlement of the foundation, thus reducing
differential settlements with nearby foundations bearing on less dense material. We
N OVA Page 17

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
anticipate that timely communication between the geotechnical engineer and the structural
engineer, as well as other design and construction team members, will be required.
Construction: Foundation excavations should be evaluated by the NOVA geotechnical
engineer prior to reinforcing steel placementto observe foundation subgrade preparation and
confirm bearing pressure capacity.
Foundation excavations should be level and free of debris, ponded water, mud, and loose,
frozen, or water -softened soils. Concrete should be placed as soon as is practical after the
foundation is excavated and the subgrade evaluated. Foundation concrete should not be
placed on frozen or saturated soil. If a foundation excavation remains open overnight, or if
rain or snow is imminent, a 3 to 4-inch thick "mud mat" of lean concrete should be placed in
the bottom of the excavation to protect the bearing soils until reinforcing steel and concrete
can be placed.
N OVA Page 18

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
7.0 SLAB ON GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS
If the subgrade soils are prepared as outlined herein, a Modulus of Subgrade Reaction of 100
pci may be employed in the design of floor slabs supported on residual soils or properly
compacted fills. Please note that this magnitude of k is intended to reflect the elastic
response of soil beneath a typical floor slab under light loads with a small load contact area
often measured in square inches, such as loads from forklifts, automobile/truck traffic or
lightly loaded storage racks. The recommended coefficient of subgrade reaction (k) of 100
pci is not applicable for heavy slab loads caused by bulk storage or tall storage racks, or for mat
foundation design.
Several design methods are applicable for conventional slab design. We have assumed that
the slab designer will utilize the methods discussed in the American Concrete Institute (ACI)
Committee 360 report, "Guide to Design of Slabs -on -Ground, (ACI 360R-10). Specifically, the
Portland Cement Association (PCA) or the Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRI) slab thickness
design methods.
An underdrain system is not required for the proposed residential structures or the proposed
retail buildings. However, we recommend a minimum of 4-inches of aggregate base course
(ABC) or #57 stone beneath the slabs to:
• Reduce non -uniform support conditions
• Provide a stable base to support construction traffic
• Provide a base material that can be fine graded to design tolerances.
ABC should be compacted to 98 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the
modified Proctor compaction test (ASTM D 1557) and overlain by a conventional plastic vapor
barrier.
Groundwater was encountered in one boring performed in the center of the proposed food
store. We recommend further evaluation of the groundwater levels in this portion of the site
to further evaluate the impacts of groundwater on the proposed construction. Should
groundwater levels be present above or near proposed finished grades a underdrain system
and or permanent dewatering system may be required. These systems should be designed
once the additional evaluation has been completed.
Once grading is completed, the subgrade is usually exposed to adverse construction activities
and weather conditions during the period of sub -slab utility installation. The subgrade should
be well -drained to prevent the accumulation of water. If the exposed subgrade becomes
saturated or frozen, the geotechnical engineer should be consulted.
N OVA Page 19

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed West End Development
July 23. 2020
NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
After utilities have been installed and backfilled, a final subgrade evaluation should be
performed by the geotechnical engineer immediately prior to slab -on -grade placement. If
practical, proofrolling may be used to redensify the surface and to detect any soil that has
become excessively wet or otherwise loosened.
N OVA Page 20

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
8.0 BELOW GRADE WALLS
8.1 Cast in Place Walls
The magnitude and distribution of earth pressures against below grade walls depends on the
deformation condition (rotation) of the wall, soil properties and water conditions. When the
soil behind the wall is prevented from lateral strain, the resulting force is known as the at -rest
earth pressure (Ko). If the retaining structure moves away from the soil mass, the earth
pressure decreases with the increasing lateral expansion until a minimum pressure, known
as the active earth pressure (KA), is reached. If the wall is forced into the soil mass, the earth
pressure increases until a maximum pressure, known as the passive earth pressure (KP), is
obtained.
Free-standing retaining walls are usually designed for active earth pressures. Rigid basement
walls are typically designed for at -rest earth pressures. If basement walls will be backfilled
before they are braced by the floor slabs, they should also be designed to withstand active
earth pressures as self-supporting cantilever walls. However, the earth pressures must be
compatible with the wall rotation, which is limited by the wall rigidity, foundation support
conditions and connections to adjoining structures. If active earth pressure development
requires horizontal wall movements that cannot occur, or which are architecturally
undesirable, walls should be designed for an intermediate pressure based on restraint
conditions.
Laboratory analysis to determine actual soil shear strength properties was beyond the
authorized scope of services. Based on our experience with similar soils and construction, we
have provided the earth pressure estimates shown below:
Earth
Pressure
Condition
Earth Pressure
Coefficient
Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcfl
Above Water Table
Below Water Table
Active (Ka)
0.33
40
80
At -Rest (Ko)
0.50
60
89
Passive (Kp)
3.00
150*
TBD**
* Passive earth pressure is frequently used in retaining wall design to resist active earth
pressures. Wall movements required to develop full passive earth pressures are
significantly greater than movements necessary for active earth pressures.
Consequently, this passive pressure value has been reduced by at least 50% for wall
design
* * Passive earth pressure for submerged wall design shall be determined on a case -by -
case basis.
N OVA Page 21

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed West End Development
H
(Wall Height)
July 23. 2020
NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
EFP x H {pj
Earth Pressure
We recommend a value of 0.35 as the coefficient of friction (sliding resistance) between wall
foundations and the underlying residual or fill soils. These design values do not contain a
safety factor.
Our lateral earth pressure recommendations assume that:
• The ground surface adjacent to the wall is level,
• Residual soils will be reused for wall backfill, compacted between 95% to 98% of
the standard proctor maximum dry density,
• Soil backfill weight is a maximum of 120 pcf
• Heavy construction equipment does not operate within 5 feet of the walls,
• A constantly functioning drainage system is installed between the wall and the soil
backfill to prevent hydrostatic pressures from acting on the wall,
• Foundations or other significant surcharge loads are located outside the wall a
distance at least equal to the wall height,
• For active earth pressure, wall must rotate about base, with top lateral movements
of about 0.002 H to 0.004 H, where H is wall height.
• For passive earth pressure to develop, wall must move horizontally to mobilize
resistance.
8.2 MSE Walls
As shown on the provided site plans we understand that a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE)
wall system is planned to provide grade break at several areas of the site.
MSE wall systems consist of thin strips or grids made of metal or plastic that are placed
horizontally between backfill layers at right angles to the wall face. The strips/grids provide
tensile reinforcement within the fill, as well as tie the precast concrete wall facing to the soil
N OVA Page 22

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
mass. Because the system is a self-supporting soil mass, the "design bearing pressure"
concept, typically used in conventional cast -in -place retaining wall design to size the wall
foundations, is generally not applicable. The reinforced soil system is interpreted to behave as
a flexible, mass gravity wall, consequently, the design usually considers the resistance to wall
overturning and global slope stability, as well as the internal stability of the reinforced earth
system. Wall system design must also consider any surcharges caused by sloping fill, the
potential impact of leaks from water or sewer lines, and the proximity of adjacent buildings.
Typically, these walls are a design/build system that are the responsibility of the contractor and
his specialty wall subcontractor. The specifications usually state that the wall supplier is to
design, install, warrant and guarantee the MSE wall without reliance on other entities. This
includes the determination and confirmation of foundation and fill parameters used in design,
such as total and effective shear stress parameters, as well as settlement and deformation
characteristics of the wall system.
Please note that NOVA has not performed a geotechnical study for the MSE wall. The bearing
pressures and earth pressures presented in other sections of this report may not be appropriate
for MSE wall design. Consequently, we recommend that the wall supplier confirm the
parameters used in his MSE wall design.
N OVA Page 23

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed West End Development
9.0 SLOPES
July 23. 2020
NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
Slope stability analysis using laboratory shear strength data was beyond the scope of this
study. However, based on our experience with similar subsurface conditions and construction,
permanent slopes no steeper than 2.0(H): 1.0(V) should be stable longterm, if limited in height
to 20 feet, and are not inundated or subjected to rapid draw -down conditions, or subjected to
groundwater seepage.
Adjacent to building, a top of slope set -back of 10 feet is recommended. In pavement areas,
a minimum top of slope setback of 5 feet is acceptable.
Temporary slopes should be no steeper than OSHA guidelines. During construction, temporary
slopes should be regularly inspected for signs of movement or unsafe condition. Soil slopes
should be covered for protection from rain, and surface run-off should be diverted away from
the slopes. For erosion protection, a protective cover of grass or other vegetation should be
established on permanent soil slopes as soon as possible.
N OVA Page 24

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed West End Development
July 23. 2020
NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
10.0 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION
In accordance with 2018 North Carolina Building Code (NCBC), the seismic Site Class was
estimated using the standard penetration resistance values obtained from the soil test borings
performed duringthis study. Based upon this analysis, and our knowledge of general subsurface
conditions in the area, we believe the soil profiles associated with a Site Class "Y are generally
appropriate for this site.
We note that the IBC allows determination of Site Class using in -situ seismic shear wave survey
techniques. It should be noted that use of this supplemental method does not guarantee a lower
site class designation; however, it is a reasonable and prudent approach that can be performed
in a supplemental study, if requested.
N OVA Page 25

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
11.0 PAVEMENTS
The exposed conditions at proposed finished subgrade elevations for the site pavements will
likely include residual soils and structural fill. Provided the site subgrades are prepared and
evaluated as described above the following pavement sections are recommended.
11.1 Flexible Pavement
At the time of this report, traffic loading conditions have not been provided. For preliminary
design purposes the following traffic loading conditions have been assumed:
• Standard Duty: 1,000 automobiles per day for 7 days per week with the occasional
delivery truck.
• Heavy Duty: Supporting 100,000 equivalent, 18-kip axle loads for a 20-year life
Based on subsurface conditions encountered at this site, the recommended site preparation
procedures, and the laboratory test results we have utilized a CBR of 5 for the pavement section
evaluation. Our recommended flexible pavement design recommendations are based on
assumed traffic loading conditions and our experience with similar soils, the following flexible
pavement sections are recommended:
Pavement Section
Standard Duty *
Heavy Duty **
Asphaltic Surface Course
(9.5 mm SuperPave, NCDOT approved
2 inches
1 inch
mix)
Asphaltic Base Course
(19 mm SuperPave, NCDOT approved
-
2 inches
mix)
Aggregate Base Course (ABC Stone)
from an approved NCDOT source
8 inches
8 inches
* Standard Duty - Driveways and parking lots restricted to automobile traffic
* * Heavy Duty -Driveways and parking lots subject to automobile and truck traffic
We recommend a minimum compaction of 98 percent of the maximum dry density for the
crushed stone material Aggregate Base Course (ABC) as determined by the modified Proctor
compaction test (ASTM D 1557, Method D). The crushed stone should conform to applicable
sections of the current NCDOT Standard Specifications. All asphalt material and paving
operations should meet applicable specifications of the Asphalt Institute and NCDOT. A NOVA
N OVA Page 26

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23. 2020
Proposed West End Development NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
technician should observe placement and compaction activities and perform density testing of
the base course material and asphalt.
11.2 Rigid Pavements
Based on the subsurface conditions at the site, assumed traffic loading conditions and an
estimated subgrade modulus (k) of 100 psi/inch for traffic or wheel loading, our recommended
rigid pavement design in the heavy duty pavement area is as follows:
Pavement Section
Heavy Duty
NCDOT approved air -entrained
concrete mix
6 inches
Aggregate Base Course (ABC) Stone
from an approved NCDOT source
4 inches
Control Joint Spacing
(maximum)
10 feet X 10 feet
Saw -Cut Depth
(minimum)
1.5 inches
* Heavy Duty - Driveways and parking lots subject to automobile and truck traffic
All concrete materials and placement should conform to applicable NCDOT specifications. We
recommend that a non -woven geotextile (about 3 feet wide) be placed beneath the construction
joints to prevent upward "pumping' movement of soil fines through the joints.
We recommend using concrete with a minimum compressive strength of 4000 psi and a
minimum 28-day flexural strength (modulus of rupture) of at least 600 pounds per square inch,
based on 3rd point loading of concrete beam test samples. Layout of the saw -cut control joints
should form square panels, and the depth of saw -cut joint should be approximately 1/4 of the
concrete slab thickness. The joints should be sawed within six (6) hours of concrete placement
or as soon as the concrete has developed sufficient strength to support workers and equipment.
We recommend allowing NOVA to review and comment on the final concrete pavement design,
including section and joint details (type of joints, joint spacing, etc.), prior to the start of
construction. For further details on concrete pavement construction, please reference the
"Guide to Jointing on Non -Reinforced Concrete Pavements" published by the Florida Concrete
and Products Associates, Inc., and "Building Quality Concrete Parking Areas", published by the
Portland Cement Association.
Please note that the recommended pavement sections are based on assumed post -
construction traffic loadings. If the pavement is to be constructed and utilized by construction
traffic, the above pavement sections will likely prove insufficient for heavy truck traffic, such as
N OVA Page 27

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed West End Development
July 23. 2020
NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
concrete trucks or tractor -trailers used for construction delivery. Unexpected distress, reduced
pavement life and /or pre -mature failure of the pavement section could result if subjected to
heavy construction traffic and the owner should be made aware of this risk. If the assumed
traffic loading stated herein is not correct, NOVA should review actual pavement loading
conditions to determine if revisions to these recommendations are warranted.
We note that vehicle loading conditions was not available at the time of this report. The
design recommendations provided above should be re-evaluated by NOVA once actual traffic
loading information is available. The above sections should be reviewed should any of the
roadways be designated as City of Winston Salem roadways to determine compatibility with
City standard design requirements.
N 0 VA Page 28

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed West End Development
July 23. 2020
NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
12.0 SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES
Based on the variable subsurface conditions encountered during this exploration, further
exploration of the site is recommended. Specifically, we recommend the excavation of test
pits and/or additional soil test borings in the area of B-2 and B-11 to further evaluate the
groundwater conditions in the proposed food store and the depth and extent of refusal
materials and PWR in the XX portion of the site. This work should be performed before design
is completed, but could be performed at the time of construction as long as the owner
understands that changes regarding foundation bearing depths, bearing pressures and/or
undercutting or stabilization requirements may change from those presented in this report.
N OVA Page 29

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed West End Development
July 23. 2020
NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024
13.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS
13.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Foundation excavations should be level and free of debris, ponded water, mud, and
loose, frozen or water -softened soils. All foundation excavations should be evaluated by
the NOVA geotechnical engineer prior to reinforcing steel placement to observe
foundation subgrade preparation and confirm bearing pressure capacity. Due to
variable site subsurface and construction conditions, some adjustments in isolated
foundation bearing pressures, depth of foundations or undercutting and replacement
with controlled structural fill may be necessary.
13.2 SUEGRADE
Once site grading is completed, the subgrade may be exposed to adverse construction
activities and weather conditions. The subgrade should be well -drained to prevent the
accumulation of water. If the exposed subgrade becomes saturated or frozen, the
NOVA geotechnical engineer should be consulted.
A final subgrade evaluation should be performed by the NOVA geotechnical engineer
immediately prior to pavements or slab -on -grade placement. If practical, proofrolling
may be used to re-densify the surface and to detect any soil, which has become
excessively wet or otherwise loosened.
N OVA Page 30

APPENDIX A
Figures and Maps

Rubinho�Rd .,Y,
Subject Property �b�Moo�d Rd
I
I
I y
0.
0
f
r7
F
O
•
o g le 4
Map data a^_32C LI-'-ec: S t.es Terms Sena feedback 'LOGO f-
SOURCE: Google Maps
Figure 1: Site Location Plan
N OVA Proposed West End Development
Winston Salem, North Carolina
PROFESSIONAL I PRACTICAL I PROVEN NOVA Project Number: 10705-2020024
SCALE: As Shown

a a ^ �k • y `' t �
f r ' f`
�� �' + . ,- —� a �• �. ' , •,�. ,,,. _
I'll 41
is ••� b.�•. Y _� o - �y [ 4
�".
1 w
� ` r -� � •� � Sl,hiPrt PrnnPrtV � !
Approximate Subject
Property Boundary Line
FIGURE 2
SITE LOCATION PLAN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
N13VA
Proposed West End Development
SOURCE: Forsyth County GIS Winston Salem, North Carolina
SCALE: As Shown PROFESSIONAL I PRACTICAL I PROVEN NOVA Project Number10705-2020024

• I./eh �, Wall to Saeen Services Wea �
Retail ! Restaurant Full Movemen vl,
�rSize: 4.200 SF +1- eo �,. sy�� ,Q a{� - .. ....
p 9'MonuRlen[ Retail! Restaurant
Footprint: 60'x 70' '"Sign age Commercla� Size 7200 SF+h
r} _ Parking Required: Based on AklacaGon Footprint 80' x 120' a
ere.-
�` Parking Provided: 36 spaces +1- r�� i- Parking Required: Based on AlkoraGon
Fw +1 45 d id P ki
�Parng rove: spaces -�
"r a ?t,- .� a. � - � ,•'��x:.. R Rig nl-inl Rigmau[
aE
Food Store 'l• •� s.l.gnage
Size: 51,447 SF 1-
Interlar �
'notprint 48X7 SIF +1- F Retail ! Restaurant
Padang Required (@11200): 242 spaces rl I -Z_,g _ Size_ 7.200 SF +!-
Parking Provided: 24a spaces *1- II �gj'- �..:?, `-- Footprint! 60' x 120'
B-r� C --?' - Parking Required: Based on AElaration
GJ I B-111 ' r R. ��_ zA Parking Previded: 40 spaces+l-
s f r6-5-f
-- 1 3 - ,e 6 �3 a tparcel '
'.n9 Aces +r.
Multifamily B-13 1
Residential Gam:
227 Units +l- al e' No xment
23.63 Acres+l- Il .y e B'7 B-22 .. Slgnage '
G n B-21
B-1
B-30 B-2J
1 •
B-2
-N
- =--n 1J ❑ F ,Mtltn Anglenlg spat 0. .
i es
- --
2---------------
--
SOURCE: Alternate Grocery Concept West End Site Plan
prepared by Stimmel Associates, PA dated 5/22/20
Boring locations were determined in the field utilizing
a handheld GPS unit
SCALE: NTS
NOVA
s�0is „
Figure 3: Boring Location Plan
Proposed West End Development
Winston Salem, North Carolina
NOVA Project Number 10705-2020024

APPENDIX B
Subsurface Data

KEY TO SYMBOLS AND CLASSIFICATIONS
DRILLING SYMBOLS
Split Spoon Sample
a Undisturbed Sample (UD)
Standard Penetration Resistance (ASTM D1586)
1 Water Table at least 24 Hours after Drilling
SZ Water Table 1 Hour or less after Drilling
100/2" Number of Blows (100) to Drive the Spoon a Number of Inches (2)
NX, NQ Core Barrel Sizes: 2%8- and 2-Inch Diameter Rock Core, Respectively
REC Percentage of Rock Core Recovered
RQD Rock Quality Designation — Percentage of Recovered Core Segments 4 or more Inches Long
01 Loss of Drilling Water
MC Moisture Content Test Performed
CORRELATION OF PENETRATION RESISTANCE WITH RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY
Number of Blows, "N"
Approximate Relative Densi
0-4
Very Loose
5 —10
Loose
SANDS
11-30
Medium Dense
31— 50
Dense
Over 50
Very Dense
Number of Blows, "N"
Approximate Consistency
0-2
Very Soft
3-4
Soft
SILTS
5-8
Firm
and
9 —15
Stiff
CLAYS
16 — 30
Very Stiff
31— 50
Hard
Over 50
Very Hard
DRILLING PROCEDURES
Soil sampling and standard penetration testing performed in accordance with ASTM D1586. The standard
penetration resistance is the number of blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2-inch O.D., I% -
inch I.D. split spoon sampler one foot. Core drilling performed in accordance with ASTM D2113. The undisturbed
sampling procedure is described by ASTM D1587. Soil and rock samples will be discarded 30 days after the date of
the final report unless otherwise directed.
N ❑ VA

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
COARSE GRAINED
SOILS
GRAVELS
Clean Gravel
less than 5% fines
GW
Well graded gravel
GP
Poorly graded gravel
Gravels with Fines
more than 12% fines
GM
Silty gravel
GC
Clayey gravel
SANDS
Clean Sand
less than 5% fines
SW
Well graded sand
SP
Poorly graded sand
Sands with Fines
more than 12% fines
SM
Silty sand
SC
Clayey sand
FINE GRAINED
SOILS
SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid Limit
less than 50
Inorganic
CL
Lean clay
ML
Silt
Organic
OL
Organic clay and silt
SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid Limit
50 or more
Inorganic
CH
Fat clay
MH
Elastic silt
Organic
OH
Organic clay and silt
HIGHLY ORGANIC
SOILS
Organic matter, dark
color, organic odor
PT
Peat
PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION
GRAVELS
Coarse
% inch to 3 inches
Fine
No. 4 to % inch
SANDS
Coarse
No. 10 to No. 4
Medium
No. 40 to No. 10
Fine
No. 200 to No. 40
SILTS AND CLAYS
Passing No. 200
N ❑ VA

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
131
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Outparcel Building ELEVATION: 870 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/30/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/E CAVING> L 12.8'
^
O J
>
w
Description
U
0
6
3
a
N
Q
E
in ~
N
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT I
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
870
865
860
855
850
845
840
835
4-7-10
4-4-5
2-3-4
2-3-4
2-3-7
30
40
Topsoil (6")
9
•
17
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff to very stiff, red/orange slightly
micaceous clayey SILT (ML)
Moist, firm, orange/red micaceous SILT (ML) w/black
seams
Moist, firm, brown/tan micaceous SILT (ML) w/black & red
seams
5
7
7
10
10
Moist, stiff, grey/tan micaceous SILT (ML/MH) w/black &
red seams
15
Boring terminated at 15'
20
25
30
35
Page 1 of 1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B2
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Outparcel Building ELEVATION: 886 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/29/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/E CAVING> L 5'
^
0
o
>
w
Description
U
!E
6
3
a
N
Q
co ~
N
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
885
880
875
870
865
860
855
Q
Q
50/3"
50/4"
30
40
Topsoil (3")
❑°❑
° °
CIE] 11
° °
°
10
RESIDUUM: Moistgrey/white (fine) sandy SILT (ML)
PWR: Dry, hard, grey/white (fine) sandy SILT (ML) w/large
rock fragments
5
Auger refusal at -5'/Offset boring 15' & encountered
refusal (rock) at-3
10
15
20
25
30
35
Bulk Sample taken from 1'-5'
Pa e1of1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B3
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Outparcel Building ELEVATION: 887 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/29/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/E CAVING> L 17.3'
^
O J
>
w
Description
U
0
6
3
a
N
Q
E
in ~
N
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
885
880
875
870
865
860
855
4-6-7
4-4-5
3-3-4
3-2-3
4-4-5
3-4-6
30
40
Topsoil (6")
9
41
•
13
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff, red/brown (fine) sandy, clayey SILT
(ML) w/rock fragments
Moist, firm to stiff, red/orange micaceous SILT (ML)
Moist, stiff, brown micaceous SILT (ML)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Moist, stiff, brown/tan highly micaceous SILT (ML) w/black
seams
5
7
40
5
40
10
9
41
15
10
20
Boring terminated at 20'
25
30
35
Page 1 of 1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B4
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Attached Retail/Restaurant Addition ELEVATION: 887 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/26/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/E CAVING> L 17.6'
^
O J
>
w
Description
U
0
6
3
a
N
Q
E
in ~
N
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
°
885
880
875
870
865
860
855
6-6-7
3-4-4
3-4-8
4-5-4
3-8-9
4-5-6
8 16-35
30
40
Topsoil (6")
8
•
13
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff, orange/tan highly micaceous (fine)
sandy SILT (ML) w/rock fragments &large mica sheets
Moist, firm, tan/orange micaceous (fine) sandy SILT (ML)
5
9
12
Moist, medium dense, white/tan silty SAND (SM) w/rock
fragments
Moist, stiff to very stiff, tan/white (fine) sandy SILT (ML) W/
rock fragments
Moist, stiff, brown/grey micaceous SILT (ML) w/quartz rock
fragments & black seams
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Moist, hard, white/tan (fine) sandy SILT (ML) w/rock
fragments
10
17
15
1
20
1
25
Boring terminated at 25'
30
35
Page 1 of 1

N OVA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B5
0
885
ll
n
ll
ll
a
5
- 880
10
875
15
870
n
T
20
- 865
a
z
25
860
30
855
35
850
PROJECT: West End Development
PROJECT NO.:
10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Food Store - NE Corner
ELEVATION:
885 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2
LOGGED BY:
KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50
DATE:
6/26/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E
AFTER 24 HOURS: N/E CAVING> L 16.2'
Graphic Depiction
U
@
3
N
Q
N
Description
p
BLOW COUNT
2
Cu ~
z
.
NATURAL MOISTURE
PLASTIC
LIMIT ILIQUID LIMIT
10 20 30 40 60 10
Topsoil (4")
IDUUM: Moist, stiff, red/brown sandy, silty CLAY (CL)
rock fragments
Moist, stiff, orange/red micaceous sandy SILT (ML)
Moist, stiff, tan/white highly micaceous SILT (ML/MH) w/
seams of sand & rock fragments
------------------------
Moist, firm, grey/tan highly micaceous sandy SILT (ML/MH)
w/red & black seams
Moist, stiff, grey/tan highly micaceous SILT (ML/MH) w/
seams of fine sand
Moist, stiff, tan/white micaceous sandy SILT (ML) w/large
mica sheets & trace rock fragments
Boring terminated at 25'
4-6-8
3-4-5
4-5-4
2-3-4
7
•
•
14
5-4-5
4-7-8
5-7-6
15
0
13
0

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B6
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Food Store - East Wall ELEVATION: 880 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/26/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/E CAVING> L 18.0
^
O J
>
w
Description
U
0
6
3
a
N
Q
E
in ~
N
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
880
875
870
865
860
855
850
845
4-3-4
2-4-7
3-4-5
2-3-5
3-4-5
3-5-5
3-4-7
30
40
Topsoil (5")
•
7
1
RESIDUUM: Very moist, firm orange/red silty, sandy CLAY
(CL) w/rock fragments
Moist, stiff orange/red clayey, sandy SILT (ML) w/rock
fragments
5
9
8
40
Very moist, loose orange/red slightly micaceous silty SAND
(SM)
Moist, firm orange/red slightly micaceous (fine) sandy SILT
(M L)
Moist, stiff ruby/tan micaceous SILT (ML) w/black & tan
seams
Moist, stiff grey/orange micaceous (fine) sandy SILT (ML)
w/quartz rock fragments & saprolite seams
10
9
41
15
10
20
1
Very moist, stiff tan/grey slightly micaceous SILT (ML/MH)
w/black & tan seams
25
Boring terminated at 25'
30
35
Page 1 of 1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B7
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Food Store - SE Corner ELEVATION: 882 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/29/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/E CAVING> L 17.9
^
O J
>
w
Description
U
0
6
3
a
N
Q
E
in ~
N
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
880
875
870
865
860
855
850
4-6-8
4-3-4
3-3-4
3-3-4
3-3-5
3-3-5
4-4-6
30
40
Topsoil (6")
7
•
14
RESIDUUM: Dry, stiff, orange/white micaceous (fine) sandy
SILT (ML) w/rock fragments
Moist, firm, tan/orange micaceous (fine) sandy SILT (ML)
Moist, firm, orange/tan SILT (ML)
Moist, firm to stiff, tan/grey micaceous SILT (ML) w/black
seams
5
7
40
7
le
10
8
15
8
40
20
25
Boring terminated at 25'
30
35
Page 1 of 1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B8
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Food Store - SW Corner ELEVATION: 893 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/26/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/E CAVING> L 19.5'
^
O J
>
w
Description
U
0
6
3
a
N
Q
E
in ~
N
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT I
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
890
885
880
875
870
865
860
7-8-11
4-5-7
3-4-5
3-4-4
6-5-5
4-5-5
6-5-7
13-20-17
30
40
Topsoil (4")
1
12
RESIDUUM: Dry, medium dense orange/tan silty (fine)
SAND (SM) w/some mica sheets &rock fragments
Dry, medium dense tan/orange silty (fine) SAND (SM)
5
9
8
Dry, firm to stiff tan/white slightly micaceous (fine) sandy
SILT (ML)
Moist, stiff brown/grey micaceous (fine) sandy SILT (ML) w
black seams & trace rock fragments
Moist, stiff tan/grey micaceous (fine) sandy SILT (ML) w/
seams of rock fragments
10
10
40
15
10
20
12
40
25
3
Moist, dense white/brown slightly micaceous silty (fine)
SAND (SM) w/quartz rock fragments
30
Boring terminated at 30'
35
Page 1 of 1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B9
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Food Store - Middle of West Wall ELEVATION: 892 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/25/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/E CAVING> L 23.2'
^
O J
>
w
Description
U
0
6
3
a
N
Q
E
in ~
N
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT I
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
°
890
885
880
875
870
865
860
9-9-12
6-7-8
6-5-5
5-5-4
4-6-7
5-5-6
7-8-7
30
40
Topsoil (5")
15
,
1
RESIDUUM: Moist, very stiff orange/red slightly micaceous
fine sandy SILT (ML)
Moist, stiff orange/brown slightly micaceous (fine) sandy
SILT (ML)
Moist, stiff brown/tan micaceous SILT (ML)
Moist, stiff white/grey micaceous (fine) sandy SILT (ML)
Moist, stiff tan/grey micaceous (fine) sandy SILT (ML) w/
black seams & trace rock fragments
Moist, stiff grey/dark brown highly micaceous SILT (ML) w/
black seams
5
9
10
15
13
20
1
25
15
Moist, medium dense white/tan micaceous silty (fine)
SAND (SM)
30
Boring terminated at 30'
35
Pa e1of1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B 10
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Food Store - NW Corner ELEVATION: 892 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/25/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/E CAVING> L 22.5'
^
o
> :5
w
Description
!E
U
6
3
2
N
Q
E
co ~
N
-
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
890
885
880
875
870
865
860
3-6-7
3-4-7
3-5-8
3-3-4
3-3-5
8-9-8
9-9-11
4-6-9
30
40
Topsoil (5")
•
13
1
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff orange/red slightly micaceous (fine)
sandy SILT (ML)
Moist, stiff orange/tan slightly micaceous sandy SILT (ML)
5
7
19
13
Moist, stiff tan/orange micaceous SILT (ML) w/seams of
white silty SAND (SM)
Moist, firm tan/grey micaceous SILT (ML) w/trace quartz
rock fragments
Moist, very stiff white/grey highly micaceous SILT (ML) w/
large mica sheets & quartz rock fragments
Moist, stiff tan/grey micaceous (fine) sandy SILT (ML)
10
8
15
17
20
2
41
25
15
30
Boring terminated at 30'
35
Page 1 of 1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B 11
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Food Store - Center ELEVATION: 888 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/25/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: = 8.3 CAVING> L 35.6
^
o
> �
w
Description
U
!E
m
6
3
2
N
Q
E
co ~
N
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
885
880
875
870
865
860
855
i
3-4-6
3-4-6
4-4-4
3-3-4
3-5-6
4-5-7
3-4-6
9 22-15
5-8-10
30
40
Topsoil (8")
J
ID
ID
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff red/brown clayey, sandy SILT (ML)
Moist, stiff red/brown micaceous (fine) sandy SILT (ML)
Moist, firm red/orange micaceous (fine) sandy SILT (ML)
Moist, firm red/orange micaceous (fine) sandy SILT (ML) w
black & white seams
Moist, stiff brown/red highly micaceous SILT (ML) w/black
& tan seams
Moist, stiff grey/tan micaceous (fine) sandy SILT (ML) w/
red & black seams & white quartz rock fragments
5
8
7
10
1
15
12
20
10
25
3
Moist, dense white/grey micaceous silty (fine) SAND (SM)
w/quartz rock fragments
30
18
Moist, very stiff grey/white micaceous (fine) sandy SILT
(ML) w/black seams
35
Pa e1of2

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B 11
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Food Store - Center ELEVATION: 888 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/25/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: = 8.3 CAVING> L 35.6
^
o
>
w
Description
U
!E
m
6
3
2
N
Q
E
co ~
N
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
850
845
840HIT
835
830
825
820
Very moist, very stiff grey/brown highly micaceous (fine)
sandy SILT (ML) w/ white coarse sand & quartz rock
fragments
13-11-1
14-23-32
33-50/5
30
40
21
10
40
55
Very moist, very dense white/grey micaceous silty (fine)
SAND (SM) w/quartz rock fragments & black seams
45
PWR: Very moist, very dense grey/tan micaceous silty (fine)
SAND (SM)
, �0
5o
Boring terminated at 49.5'
55
60
65
70
Pa e2of2

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B 12
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Residential Type B ELEVATION: 887 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/25/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/E CAVING> L 21.5'
^
o
> �
w
Description
U
!E
m
6
3
2
N
Q
E
co ~
N
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
885
88o
875
870
865
860
855
12-16-2
3-5-7
4-5-6
3-4-5
4-5-7
5-5-7
5-6-7
6-8-10
30
40
Topsoil (6")
12
•
36
RESIDUUM: Moist, hard red/brown sandy, silty CLAY (CL)
w/rock fragments
Moist, stiff orange/brown micaceous (fine) sandy SILT (ML)
Moist, stiff red/orange micaceous SILT (ML) w/black
seams
Moist, stiff tan/orange micaceous (fine) sandy SILT (ML)
5
9
1
10
12
Moist, medium dense tan/grey micaceous silty (fine) SAND
(ML/SM) w/black seams
15
12
20
13
25
18
Moist, very stiff brown/black highly micaceous (fine) sandy
SILT (ML) w/black seams
30
Boring terminated at 30'
35
Page 1 of 1

N OVA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B13
0
875
ll
n
ll
ll
a
5
- 870
10
865
15
860
n
T
20
855
PROJECT: West End Development
PROJECT NO.:
10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Residential Type B
ELEVATION:
875 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2
LOGGED BY:
KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50
DATE:
6/29/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E
AFTER 24 HOURS: N/E CAVING> L 16'
Graphic Depiction
U
@
3
N
Q
N
Description
T
E
BLOW COUNT
2
Cu ~
z
.
NATURAL MOISTURE
PLASTIC
LIMIT ILIQUID LIMIT
10 20 30 40 60 10
Topsoil (3")
JJJ
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff, orange/tan (fine) sandy, clayey
SILT (ML)
------------------------
Moist, firm, brown/red micaceous SILT (ML) w/black
seams & trace rock fragments
------------------------
Moist, firm, brown/orange SILT (ML) w/black & white
seams
-----------------------
Very moist, stiff, brown/grey SILT (ML) w/rock fragments &
black seams
Moist, stiff, brown/tan micaceous SILT (ML/MH) w/rock
fragments
Boring terminated at 20'
s
25
850
30
845
P840
ple taken from 1'-6'
5-5-7
12
8
4-4-4
0
7
7-3-4
4-4-6
4-6-6
5-5-4
12

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B 14
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Residential Type A ELEVATION: 881 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/26/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: = N/E CAVING> L 17'
^
0
o
>
w
Description
U
!E
6
3
a
N
Q
co ~
N
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
°
880
875
870
865
860
855
850
4-6-9
3-5-7
4-4-6
3-4-6
4-6-6
5-5-7
4-5-5
30
40
Topsoil (3")
15
12
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff, orange/red (fine) sandy, clayey
SILT (ML) w/some rock fragments
Moist, stiff, orange/brown clayey SILT (ML)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Moist, stiff, orange/brown SILT (ML) w/ black seams
5
10
12
15
Moist, stiff, white/tan SILT (ML/MH) w/ black seams &
quartz rock fragments
Moist, stiff, orange/brown SILT (ML) w/ black seams &
quartz rock fragments
12
20
10
25
Boring terminated at 25'
30
35
Pa e1of1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B 15
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Residential Type B ELEVATION: 860 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/29/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: = N/E CAVING> L 17'
^
0
o
>
w
Description
U
!E
CuQ
6
3
a
N
Q
Cu ~
N
co
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
860
855
850
845
840
835
830
825
4-6-9
4-6-6
4-4-6
3-4-4
40-50/2
19-15-5
30
40
Topsoil (6")
15
12
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff, orange/red SILT (ML)
Moist, stiff, orange/red clayey SILT (ML) w/rock fragments
Moist, stiff, orange/red (fine) sandy, clayey SILT (ML) w/
rock fragments
Dry, firm, orange/tan SILT (ML) w/black seams
5
10
8
10
PWR: Dry, hard, white/grey (fine) sandy SILT (ML) w/large
rock fragments
1
o o
❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
13 ❑❑
❑ °❑
15
2
Moist, very stiff, brown/grey micaceous SILT (ML) w/rock
fragments & black seams
20
Boring terminated at 20'
25
30
35
Page 1 of 1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B 16
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Residential Type C ELEVATION: 881 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/26/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: = N/E CAVING> L 17'
^
0
o
>
w
Description
U
!E
6
3
a
N
Q
Cu ~
N
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
°
880
875
870
865
860
855
850
5-5-6
4-4-5
5-5-5
5-6-6
3-11-21
5-8-8
8-9-7
30
40
Topsoil (6")
9
1
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff, orange/tan micaceous (fine) sandy
SILT (ML) w/rock fragments
Moist, stiff, white/orange micaceous (fine) sandy SILT (ML)
w/rock fragments
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Moist, stiff, white/grey (fine) sandy SILT (ML) w/quartz rock
fragments
5
10
40
12
10
19
2
Moist, dense, grey/white silty (fine) SAND (SM) w/quartz
rock fragments
Moist, very stiff, grey/white micaceous SILT (ML) w/rock
fragments
15
16
20
16
25
Boring terminated at 25'
30
35
Pa e1of1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B 17
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Clubhouse ELEVATION: 874 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/29/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: = N/E CAVING> L 11.6'
^
o
> :5
w
Description
U
!E
CuC
6
3
2
N
Q
iCu ~
N
Cu
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
870
865
860
855
850
845
840
5-7-7
3-5-5
3-4-5
4-4-6
3-4-5
30
40
Topsoil (5")
10
•
14
7
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff, red/orange clayey SILT (ML) w/
large rock fragments
------------------------
Moist, stiff, orange/red micaceous SILT (ML)
------------------------
Moist, stiff, brown/orange micaceous SILT (ML) w/black
seams
5
9
10
9
15
Boring terminated at 15'
20
25
30
35
Pa e1of1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B 18
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Residential Type A ELEVATION: 863 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/30/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: = N/E CAVING> L 11.5'
^
C
o
> :5
w
Description
U
!E
R
3
2
a)N
Q
E
Cu ~
Cu
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
860
855
850
845
840
835
830
4-6-8
3-5-6
3-4-5
$
3-3-5
30
40
Topsoil (6")
•
14
11
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff, orange/red (fine) sandy SILT (ML)
Moist, stiff, orange/brown micaceous (fine) sandy SILT
(ML)
Moist, stiff, orange/tan micaceous SILT (ML) w/trace rock
fragments & black & red seams
Dry, stiff, orange/brown SILT (ML) w/black seams
Moist, firm, brown/orange micaceous SILT (ML)
5
9
41
14
10
8
15
Boring terminated at 15'
20
25
30
35
Pa e1of1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
g 19
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Residential Type C ELEVATION: 857 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/29/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: = N/E CAVING> L 18.5
^
o
> :5
w
Description
U
!E
6
3
2
N
Q
E
Cu ~
N
Cu
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
855
85o
845
840
835
830
825
3-5-6
3-3-4
2-3-3
3-3-6
3-3-5
2-4-5
3-4-5
30
40
Topsoil (6")
7
.
1
RESIDUUM: Moist, firm to stiff, tan/orange SILT (ML)
Moist, firm, white/tan SILT (ML) w/rock fragments & black/
red seams
Moist, stiff, brown/orange SILT (ML) w black/red seams
5
6
9
10
8
Moist, firm to stiff, tan/grey slightly micaceous SILT (ML/
M H)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Moist, stiff, grey micaceous SILT (ML/MH)
15
9
41
20
9
25
Boring terminated at 25'
30
35
Page 1 of 1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B20
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Roadway ELEVATION: 858 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/30/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/E CAVING> L 2.4'
^
0
o
>
w
Description
U
!E
6
3
a
N
Q
Cu ~
N
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT I
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
855
850
845
840
835
830
825
5-8-11
5-6-8
30
40
Topsoil (7)
•
17
14
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff to very stiff, red/brown (fine) sandy,
clayey SILT (ML) w/rock fragments
5
Boring terminated at 5'
10
15
20
25
30
35
Pa e1of1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B21
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Parking Lot ELEVATION: 865 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/30/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/E CAVING> L 2'
^
0
o
>
w
Description
U
!E
6
3
a
N
Q
Cu ~
N
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
865
860
855
850
845
840
835
830
3-6-7
3-6-6
30
40
Topsoil (7)
•
13
12
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff, orange/red (fine) sandy, clayey
SILT (ML) w/rock fragments
5
Boring terminated at 5'
10
15
20
25
30
L35
Pa e1of1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B22
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Parking Lot ELEVATION: 865 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/30/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/E CAVING> L 2'
^
0
o
>
w
Description
U
!E
6
3
a
N
Q
Cu ~
N
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
865
860
855
850
845
840
835
830
3-5-5
3-3-3
30
40
Topsoil (6")
6
RESIDUUM: Moist, firm to stiff, brown/orange (fine) sandy,
clayey, SILT (ML) w/rock fragments
5
Boring terminated at 5'
10
15
20
25
30
35
Page 1 of 1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B23
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Parking Lot ELEVATION: 876 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/30/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/E CAVING> L 2'
^
0
o
>
w
Description
U
!E
6
3
a
N
Q
Cu ~
N
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
875
870
865
860
855
850
845
4-4-5
4-5-5
30
40
Topsoil (8")
J
,
9
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff, orange/red clayey SILT (ML)
5
Boring terminated at 5'
10
15
20
25
30
L35
Pa e1of1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B24
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Roadway ELEVATION: 890 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/25/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/E CAVING> L 5'
^
0
o
>
w
Description
U
!E
6
3
a
N
Q
co ~
N
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
890
885
880
875
870
865
860
855
3-3-5
2-4-4
3-4-3
3-3-4
30
40
Topsoil (5")
•
$
8
RESIDUUM: Moist, firm, red/orange slightly micaceous
clayey SILT (ML) w/rootlets
Moist, firm, orange/tan micaceous SILT (ML) w/trace
quartz rock
5
7
7
Moist, firm, tan/white highly micaceous (fine) sandy SILT
(ML/MH) w/track rock fragments
Moist, firm, brown/tan highly micaceous (fine) sandy SILT
(ML/MH) w/red & black seams & large mica sheets
10
Boring terminated at 10'
15
20
25
30
35
Page 1 of 1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
1325
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Parking Lot- NW Corner ELEVATION: 878 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/25/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: = N/E CAVING> L 4.5'
^
0
o
>
w
Description
U
!E
CuQ
6
3
a
N
Q
Cu ~
N
co
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT I
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
875
870
865
860
855
850
845
4-7-9
3-6-7
5-4-4
3-4-6
30
40
Topsoil (4")
16
13
RESIDUUM: Moist, very stiff orange/red silty, sandy CLAY
(CL) w/rock fragments
Moist, stiff grey/orange (fine) sandy SILT (ML)
Moist, firm grey/tan micaceous (fine) sandy SILT (ML) w/
trace rock fragments
----------------------
Moist, stiff tan/grey micaceous SILT (ML)
5
8
10
10
Boring terminated at 10'
15
20
25
30
35
Pa e1of1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B26
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Parking Lot - SW Corner ELEVATION: 869 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/29/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/E CAVING> L 2.5'
^
0
o
>
w
Description
U
!E
6
3
a
N
Q
Cu ~
N
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
865
860
855
850
845
840
835
3-5-6
4-7-9
30
40
Topsoil (5")
.
1
16
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff orange/brown highly micaceous
(fine) sandy, clayey SILT (ML)
Moist, very stiff, brown/orange slightly micaceous (fine)
sandy SILT (ML) w/black & white seams
5
Boring terminated at 5'
10
15
20
25
30
35
Pa e1of1

N OVA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B27
C
2 J
2 �i >
w �-
0
840
ll
ll
ll
a
5
835
10
830
15
825
n
T
20
- 820
s
25
815
30
810
35
805
PROJECT: West End Development
PROJECT NO.:
10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Retaining Wall (Southeast)
ELEVATION:
840 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2
LOGGED BY:
KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50
DATE:
6/30/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s 14'
AFTER 24 HOURS: 13.3' CAVING> L 17'
Graphic Depiction
U
@
3
N
Q
N
Description
p
T
C
EQ
co
BLOW COUNT
a
co ~
z
.
NATURAL MOISTURE
PLASTIC
LIMIT ILIQUID LIMIT
10 20 30 40 60 10
Topsoil (6")
RESIDUUM: Dry, firm, brown/red (fine) sandy SILT (ML) 3-2-3
M F 5
4
Very moist, very loose, brown clayey SAND (SC) w/rock 2-1-3
fragments & grey/red seams of clayey SILT (ML)
14
Moist, stiff, red/grey (fine) sandy, clayey SILT (ML) w/quart
rock fragments
------------------------
Moist, firm, red/tan (fine) sandy SILT (ML) w/seams of
grey/blue FAT CLAY (CH) & quartz rock fragments
Very moist, firm, grey/tan micaceous SILT (ML/MH)
------------------------
Wet, firm, tan/grey SILT (ML/MH) w/rock fragments &
some coarse SAND
-----------------------
Wet, firm, dark grey/brown highly micaceous SILT (ML/MH)
Boring terminated at 25'
3-6-8
8
3-4-4 0
� 6
Q 4-3-3
7
F 1-2-5
7 2-2-5 1 0

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
Be)0
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: Retaining Wall (southwest) ELEVATION: 858 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/29/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: = N/E CAVING> L 10.9'
^
C
o
> :5
w
Description
U
!E
R
3
2
a)N
Q
E
Cu ~
Cu
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT I
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
855
850
845
840
835
830
825
3-5-9
4-7-9
3-3-5
3-2-4
2-3-4
30
40
Topsoil (7")
•
14
16
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff, tan/orange clayey SILT (ML) w/
rootlets
Moist, very stiff, orange/tan clayey SILT (ML) w/rock
fragments
Moist, firm, tan SILT (ML)
5
8
6
10
7
0
Moist, firm, tan/grey SILT (ML/MH)
15
Boring terminated at 15'
20
25
30
35
Pa e1of1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B29I
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: SWM Device ELEVATION: 848 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/29/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/E CAVING> L 11.7'
^
C
o
> :5
w
Description
U
!E
R
3
2
a)N
Q
E
Cu ~
Cu
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
845
840
835
830
825
820
815
2-2-2
3-4-4
4-4-5
3-4-3
4-5-7
30
40
Topsoil (7)
4
8
RESIDUUM: Moist, soft, brown (fine) sandy SILT (ML)
Moist, firm, brown/orange slightly micaceous SILT (ML) w/
trace rock fragments & organics (roots)
Moist, stiff, tan/brown slightly micaceous (fine) sandy SILT
(ML) w/rock fragments
Moist, firm, dark brown/grey highly micaceous SILT (ML)
Very moist, stiff, tan/grey micaceous (fine) sandy SILT (ML)
5
9
41
7
10
12
15
Boring terminated at 15'
20
25
30
35
Pa e1of1

N 0 VA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B30
PROJECT: West End Development PROJECT NO.: 10705-2020024
CLIENT: Adams Property Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Robinhood Road Winston-Salem
LOCATION: SWM Device ELEVATION: 845 Ft-MSL
DRILLER: CG2 LOGGED BY: KR
DRILLING METHOD: HSA Diedrich D50 DATE: 6/29/20
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/E CAVING> L 6.4'
^
0
o
>
w
Description
U
!E
6
3
a
N
Q
Cu ~
N
z
Graphic
Depiction
BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT I
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
845
840
835
830
825
820
815
810
3-5-9
3-5-6
3-2-4
2-3-4
30
40
Topsoil (8")
,,
Thi
,, ,,
14
1
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff, red/orange clayey SILT (ML)
Moist, stiff, orange/tan clayey SILT (ML)
Moist, firm, tan/orange slightly micaceous SILT (ML)
5
6
10
Boring terminated at 10'
15
20
25
30
35
Page 1 of 1

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
60
50
40
x
w
0
z_
30
U
U)
g
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
70 80 90
100 110
LIQUID LIMIT
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
ot0�
G�
CL-ML
ML or
OL
MH or
OH
SOIL DATA
NATURAL
SAMPLE
DEPTH
WATER
PLASTIC
LIQUID
PLASTICITY
SOURCE
USCS
NO.
CONTENT
LIMIT
LIMIT
INDEX
B13
.25
26.4
37
56
19
MH
B2
.35
5.6
NP
NV
NP
SC/SM
Tested By: J.Jones

125
120
115
Q 110
a
c
a�
Q 105
100
95
90
COMPACTION
TEST REPORT
Test specification:
ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard
100% SATURATION CURVES
FOR SPEC. GRAV. EQUAL TO:
2.8
2.7
2.6
20.5 25.5 30.5
Water content, %
5.5
10.5
15.5
& Environmental
Charlotte NC
Project: West End Development
Project No.: 10705-2020024 Figure
SOIL DATA
NATURAL
MAXIMUM
OPTIMUM
SAMPLE
ELEV./
WATER
PLASTIC
LIQUID
DRY
MOISTURE
SOURCE
USCS
NO.
DEPTH
CONTENT
LIMIT
LIMIT
DENSITY
CONTENT
O
B13
.25
MH
26.4
37
56
97.8
20.7
ElB2
.35
SC/SM
5.6
NP
NV
118.8
11.8
Tested By: 0 S.Poteat ❑ J.Jones Checked By: J.Jones

APPENDIX C
Qualifications of Recommendations

r— Geolechnical-EngineePing RePOPI --)
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical 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 Report
Serious 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 Factors
Geotechnical 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 Change
A 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
Opinions
Site 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 Final
Do 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 Misinterpretation
Other design -team members' misinterpretation of
geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly

problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical
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 Logs
Geotechnical 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
Guidance
Some 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 Closely
Some 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 Mold
Diverse 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 Assistance
Membership 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.
GErmGEOTECHNICAL
BUSINESS COUNCIL
41
oftheGeolmnfe imalBmin—A..s iatian
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone:[phone] Facsimile:301/589-2017
e-mail: [e-mail] wwwgeoprofessional.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.

QUALIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report represent our
professional opinions concerning subsurface conditions at the site. The opinions presented
are relative to the dates of our site work and should not be relied on to represent conditions
at later dates or at locations not explored. The opinions included herein are based on
information provided to us, the data obtained at specific locations during the study and our
past experience. If additional information becomes available that might impact our
geotechnical opinions, it will be necessary for NOVA to review the information, reassess the
potential concerns, and re-evaluate our conclusions and recommendations.
Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical exploration, there is the possibility that
conditions between borings will differ from those encountered at specific boring locations,
that conditions are not as anticipated by the designers and/or the contractors, or that either
natural events or the construction process have altered the subsurface conditions. These
variations are an inherent risk associated with subsurface conditions in this region and the
approximate methods used to obtain the data. These variations may not be apparent until
construction.
The professional opinions presented in this geotechnical report are not final. Field observations
and foundation installation monitoring by the geotechnical engineer, as well as soil density
testing and other quality assurance functions associated with site earthwork and foundation
construction, are an extension of this report. Therefore, NOVA should be retained by the owner
to observe all earthwork and foundation construction to document that the conditions
anticipated in this study actually exist, and to finalize or amend our conclusions and
recommendations. NOVA is not responsible or liable for the conclusions and recommendations
presented in this report if NOVA does not perform these observation and testing services.
This report is intended for the sole use of CLIENT only. The scope of work performed during this
study was developed for purposes specifically intended by CLIENT and may not satisfy other
users' requirements. Use of this report or the findings, conclusions or recommendations by
others will be at the sole risk of the user. NOVA is not responsible or liable for the interpretation
by others of the data in this report, nor their conclusions, recommendations or opinions.
Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, our conclusions derived
and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering principles and practices in the State of North Carolina. This warranty is in lieu of all
other statements or warranties, either expressed or implied.