SW6191004_RD190121 Final Geotechnical Report, 2019-07-11_11/7/2019

lillnllumulutli /
IIHIIIIE1......11111u
REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
AND GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
PN95396 MULTI PURPOSE TRAINING FACILITY
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
BUILDING & EARTH PROJECT NO.: RD190121
PREPARED FOR:
Stantec, Inc.
APRIL 25, 2019
BUILDING& EARTH
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers

BUILDING & EARTH
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
April 25, 2019
Stantec
801 Jones Franklin Rd., Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, North Carolina 28334
Ph: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Attention: Mr. Dan Saltsman, PE
Subject: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation
PN95396 Multi -Purpose Training Facility
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Building & Earth Project No: RD190121
Dear Mr. Saltsman:
Building & Earth Sciences, LLP has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and
geotechnical engineering evaluation for the Multi -Purpose Training Facility within the SOTF
compound at Fort Bragg army base, North Carolina.
The purpose of this exploration and evaluation was to determine general subsurface conditions
at the site and to address applicable geotechnical aspects of the proposed construction and site
development. Recommendations in this report are based on a physical reconnaissance of the site
and observation and classification of samples obtained from twelve (12) soil test borings drilled
at the site. Confirmation of anticipated subsurface conditions during construction is an essential
part of geotechnical services.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide consultation services for the proposed project. If you
have any questions regarding the information in this report or need any additional information,
please call us.
Respectfully Submitted,
BUILDING & EARTH SCIENCES, LLP
North Carolina Firm Engineering License Number F-1081
Nathan Anderson, E.I.T.
Staff Professional
Malcolm Barrett, P.E., P.G.
Geotechnical Engineer
Branch Manager
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL
Tuscaloosa, AL • Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC
Jacksonville, NC • Springdale, AR • Little Rock, AR • Tulsa, OK • Oklahoma City, OK • Durant, OK

Table of ContemL,
1.0 PROJECT & SITE DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................................................1
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES............................................................................................................................................... 3
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION...................................................................................................4
3.1 GEOLOGY..................................................................................................................................................................4
3.2 EXISTING SURFACE CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................................5
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.....................................................................................................................................5
3.3.1 TOPSOIL............................................................................................................................................................5
3.3.2 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) OR SILTY CLAYEY SAND(SC-SM)...................................5
3.3.3 POORLY GRADED SAND(SP).........................................................................................................................6
3,3A SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL)..................................................................................................................................6
3.3.5 AUGER REFUSAL...............................................................................................................................................7
3.3.6 GROUNDWATER...............................................................................................................................................7
3.3.7 INFILTRATION TESTING....................................................................................................................................7
4.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................................................8
4.1 INITIAL SITE PREPARATION.....................................................................................................................................8
4.2 SUBGRADE EVALUATION.........................................................................................................................................9
4.3 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS...................................................................................................................................9
4.4 UNDERCUTTING OF LOW CONSISTENCY SOILS................................................................................................. 10
4.5 STRUCTURAL FILL.................................................................................................................................................. 11
4.6 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................................................................... 12
4.6-1 GROUNDWATER............................................................................................................................................ 12
4.7 CUT SLOPES........................................................................................................................................................... 12
4.8 UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL................................................................................................................................... 13
4.9 LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATION............................................................................................ 13
4.10 WET WEATHER CONSTRUCTION...................................................................................................................... 13
5.0 SHALLOW FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................13
6.0 FLOOR SLABS..........................................................................................................................................................16
7.0 SUBGRADE REHABILITATION............................................................................................................................17
8.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING.......................................................................................................................17
9.0 CLOSING AND LIMITATIONS.............................................................................................................................17
APPENDIX
Page I i

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Multi -Purpose Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190121, 4/25/2019
`91l0:taj:14f4Hk9:11]*-714:1li1[•]►1
Proposed for construction is a new Multi -Purpose training facility at SOTF, Fort Bragg,
North Carolina. According to the project RFP, the project will include construction of a
training structure constructed of reinforced concrete. The structure will be about five
hundred (500) feet long, fourteen (14) feet wide, and twelve (12) feet high. According to
Mr. Jonathan Kilcrease, PE of Stantec, Inc. maximum loading will include wall loads of 3.2
kips per linear foot, and column loads of 150 kips.
General information regarding the project site is summarized in Table 1, below. Site
diagrams follow the table.
Size (Ac.)
Existing Development
Vegetation
General Site Slopes
Retaining Walls
Drainage
Cuts & Fills
No. of Structures
mmJ Square Ft.
Proposed Stories
Buildings
±3.65 acres
Wooded, undeveloped
Trees, shrubs, grass
Yes
Yes (Support Walls)
Fairly well drained
Cuts up to 10 ft., Fills up to 5 ft.
(6) Training Structures
(1) 3000 ft.z and (3) 560 ft.z Mission Spaces
N/A, (support walls extend about 12 ft. below finished
arade)
Construction I * Reinforced Concrete I
Preferred Foundation I Conventional Spread Foundation
Preferred Slab I Internally Crowned Concrete Slab
Table 1: Project and Site Description
Reference: RFP for Multi -Purpose Training Center, SOTF, Fort Bragg, NC
Sheet CG 101, "Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan" (Undated)
Notes.
1. If actual loading conditions or building configurations exceed those anticipated, Building &
Earth Sciences should be allowed to review the proposed design and its effects on our
recommendations.
2. If changes are made to the grading and layout plans referenced, Building & Earth should be
allowed to review the plan and its effects on our recommendations.
Page 11

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Multi -Purpose Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190121, 4/25/2019
sn Sa3S j
iR
x
�Px i i HP L J �,n%
I I
HPx 'xHP
t
f { ) I r r
Figure 1: Site Layout, East Portion of Site (Sheet CG101)
TIRE
CGI91 Cal
q. 243'
- ,.<. - LIMITS OFCi
SID
TCh1PORARY CONSTRUCTION �3a
247' HPX - -. -
3 INLET PROTECTION
3i4i:G5�2 `b SD
LIP
\� a
9 � HPK
HR
1 DIVER610N OITgi
GG101 C-6Q�
4 y - LLOU too !Q LOQF E.
L E
Figure 2: Site Layout, West Portion of Site (Sheet CG101)
Page 12

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Multi -Purpose Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190121, 4/25/2019
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The authorized subsurface exploration was performed on April 3, 2019 in conformance
with Building & Earth proposal RD20585, dated September 6, 2018. The purpose of the
geotechnical exploration was to provide a general characterization of site subsurface
conditions at specific boring locations and to gather data on which to base a geotechnical
evaluation with respect to the proposed construction. The subsurface exploration for this
project consisted of twelve (12) soil test borings. The site was drilled using a GeoProbe
7822DT drilling rig equipped with an automatic SPT hammer.
Soil boring positions were field located by a representative of our staff by measuring from
existing site features. As such, boring positions shown on the Boring Location Plan
attached to this report should be considered approximate.
Soil samples recovered during our site investigation were visually classified and specific
samples were selected by the project engineer for laboratory analysis. The laboratory
analyses consisted of:
Natural Moisture Content
Atterberg Limits
D2216 1 12
D4318 1 8
Material Finer Than No. 200 Sieve by Washing I D1140 8
Table 2: Scope of Laboratory Tests
Results of the laboratory analyses are presented on the enclosed boring logs and in
tabular form in the report Appendix. Descriptions of laboratory tests performed for this
study also appear in the Appendix.
Information gathered from the exploration was evaluated to identify suitable foundation
types for the proposed structures, and to develop geotechnical recommendations for use
in design of support retaining walls. The information was also evaluated to help determine
if any special subgrade preparation procedures will be required during the project
earthworks phase. Results of the work presented in this report address:
Summary of existing surface conditions
A description of the subsurface conditions encountered at boring locations
Page 13

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Multi -Purpose Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190121, 4/25/2019
Site preparation considerations including material types to be expected during the
construction/installation of the training structures and mass grading, as well as
recommendations regarding handling and treatment of unsuitable soils, if
encountered
Compaction requirements and recommended criteria to establish suitable surfaces
for structural backfill
■ Boring logs detailing the materials encountered with soil classifications,
penetration values, and groundwater levels (if measured)
■ Presentation of laboratory test results
■ Recommendations for support of the new structure
■ Presentation of the estimated total and differential settlement
■ Plans and maps showing the location of the project and our onsite work
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION
The following paragraphs are intended to provide a general characterization of the site
from a geotechnical engineering perspective. It is not the intention of this report to
address every potential geotechnical issue that may arise, nor to provide every possible
interpretation of conditions identified. The following condition descriptions and
subsequent geotechnical recommendations are based on the assumption that significant
changes in subsurface conditions do not occur between boreholes. However, anomalous
conditions can occur due to variations in existing fill that may be present at the site, or
due to natural variations in site geologic conditions. It will be necessary to evaluate the
assumed geotechnical conditions during site grading and foundation installation.
:t 1 rrni nry
Situated on the boundary of the North Carolina Coastal Plain and Piedmont physiographic
provinces, published geologic maps indicate the site is underlain by cretaceous aged soil
deposits associated with the Middendorf and Pinehurst geologic formations. These
formations are generally composed of very deep (over 100 ft.) unconsolidated sand,
sandstone, clay, and mudstone.
Page 14

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Multi -Purpose Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190121, 4/25/2019
3.2 EXISTING SURFACE CONDITIONS
The Multi -Purpose Training Center site was described as fairly sloped at the time of our
site reconnaissance. According to elevation contours appearing on the "Grading and
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan" provided by Stantec (Sheet CG101), it appears surface
elevations range from approximately 220 to 250 ft. The area appears to be fairly well
drained, and ground cover consists of trees, shrubs, and grass.
3.J SUBbukFACE %.uNDITIONS
A generalized stratification summary has been prepared using data from the soil test
borings and is presented in the table below. The stratification depicts general soil
conditions and strata types encountered during our field investigation.
1 2 — 5 in. Topsoil N/A
2 4 — 18.5 ft. Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM), or Very Loose to Medium Dense
Silty Clayey Sand (SC-SM)
3 24.5 — 28.5 ft. Poorly Graded Sand (SP) Loose to Medium Dense
4 1.5 — 11.5+ ft. Sandy Lean Clay (CL) I Stiff to Very Stiff
Table 3: Stratification Summary
Subsurface soil profiles have also been prepared based on the data obtained at specific
boring locations. Subsurface soil profiles are presented in the Appendix. For specific
details regarding information obtained from individual soil borings, please refer to the
Boring Logs included in the Appendix. Elevations reported on the boring logs were
estimated based on contours from Sheet CG101 provided by Stantec; therefore, they
should be considered approximate.
3.3.1 TOPSOIL
Topsoil encountered on site ranged from approximately 2 to 5 inches, and was found in
all borings. No testing has been performed to verify these soils meet general "topsoil"
criteria. Topsoil depths reported on the logs should only be considered an estimate as
actual conditions could vary in unexplored areas of the site.
3.3.2 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) OR SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM)
Soils described as poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM) silty clayey sand (SC-SM) were
observed in all of the borings. This material typically extends from below the topsoil to
approximately 18.5 feet below the surface.
Page 15

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Multi -Purpose Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190121, 4/25/2019
The soil is further described as generally very loose to medium dense, brown to reddish -
yellow, fine to medium grained, and moist. Overall SPT N-values range from 1 to 13 blows
per foot, with values in the range of 2 to 8 blows per foot considered representative.
Standard penetration testing revealed the looser material occurs in the upper 6 feet, with
relative density increasing with depth.
Wash 200 grain size testing was performed on multiple samples collected from this
stratum. The testing indicates 12.0 to 17.6 percent passing the #200 sieve, and Atterberg
limits testing in conjunction with grain size analyses indicating USCS classification either
SP-SM or SC-SM.
3.3.3 POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Soils described as poorly -graded sand (SP) were observed in all of the borings generally
below the SC-SM / SP-SM material described in section 3.3.2. This stratum extends to
depths about 28.5 feet below the surface. Were borings were terminated at 20 ft., this
material extends below the boring termination depth.
The soil is further described as very loose to medium dense, medium to fine grained,
yellowish -red to white, and moist to wet. Overall SPT N-values range from 4 to 26 blows
per foot, with values in the range of 9 to 14 blows per foot considered representative. It
is noted that a singular N-value of 1 was recorded at approximately 34 feet below the
surface in B-08; the material at this sampling location is described as very loose.
Wash 200 grain size testing was performed on multiple samples collected from this
stratum. The testing indicates 2.6 to 4.2 percent passing the #200 sieve, with Atterberg
limits testing indicating an SP USCS classification.
3.3.4 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)
Soils described as sandy lean clay (CL) was observed in two of the three 40 ft. borings
performed for this study (13-01 and B-05). This material lies beneath the SP stratum
described in section 3.3.3, and extends to depths below the 40 ft. boring termination
depths.
The soil is further described as stiff to very stiff, medium to fine grained, brown to gray,
and moist to wet. Overall SPT N-values range from 8 to 19 blows per foot, with values in
the range of 13 to 19 blows per foot considered representative.
Wash 200 grain size testing of one recovered sample indicates 54.6 percent passing the
#200 sieve, with Atterberg limits indicating a USCS classification of CL.
Page 16

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Multi -Purpose Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190121, 4/25/2019
3.3.5 AUGER REFUSAL
Auger refusal is the drilling depth at which a borehole can no longer be advanced using
soil drilling procedures. Auger refusal can occur on hard soil, boulders, buried debris or
bedrock. Coring is required to sample materials below auger refusal. Auger refusal was
not encountered in the borings drilled for this study.
.j.0 GROUNDWATER
At the time of drilling, groundwater (perched or otherwise) was observed in borings B-01,
B-02, B-03, B-05, and B-08. Water levels reported are accurate only for the time and date
that the borings were drilled. Long term monitoring of the boreholes was not included
as part of our subsurface exploration. The borings were backfilled the same day that they
were drilled. Groundwater data, collected at the time of drilling, is included in the
following table.
:.
B-01
8.0
224
Boring
B-07
--
--
B-02
13.0
223
B-08
24.5
220.5
B-03
18.0
222
B-09
--
--
B-04
--
--
B-10
--
--
B-05
23.0
221
B-11
--
--
B-06
--
--
B-12
--
--
Table 4: Approximate Groundwater Depth/Elevation
3.3.7 INFILTRATION TESTING
As requested, Building & Earth performed infiltration testing on the project site. The flow
of the near -surface soils has been approximated using the concepts presented in
Bernoulli's Equation for steady state flow and Darcy's Law for fluid flow through a porous
media. Additionally, our Ksat values were calculated using the Glover solution, which is
dependent on the geometry of the borehole and the hydraulic head.
Our testing was performed on April 22, 2019 at locations that are shown on the Boring
Location map, and identified as locations 1-01, 1-02, 1-03, and 1-04. Based on the results
of our testing, the soils at the site have a drainage rate that ranges from 0.51 to 6.59
inches per hour. The average drainage rate across the site was 3.11 inches per hour. The
data sheets for this testing are included in the Appendix of this report.
Page 17

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Multi -Purpose Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190121, 4/25/2019
U SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
The referenced grading plan (Stantec Sheet CG101) suggests up to about 10 feet of cut,
and up to 5 feet of fill will be required to provide finished grades. Based on our evaluation
of the subsurface soil information, and the anticipated foundation loads, it appears that
construction with a conventional shallow system is appropriate.
Site development recommendations appearing below are intended for development of
the site to support construction with a shallow system. If a different type of foundation
system is preferred, Building & Earth should be allowed to review the site
development recommendations to verify that they are appropriate for the preferred
foundation system.
Primary geotechnical concerns for this project are:
Low consistency soils (N-value <_6), generally extending to depths of about 6 feet
below the surface and up to 10 feet in some locations.
Moisture sensitive soils encountered across the site.
The potential for encountering groundwater during support wall, shaft and utility
trench construction.
Proper placement of fill to achieve final grades across the site, as well as proper
slope cutting operations in multiple areas on -site.
Recommendations addressing the site conditions are presented in the following sections.
4.1 INITIAL SITE PREPARATION
Initial site preparation should include removal of all trees, roots, topsoil and otherwise
deleterious materials from proposed construction areas. Approximately 2 to 5 inches of
topsoil were observed in the borings. A geotechnical engineer should observe stripping
and grubbing operations to confirm all unsuitable materials are removed from proposed
construction locations.
Materials disturbed during clearing operations should be stabilized in place or, if
necessary, undercut to undisturbed materials and backfilled with properly compacted,
approved structural fill.
During site preparation activities, the contractor should identify borrow source materials
that will be used as structural fill and provide samples to the testing laboratory so that
conformance to the Structural Fill material requirements appearing below can be
Page 18

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Multi -Purpose Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190121, 4/25/2019
confirmed. The testing laboratory will require up to three days to complete moisture
density (Proctor) testing and to develop appropriate moisture -density relationship curves
for the proposed borrow materials.
..L SUBGRADE LVALUATION
We recommend that the project geotechnical engineer or a qualified representative
evaluate the subgrade after the site is prepared. Some unsuitable or unstable areas may
be present in unexplored areas of the site. All areas that will require fill or that will support
structures should be carefully proofrolled with a heavy (40,000 # minimum), rubber -tired
vehicle at the following times.
After an area has been stripped, and undercut if required, prior to the placement
of any fill.
After grading an area to the finished subgrade elevation in a building or pavement
area.
After areas have been exposed to any precipitation, and/or have been exposed for
more than 48 hours.
Some instability may exist during construction, depending on climatic and other factors
immediately preceding and during construction. If any soft or otherwise unsuitable soils
are identified during the proofrolling process, they should be undercut or stabilized prior
to fill placement, pavement construction, or floor slab construction. All unsuitable material
identified during construction operations should be removed and replaced in accordance
with the Structural Fill section of this report.
4.3 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS
Moisture sensitive soils —poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM), silty clayey sand (SC-SM),
poorly graded sand (SP), and sandy lean clay (CL) were encountered across most of the
site during the subsurface exploration. These soils will degrade if allowed to become
saturated. Therefore, not allowing water to pond by maintaining positive drainage and
temporary dewatering methods (if required) will be important to help avoid degradation
and softening of the soils.
The contractor should anticipate some difficulty during the earthwork phase of this
project if moisture levels are moderate to high during construction. Increased moisture
levels will soften the subgrade and the soils may become unstable under the influence of
construction traffic. Accordingly, construction during wet weather conditions should be
avoided, as this could result in soft and unstable soil conditions that would require ground
modification, such as in place stabilization or undercutting.
Page 19

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Multi -Purpose Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190121, 4/25/2019
4.4 UNDERCUTTING OR STABILIZATION OF Low CONSISTENCY SOILS
Low consistency soils (N:-6) were encountered in every boring performed for this study;
low consistencies extended to approximately 5 feet below the existing ground surface in
B-01 through B-08, and 8 - 10 feet for B-09 through B-12. Where soft or loose surficial
soils can be stabilized in place, it is recommended these materials be densified using a
heavy (10-ton minimum), smooth -drum vibratory roller. A rolling pattern should be
determined during densification operations that will result in a sufficiently stable
subgrade.
If in -place stabilization is not viable, the material should be undercut and replaced with
compaction. Undercut depths within the planned pavement areas will be highly
dependent upon final grades and Subgrade Evaluation results. Typical stabilization
methods vary widely and include modification of the soft soils with the addition of shot
rock or No. 2 stone, as well as utilization of geogrids and graded aggregates.
The design of a specific stabilization method is beyond the scope of this investigation but
can be provided by Building & Earth as an additional service if desired. Any undercutting
or stabilization should be conducted under the observation of the geotechnical engineer
or his representative.
Some unsuitable or unstable areas may be present in unexplored areas of the site. Once
the known undercut or stabilization extent is complete, areas planned for construction
should be proofrolled in order to identify any additional soft soils requiring removal.
Undercut soils should be replaced with structural fill. Clean, non -organic, non -saturated
soils taken from the undercut area can be re -used as structural fill. The placement
procedure, compaction and composition of the structural fill must meet the requirements
of the Structural Fill section of this report.
Page 110

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Multi -Purpose Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190121, 4/25/2019
4.5 STRUCTURAL FILL
Recommendations for structural fill on this project are as follows:
Sand and
GW, GP, GM,
Areas where the material can be
Gravel
SW, SP, SM or
Maximum 2" particle size
confined.
combinations
All areas
Clay
CL, SC, GC
LL<50, PI<25, yd>100 pcf
Clay
CH
LL>50, PI>25, yd>100 pcf
Not recommended for use
Silt
ML, MH
N/A
Not recommended for use
On -site CL, SP, SP-SM, All areas, non -cohesive soils (SC-SM,
Maximum 2" particle size
soils SC-SM SP-SM, SP) should be confined.
Table 5: Structural Fill Requirements
Notes:
1. All structural fill should be free of vegetation, topsoil, and any other deleterious materials. The
organic content of materials to be used for fill should be less than 3 percent.
2. LL indicates the soil Liquid Limit; PI indicates the soil Plasticity Index; yd indicates the maximum dry
density as defined by the density standard outlined in the table below.
3. Laboratory testing of the soils proposed for fill must be performed in order to verify their
conformance with the above recommendations.
4. Any fill to be placed at the site should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer.
Placement recommendations for structural fill follow:
Lift Thickness
Density
Moisture
Density Testing
Frequency
Table 6: Structural Fill Placement Requirements
8" loose, 6" compacted
92 Percent maximum per ASTM D-1557 all structural areas bel
95 percent maximum per ASTM D-1557, all structural areas, to
+/- 3.0 Percentage Points ASTM D-1557 Optimum
1 test per 2,500 S.F. Minimum 2 tests per lift
Page 111

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Multi -Purpose Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190121, 4/25/2019
4.6 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS
All excavations performed at the site should follow OSHA guidelines for temporary
excavations. Excavated soils should be stockpiled according to OSHA regulations to limit
the potential cave-in of soils.
c ' GROUNDWATER
Groundwater (perched or otherwise) was encountered at depths of approximately 8 to
24.5 feet in five of the twelve borings, ranging from an elevation of approximately 220.5
to 224 ft. Therefore, groundwater could be encountered during construction,
particularly during undercutting operations. It should be noted that fluctuations in
ground water levels could occur due to seasonal variations in rainfall. The contractor must
be prepared to remove groundwater seepage from excavations if encountered during
construction. Excavations extending below groundwater levels will require dewatering
systems (such as well points, sump pumps or trench drains). The contractor should
evaluate the most economical and practical dewatering method.
4.7 CUT SLOPES
Based on provided grading information, cut slopes up to 10 feet in height are expected
in the northwestern and southern portions of the site. It appears the maximum plan
inclination of cut embankments is generally 2(H):1(V). Due to the types of non -cohesive
soils encountered at the site, we recommend stability analysis be performed for all cut
slopes greater than 10 feet constructed at a 2(H):1(V). It is very important to note that
the stability of cut slopes may depend on minor discontinuities that may not be detected
in the borings. Therefore, careful inspection of the excavation process and the cut slope
by Building & Earth during construction is critical.
The proposed cut slopes are expected to expose coastal plain deposits consisting of sandy
soils (i.e. SP, SP-SM, SC-SM). Therefore, the face of cut slopes will be susceptible to
erosion. Additionally, the likelihood of surficial slides, sloughing, and shallow failures is
greatly increased in excavations were shallow groundwater are present. Water should not
be allowed to pond at the toe or crest of the cut. Nor should water be allowed to flow
over the face of the slope. Interceptor ditches should be constructed at proper locations
to promote the collection and removal of excess water. Recommended locations for
interceptor and collection channels include the crest and the toe of the slopes and at
benches within the slope, as applicable.
Permanent drains will be required in areas exhibiting continual seepage such as at the toe
of cut slopes. The drain will serve to collect and remove water that continues to seep into
the area and reduce the potential of water infiltrating the adjacent subgrade soils.
Page 112

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Multi -Purpose Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190121, 4/25/2019
4.8 UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL
All utility trenches should be backfilled and compacted in the manner specified above for
structural fill. It may be necessary to reduce the lift thickness to 4 to 6 inches to achieve
compaction using hand -operated equipment.
4.9 LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAG[ CONSIDERATION
The potential for soil moisture fluctuations within building areas and pavement subgrades
should be reduced to lessen the potential of subgrade movement. Site grading should
include positive drainage away from buildings and pavements. Excessive irrigation of
landscaping poses a risk of saturating and softening soils below shallow footings and
pavements, which could result in settlement of footings and premature failure of
pavements.
4.10 WET WEATHER CONSTRUCTION
Excessive movement of construction equipment across the site during wet weather may
result in ruts, which will collect rainwater, prolonging the time required to dry the
subgrade soils. During rainy periods, additional effort will be required to properly prepare
the site and establish/maintain an acceptable subgrade. The difficulty will increase in
areas where clay or silty soils are exposed at the subgrade elevation. Grading contractors
typically postpone grading operations during wet weather to wait for conditions that are
more favorable. Contractors can typically disk or aerate the upper soils to promote drying
during intermittent periods of favorable weather. When deadlines restrict postponement
of grading operations, additional measures such as undercutting and replacing saturated
soils or stabilization can be utilized to facilitate placement of additional fill material.
5.0 SHALLOW FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
According to Mr. Jonathan Kilcrease, PE of Stantec, Inc. maximum loads will include wall
loads of 3.2 kips per linear foot, and column loads of 150 kips. Based on the conditions
encountered during our field investigation and after our site preparation and grading
recommendations are implemented, proposed structures can be supported on
conventional shallow foundations designed using an allowable soil bearing capacity of
1,500 psf. Bearing capacity and settlement calculations can be found in the attached
Appendix.
During site exploration, low consistency soils were encountered in all borings across the
site, and extended to approximately 6 feet below the existing ground surface. Therefore,
soft and loose soils could be encountered at or below anticipated foundation depth, and
verification of bearing capacity will be critical.
Page 113

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Multi -Purpose Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190121, 4/25/2019
We recommend that hand rod probing and dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing in
accordance with ASTM STP-399 be performed for all foundation excavations. Hand rod
probing should be performed for 100 percent of the excavations, and DCP testing should
be performed for at least 30 percent of the footings. Soils not meeting the 1,500 psf
allowable capacity should be undercut and backfilled with Structural Fill. Undercut depths
may vary depending upon conditions observed during construction.
Even though computed footing dimensions may be less, column footings should be at
least 24 inches wide and strip footings should be at least 18 inches wide. These
dimensions facilitate hand cleaning of footing subgrades disturbed by the excavation
process and placement of reinforcing steel. They also reduce the potential for localized
punching shear failure. All exterior footings should bear at least 24 inches below the
adjacent exterior grade. Settlement calculations were performed in accordance with
Schmertmann's settlement method, along with the soil types and foundation system
described above. Total settlement of foundations designed and constructed as
recommended above should be about 1 inch.
During site exploration, low consistency soils were encountered in all borings across the
site, and extended to approximately 6 feet below the existing ground surface. Therefore,
soft and loose soils could be encountered at or below anticipated foundation depth, and
verification of bearing capacity will be critical. We recommend that hand rod probing and
dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing in accordance with ASTM STP-399 be
performed for all foundation excavations. Hand rod probing should be performed for
100 percent of the excavations, and DCP testing should be performed for at least 30
percent of the footings.
The following items should be considered during the preparation of construction
documents and foundation installation:
The geotechnical engineer of record should observe exposed foundation bearing
surfaces prior to concrete placement to verify conditions anticipated during the
subsurface exploration are encountered.
All bearing surfaces must be free of soft or loose soil prior to placing concrete.
Concrete should be placed the same day excavations are completed and bearing
materials verified by the engineer. If the excavations are left open for an extended
period, or if the bearing surfaces are disturbed after the initial observation, then
the bearing surfaces should be reevaluated prior to concrete placement.
■ Water should not be allowed to pond in foundation excavations prior to concrete
placement or above the concrete after the foundation is completed.
Page 114

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Multi -Purpose Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190121, 4/25/2019
Wherever possible, the foundation concrete should be placed "neat", using the
sides of the excavations as forms. Where this is not possible, the excavations
created by forming the foundations must be backfilled with suitable structural fill
and properly compacted.
■ Foundation concrete should not be place over saturated or frozen ground.
6.0 RETAINING WALLS
Buried support walls will serve as retaining walls supporting the lateral loads imparted by
adjacent soils. Retaining braced against lateral movement should be designed based on
a calculated "at rest" soil condition, while those not braced should be designed based
upon the "active" soil condition. Where retaining walls impart lateral loads to the retained
soils, the "passive" condition is applied. If backfill materials are placed behind retaining
walls prior to bracing, the "active" soil condition develops.
In addition to soil loads, hydrostatic pressure may build up behind retaining walls.
Hydrostatic pressure can result in moisture problems such as mold, efflorescence, leakage,
and damage to finishes. It is therefore recommended that foundations drains be installed
behind retaining walls, at depths below the bottom of the walls, to minimize the potential
for water accumulation behind the walls. If the backfill behind retaining walls is allowed
to flood, soil pressures should be calculated based upon effective soil unit weights, and
the resulting wall loads be calculated as a combination of both soil and hydrostatic
loading.
If surcharge loads are applied adjacent to (within a lateral distance equal to half the wall
height, the effect of the surcharge loads on the retaining wall should be taken into
consideration in calculating the lateral pressures applied to the retaining walls. Surcharge
loads may include such items as vehicle parking areas, roadways, off -road traffic,
embankments, etc.
Provided an efficient drainage system is incorporated into the design of the walls, and
provided no surcharge loads are applied to the surface adjacent to the retaining walls,
estimates of soil lateral earth pressure should be estimated based upon the following:
Page 115

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Multi -Purpose Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190121, 4/25/2019
Silty or Clayey Sand
45 1 100 1 300
SC-SM
Low Plasticity Clay or 60 100 300
Silt
Clean Sand 1 30 1 60 1 325
Table 7: Lateral Earth Pressure Recommendations
*Active and at -rest pressures taken from IBC 2015 Table 60
**Calculation derived assuming a soil unit weight yd = 110 pcf
7.0 FLOOR SLABS
Site development recommendations presented in this report should be followed to
provide for subgrade conditions suitable for support of grade supported slabs. Floor
slabs will be supported on either stable, natural subgrade or on compacted structural fill.
We recommend floor slabs for the proposed structures be supported on a minimum four -
inch layer of 1/2-inch up to 11/2-inch, free -draining, gap -graded gravel, such as AASHTO
No. 57 stone, with no more than 5 percent passing the ASTM No. 200 sieve. The purpose
of this layer is to help distribute concentrated loads and act as a capillary break for
moisture migration through the subgrade soil. This gravel material should be
consolidated in -place with vibratory equipment. With the gravel material, such as
AASHTO No. 57 stone, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pci is recommended for
use in the design of grade -supported slabs.
We recommend a minimum 10-mil thick vapor retarder meeting ASTM E 1745, Class C
requirements be placed directly below the slab -on -grade floors. A higher quality vapor
retarder (Class A or B) may be used if desired to further inhibit the migration of moisture
through the slab -on -grade and should be evaluated based on the floor covering and
use. The vapor retarder should extend to the edge of the slab -on -grade floors and should
be sealed at all seams and penetrations. The slab should be appropriately reinforced (if
required) to support the proposed loads.
Page 116

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Multi -Purpose Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190121, 4/25/2019
1.0 SUBGRADE REHABILITATION'
The subgrade soils often become disturbed during the period between initial site grading
and construction of surface improvements. The amount and depth of disturbance will
vary with soil type, weather conditions, construction traffic, and drainage.
The engineer should evaluate the subgrade soil during final grading to verify that the
subgrade is suitable to receive pavement and/or concrete slab base materials. The final
evaluation may include proofrolling or density tests.
Subgrade rehabilitation can become a point of controversy when different contractors are
responsible for site grading and building construction. The construction documents
should specifically state which contractor will be responsible for maintaining and
rehabilitating the subgrade. Rehabilitation may include moisture conditioning and re -
compacting soils. When deadlines or weather restrict grading operations, additional
measures such as undercutting and replacing saturated soils or chemical stabilization can
often be utilized.
9.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
Field verification of site conditions is an essential part of the services provided by the
geotechnical consultant. In order to confirm our recommendations, it will be necessary
for Building & Earth personnel to make periodic visits to the site during site grading.
Typical construction monitoring services are listed below.
Site stripping and subgrade evaluation
Placement of controlled, engineered fill
Backfill placement behind retaining walls
Foundation bearing surfaces, reinforcing steel and concrete
■ Monitoring of cut slopes during construction
■ All other items subject to IBC Special Inspections
10.0 CLu51NG AND LWITATION5
This report was prepared for Stantec, for specific application to the Multi -Purpose Training
facility located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The information in this report is not
transferable. This report should not be used for a different development on the same
property without first being evaluated by the engineer.
Page 117

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Multi -Purpose Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190121, 4/25/2019
The recommendations in this report were based on the information obtained from our
field exploration and laboratory analysis. The data collected is representative of the
locations tested. Variations are likely to occur at other locations throughout the site.
Engineering judgment was applied in regards to conditions between borings. It will be
necessary to confirm the anticipated subsurface conditions during construction.
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted standards of
geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty is expressed or implied. In the
event that changes are made, or anticipated to be made, to the nature, design, or location
of the project as outlined in this report, Building & Earth must be informed of the changes
and given the opportunity to either verify or modify the conclusions of this report in
writing, or the recommendations of this report will no longer be valid.
The scope of services for this project did not include any environmental assessment of
the site or identification of pollutants or hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner
is concerned about environmental issues Building & Earth would be happy to provide an
additional scope of services to address those concerns.
This report is intended for use during design and preparation of specifications and may
not address all conditions at the site during construction. Contractors reviewing this
information should acknowledge that this document is for design information only.
An article published by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA), titled Important
Information About Your Geotechnical Report, has been included in the Appendix. We
encourage all individuals to become familiar with the article to help manage risk.
Page 118

Appendix Table of Contents
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGIES........................................................................................... 1
DRILLING PROCEDURES —STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D1586)........................... 1
BORING LOG DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................................2
DEPTH AND ELEVATION................................................................................................................................ 2
SAMPLETYPE.....................................................................................................................................................2
SAMPLENUMBER.............................................................................................................................................2
BLOWS PER INCREMENT, REC%, RQD%................................................................................................. 2
SOILDATA...........................................................................................................................................................2
SOIL DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................................................... 3
GRAPHIC.............................................................................................................................................................. 3
REMARKS............................................................................................................................................................. 3
SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................................4
KEYTO LOGS......................................................................................................................................................................... 5
KEYTO HATCHES................................................................................................................................................................7
BORING LOCATION PLAN............................................................................................................................................... 8
SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILES..........................................................................................................................................9
BORINGLOGS.....................................................................................................................................................................10
INFILTRATION TESTING..................................................................................................................................................11
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES..............................................................................................................................12
DESCRIPTION OF SOILS (VISUAL -MANUAL PROCEDURE) (ASTM D2488) .............................12
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D2216)...............................................................................12
ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D4318)..........................................................................................................12
MATERIAL FINER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE BY WASHING (ASTM D1140).....................................12
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS.....................................................................................................................13
Table A-1: General Soil Classification Test Results.......................................................................13
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS GEOTECHNICAL-ENGINEERING REPORT ............................14

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGIES
The subsurface exploration, which is the basis of the recommendations of this report, has
been performed in accordance with industry standards. Detailed methodologies employed
in the investigation are presented in the following sections.
DRILLING PROCEDURES — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D7586)
At each boring location, soil samples were obtained at standard sampling intervals with a
split -spoon sampler. The borehole was first advanced to the sample depth by augering and
the sampling tools were placed in the open hole. The sampler was then driven 18 inches
into the ground with a 140-pound automatic hammer free -falling 30 inches. The number
of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment was recorded. The initial
increment is considered the "seating" blows, where the sampler penetrates loose or
disturbed soil in the bottom of the borehole.
The blows required to penetrate the final two (2) increments are added together and are
referred to as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-value. The N-value, when properly
evaluated, gives an indication of the soil's strength and ability to support structural loads.
Many factors can affect the SPT N-value, so this result cannot be used exclusively to evaluate
soil conditions.
The SPT testing was performed using a drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer.
Automatic hammers mechanically control the height of the hammer drop, and doing so,
deliver higher energy efficiency (90 to 99 % efficiency) than manual hammers (60 %
efficiency) which are dropped using a manually operated rope and cathead system. Because
historic data correlations were developed based on use of a manual hammer, it is necessary
to adjust the N-values obtained using an automatic hammer to make these correlations
valid. Therefore, an energy correction factor of 1.3 was applied to the recorded field N-values
from the automatic hammer for the purpose of our evaluation. The N-values discussed or
mentioned in this report and shown on the boring logs are recorded field values.
Samples retrieved from the boring locations were labeled and stored in plastic bags at the
jobsite before being transported to our laboratory for analysis. The project engineer
prepared Boring Logs summarizing the subsurface conditions at the boring locations.

BORING LOG DESCRIPTION
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc. used the gINT software program to prepare the attached boring
logs. The gINT program provides the flexibility to custom design the boring logs to include
the pertinent information from the subsurface exploration and results of our laboratory
analysis. The soil and laboratory information included on our logs is summarized below:
The depth below the ground surface and the corresponding elevation are shown in the first
two columns.
The method used to collect the sample is shown. The typical sampling methods include Split
Spoon Sampling, Shelby Tube Sampling, Grab Samples, and Rock Core. A key is provided at
the bottom of the log showing the graphic symbol for each sample type.
C�LlWISIZA11ZMAW i
Each sample collected is numbered sequentially.
BLOWS PER INCREMENT, REC%, RQD%
When Standard Split Spoon sampling is used, the blows required to drive the sampler each 6-
inch increment are recorded and shown in column 5. When rock core is obtained the recovery
ration (REC%) and Rock Quality Designation (RQD%) is recorded.
SOIL DATA
Column 6 is a graphic representation of four different soil parameters. Each of the parameters
use the same graph, however, the values of the graph subdivisions vary with each parameter.
Each parameter presented on column 6 is summarized below:
N-value- The Standard Penetration Test N-value, obtained by adding the number of
blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches, is recorded . The graph labels
range from 0 to 50.
• Qu —Unconfined Compressive Strength estimate from the Pocket Penetrometer test in
tons per square foot (tsf). The graph labels range from 0 to 5 tsf.
Atterberg Limits — The Atterberg Limits are plotted with the plastic limit to the left, and
liquid limit to the right, connected by a horizontal line. The difference in the plastic and
liquid limits is referred to as the Plasticity Index. The Atterberg Limits test results are
also included in the Remarks column on the far right of the boring log. The Atterberg
Limits graph labels range from 0 to 100%.
— The Natural Moisture Content of the soil sample as determined in our
laboratory.
Page I A-2

The soil description prepared in accordance with ASTM D2488, Visual Description of Soil
Samples. The Munsel Color chart is used to determine the soil color. Strata changes are
indicated by a solid line, with the depth of the change indicated on the left side of the line and
the elevation of the change indicated on the right side of the line. If subtle changes within a
soil type occur, a broken line is used. The Boring Termination or Auger Refusal depth is shown
as a solid line at the bottom of the boring.
GRAPHIC,
The graphic representation of the soil type is shown. The graphic used for each soil type is
related to the Unified Soil Classification chart. A chart showing the graphic associated with
each soil classification is included.
HtMAHKS
Remarks regarding borehole observations, and additional information regarding the
laboratory results and groundwater observations.
Page I A-3

BUILDING
Geocechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Coarse
Grained
Soils
More than
50% of
material is
larger than
No. 200
sieve
size
Fine
Grained
Soils
Gravel and
Gravelly
Soils
More than
50% of
coarse
fraction is
larger than
No. 4 sieve
Sand and
Sandy
Soils
More than
50% of
coarse
fraction is
smaller than
No. 4
sieve
Silts and
Clays
Liquid Limit
less than 50
SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY
"�• �',
Gw
Well -graded gravels, gravel — sand mixtures, little or
Clean Gravels
r r�
no fines
(Less than 5% fines)
o a� 90 Q°�
Id
GP
Poorly -graded gravels, gravel —sand mixtures, little
D� p
or no fines
a
L
C
GM
Silty gravels, gravel — sand — silt mixtures
Gravels with Fines
(More than 12% fines)
GC
I Clayey gravels, gravel —sand —clay mixtures
.....:,I Sw I Well sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
Clean Sands
(Less than 5% fines) SP Poorly -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no
fines
Sands with Fines SM Silty sands, sand — silt mixtures
(More than 12% fines) . 1
SC Clayey sands, sand — clay mixtures
ML Inorganic silts and very find sands, rock flour, silty or
clayey fine sands or clayey silt with slight plasticity
Inorganic
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly
CL clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays
Organic
More than
_
50% of
material is
Silts and
smaller
Clays
Inorganic
than
No. 200
Limit
sieveLiquid
greater than
size
50 sieve
Organic
Highly Organic Soils
=I OL I Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity
MH IInorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine
sand, or silty soils
CH I Inorganic clays of high plasticity
OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic
silts
1% _ _ Zr
„ PT Peat, humus, swamp soils with high organic
� � r � r • r
contents
Page I A-4

Geotechnica1, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Building & Earth Sciences classifies soil in general
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) presented in ASTM D2487. Table 1
and Figure 1 exemplify the general guidance of
the USCS. Soil consistencies and relative densities
are presented in general accordance with
Terzaghi, Peck, & Mesri's (1996) method, as
shown on Table 2, when quantitative field and/or
laboratory data is available. Table 2 includes
Consistency and Relative Density correlations
with N-values obtained using either a manual
hammer (60 percent efficiency) or automatic
hammer (90 percent efficiency). The Blows Per
Increment and SPT N-values displayed on the
boring logs are the unaltered values measured in
the field. When field and/or laboratory data is not
available, we may classify soil in general
accordance with the Visual Manual Procedure
presented in ASTM D2488.
SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY
60
oe
50 J�
CH or OH
a
X 40
v
30 P
CL or OL
20
a
10 MH orOH
7 CL M
4 MLor0L
0
TT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit (LL)
Non -cohesive: Coarse -Grained Soil
Cohesive: Fine -Grained
Soil
SPT Penetration
Estimated Range of
SPT Penetration
(blows/foot)
Unconfined Compressive
Consistency
(blows/foot)
Relative
Automatic
Manual
Strength (tsf)
Density
Hammer*
Hammer
Automatic Manual
< 2
< 2
Very Soft
< 0.25
Hammer* Hammer
0-3 0-4
Very Loose
2 - 3
2-4
Soft
0.25 — 0.50
3-8 4 - 10
Loose
3-6
4-8
Medium Stiff
0.50 — 1.00
8-23 10- 30
Medium Dense
6 - 12
8 - 15
15 - 30
Stiff
Very Stiff
1.00 — 2.00
2.00 — 4.00
> 4.00
23 - 38
30- 50
Dense 12 -23
Very Dense > 23
> 38
> 50
> 30
Hard
* - Modified based on 80% hammer efficiency
Page I A-5

Geocechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Standard Dynamic Cone
Penetration Test Penetrometer
ASTM D1586 or (Sower DCP)
AASHTO T-206 ASTM STP-399
Shelby Tube
Sampler No Sample
O
ASTM D1587 Recovery
Rock Core Sample -v Groundwater at
ASTM D2113 - Time of Drilling
Auger Cuttings
Groundwater as
Indicated
KEY TO LOGS
Soil
Particle Size
U.S. Standard
Boulders
Larger than 300 mm
N.A.
Cobbles
300 mm to 75 mm
N.A.
Gravel
75 mm to 4.75 mm
3-inch to #4 sieve
Coarse
75 mm to 19 mm
3-inch to 3/4-inch sieve
Fine
19 mm to 4.75 mm
3/4-inch to #4 sieve
Sand
4.75 mm to 0.075 mm
#4 to #200 Sieve
Coarse
4.75 mm to 2 mm
#4 to #10 Sieve
Medium
2 mm to 0.425 mm
#10 to #40 Sieve
Fine
0.425 mm to 0.075 mm
#40 to #200 Sieve
Fines
Less than 0.075 mm
Passing #200 Sieve
Silt
Less than 5 pm
N.A.
Clay
Less than 2 pm N.A.
Table•. • Sieve Sizes
Standard Penetration Test Resistance A measure of a soil's plasticity characteristics in
N-Value Atterberg general accordance with ASTM D4318. The soil
calculated using ASTM D1586 or AASHTO T- Limits
Plasticity Index (PI) is representative of this
❑ 206. Calculated as sum of original, field i characteristic and is bracketed by the Liquid Limit (LL)
recorded values. PL LL
and the Plastic Limit (PL).
Qu Unconfined compressive strength, typically P 9 tYP Y 35 Moisture percent natural moisture content in general
estimated from a pocket penetrometer. Results
are presented in tons per square foot (tsf). accordance with ASTM D2216.
Hollow Stem Auger Flights on the outside of the shaft advance soil cuttings to the surface. The
hollow stem allows sampling through the middle of the auger flights.
Mud Rotary / A cutting head advances the boring and discharges a drilling fluid to
Wash Bore support the borehole and circulate cuttings to the surface.
Solid Flight Auger Flights on the outside bring soil cuttings to the surface. Solid stem requires
removal from borehole during sampling.
Hand Auger Cylindrical bucket (typically 3-inch diameter and 8 inches long) attached to a
metal rod and turned by human force.
Descriptor
Meaning
Trace
Likely less than 5%
Few
5 to 10%
Little
15 to 25%
Some
30 to 45%
Mostly
50 to 100%
. •le
5: Descripto
Page I A-6

BUILDING
KEY TO LOGS
G eatec h n ical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Manual Hammer
The operator tightens and loosens the rope around a rotating drum assembly to lift
and drop a sliding, 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches.
Automatic Trip Hammer
An automatic mechanism is used to lift and drop a sliding, 140-pound hammer
falling 30 inches.
Uses a 15-pound steel mass falling 20 inches to strike an anvil and cause penetration
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
of a 1.5-inch diameter cone seated in the bottom of a hand augered borehole. The
(Sower DCP) ASTM STP-399
blows required to drive the embedded cone a depth of 1-3/4 inches have been
correlated by others to N-values derived from the Standard Penetration Test (SPT).
Non -plastic A 1/8-inch thread cannot be rolled at any water content.
Low
The thread can barely be rolled and the lump cannot be formed when drier than the
plastic limit.
The thread is easy to roll and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit. The
Medium thread cannot be re -rolled after reaching the plastic limit. The lump crumbles when
drier than the plastic limit. _ _
It takes considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit The thread
High can be re -rolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. The lump can be
formed without crumblina when drier than the plastic limit.
Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch.
Moist Damp but no visible water.
Wet Visible free water, usually soil is below water table.
Stratified Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 1/2 inch thick.
Laminated Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers less than 1/4 inch thick.
Fissured Breaks along definite planes of fracture with little resistance to fracturing.
Slickensides Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, sometimes striated.
Blocky Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps which resist further
breakdown.
Lensed Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses of sand scattered
through a mass of clay.
Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout.
.. -
Page I A-7

KEY TO HATCHES
Geocechnlcal• Emironmental• and Materials Engineers
11W IM /W
`60 �■ �` GW - Well -graded gravels, gravel —sand
Asphalt
Clay Gravel
r� mixtures, little or no fines
with
am
f .40 .
o.. ° °°
o•
' '' :� Sand with Gravel
GP - Poorly -graded gravels, gravel — sand
Aggregate Base
o D�a bC mixtures, little or no fines
.'
o a'
GM - Silty gravels, gravel — sand — silt
�'
Topsoil
a
a
■
< Silt with Gravel
ID mixtures
••
C
G
o
i�!••� it
I NAMGC -Clayey gravels, gravel —sand —clay
� � .a; �.�: �r�.;p
�. � ' '• f. �
. mixtures
.;:;."a A.:
Concrete
•y Gravel with Sand
SW - Well -graded sands, gravelly sands,
Coal
• Gravel with Clay
little or no fines
SP - Poorly -graded sands, gravelly sands,
CL-ML - Silty Clay
a• •
Gravel with Silt
little or no fines
r ►
SM - Silty sands, sand — silt mixtures
Sandy Clay
Limestone
SC - Clayey sands, sand — clay mixtures Clayey Chert Chalk
ML - Inorganic silts and very find sands, x x x x x x 1
rock flour, silty or clayey fine low and High x x x x x x Siltstone
sands or cla e silt with sli ht lasticit Plasticity Clay x x x x x x
CL - Inorganic clays of low to medium
plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy Cla Plasticity Silt and Till
I cla s, silt clays, lean clays
y
OL -Organic silts and organic silty clays High Plasticity Silt '' ? Sandy Clay with
o low Plasticity and Clay
f p y y Cobbles and Boulders
MH - Inorganic silts, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sand, or silty soils Fill Sandstone with Shale
CH - Inorganic clays of high plasticity a 'J\ '° J`t' Weathered Rock # Coral
OH -Organic clays of medium to high
plasticity, organic silts Sandstone Boulders and Cobbles
.................... .
PT -Peat, humus, swamp soils with high Shale o\o• Soil and Weathered
organic contents b Rock
Page I A-8

BORING LOCATION PLAN
Page I A-9

S^J+-F JT1f EFf
I-03 + ��ewr�.rra-�wr.:rts
_ � �� r� � _ r" i ..
t4 - -'." �..
Fy�ri°:,`.•
�
- �`_ ��I i ✓ � s s 1 ' L � � \ � , � � � � 1 � 1 l � 1 1 1 � ` �� r— ll
B-
� y - - TREE PROTEG11ON FENCE
-
° ,--
k Fence 4IMITS
i+s
LRII73 oP cif n.c 1 \ 1
'Ir-y f ^•• �:fE •."--00
'-2 TEM ..Ru .1I;�:�
,p��iS
�, -- 'r'F . 171��'T�
�"'^'�3� 4 sr ofenl,y PIPE �� < INFILTRI TR N�,1
CM16,2 HTRANCL�LXI*
2l]'
T�
"PT C1101 C-MI 1 PIARU, ENO. it I _ 07 ?`
lcpy,
a' NLET P TELT N''
�-
�.
Lr .�qs } k `: ' 0 1 l
kf —
Fence 3 Fence 2 8=05- -- B-ol+. '..', r�
_
Lao B-03
-'T. LGO �E E 9jr x %IP
LOD y, LW
+ B-0
1R rt
"�
2 ", , Fence 1
1�
' SEMEN OEHCE
i
I
SFgLIEN7 FENCE
+ Boring Locations + Infiltration Test Locations O
Boring
Location Ma
BES Project #:
RD190121
Address:
Lamont Road
BUILDING
Drawing Source:
RFP Sheet CG101
City:
Fort Bragg, NC
Client:
Stantec
Figure 1
Project:
Multi -Purpose Training Facility

SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILES
Page I A-10

NW
SE
250
250
B-05
Assumed Structure EL. (Based on USACE Sediment and Erosion Plan - Sheet CG101)
245
— — QU — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
245
2 .
B-03
2
2
N
Qu
240
NB-04Qu
240
;.
B-02
7 ..
2
3
N
235
6
8
2
235
6
B-01
13
8
2 N
7
6
1
230
14
7
230
11
2 3
14
225
11
g '.:
10
13
225
1
..'
5
_
..
13 11
zzo
16
8':
BT=20.0
220
z
BT=20.0
6
0
16
Q
215
14
BT=20.0
215
�
w
10
210
9
210
8
205
8
205
BT=40.0
13
200
200
19
195
195
18
BT=40.0
190
190
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5 4.0
Key to Hatches
Legend
Building & Earth Sciences LLP
610 Sp ng Branch Road, Dunn, NC 283,4
04
=.
Topsoil
USCS
Poorly -graded
USCS
Poorly -graded
BT=Boring Termination
AR=Auger Refusal
Multi -Purpose Training
Sand with Silt
Sand
Facility - Fort Bragg, NC
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
Fence 1 : Subsurface Profile
USCS Low Qu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
Plasticity Sandy USCS Silty Clayey from pocket penetrometer test (tsf) Sand
p5
_0A
Clay
1 Water Level Reading at time of drilling.
PROJECT NO: RD190121 I PLATE NO: A-1 DATE: 4/16/19
g-03
0 0
Horizontal Scale (feet)
Vertical Exaggeration: Ox
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers

SIN
NE
250
250
B-06
N Qu
2
Assumed Structure EL. (Based on USACE Sediment and Erosion Plan -Sheet CG101)
245
— — — — —
— — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
245
3
B-12
5
B-11 N Qu
N Qu
2
240
6
2
240
2 '
5
2
2
5
4
235
2
235
5
10
4
7
10
230
9
230
12
9
BT=20.0
11
225
221
12 '
15 ';
BT=20.0
220
BT=20.0
220
z
O
Q 215
215
w
210
210
205
205
200
200
195
195
190
190
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
Topsoil
Key to Hatches
USCS
Poorly -graded
11 Sand with Silt
USCS
Poorly -graded
': 'Sand
Legend
BT=Boring Termination
AR=Auger Refusal
Building & Earth Sciences LLP.
610 S ng Branch Road, Dunn, NC 204
8_
•
Multi -Purpose Training
Facility - Fort Bragg, NC
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
Fence 2 • Subsurface Profile
Qu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
1 Water Level Reading at time of drilling.
PROJECT NO: RD190121 I PLATE NO: A-1 DATE: 4/16/19
0 0
11111111116mm"
BUILDING & EARTH
p6
Horizontal Scale (feet)
Vertical Exaggeration: Ox
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers

S
N
250
B-07
250
N Qu
2
B-08
Assumed Structure EL. (Based on USACE Sediment and Erosion Plan - Sheet CG101)
245
— — — —
— — — — — N_ C)l� — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
245
7
B-10
B-09
2
4
N
Qu
N Qu
8
2
240
4
240
6
2
2
6
5
2
':
4
5 '
235
4
5
235
11 ;
13 '
'
5
8
9
6
4
230
230
10 .'
BT=20.0
11
10
8
225
225
10
14
14 :' '. 1
BT=20.0
BT=20.0
220
220
z
O
14
Q
215
215
w
w
1
210
210
26
205
205
BT=40.0
200
200
19s
195
190
190
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5 4.0
��'%
Topsoil
Key to Hatches
USCS
Poorly -graded
USCS
Poorly -graded
Legend
BT=Boring Termination
AR=Auger Refusal
Buildin
Sg & Earth Sciences LLP.
610 ng Branch Road, Dunn, NC 283t34-�0
�_09 �
Multi -Purpose Training
Sand with Silt
Sand
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
Facility - Fort Bragg, NC
Fence 3 : Subsurface Profile
USCS Silty Clayey Qu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
Sand
from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
�Oa
1 Water Level Reading at time of drilling.
PROJECT NO: RD190121 I PLATE NO: A-1 DATE: 4/16/19
0 0
•
BUILDING
Horizontal Scale (feet)
Vertical Exaggeration: Ox
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers

IN
E
250
250
Assumed Structure EL. (Based on
USACE Sediment and Erosion Plan - Sheet CG101)
245
— — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — —
— —
— — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
245
B-09
B-10
B-12
N Qu
N Qu
B-11 N Qu
2
N
Qu 2
240
2
240
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
4
235
5
4
2
235
5
8
5
4
7
4
6
10 '.
230
9
230
10
11
9
11
'
225
225
14 ,'
10 ,'
12
BT=20.0
BT=20.0
15
BT=20.0
220
BT=20.0
220
z
O
Q
215
215
w
210
210
205
205
200
200
195
195
190
190
0
0.5 1.0
1.5 2.0
2.5
3.0 3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Key to Hatches
Legend
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc.
610 Spring Branch Road, Dunn, NC 28334
Topsoil
�USCS
Poorly -graded
USCS
Poorly -graded
BT=Boring Termination
AR=Auger Refusal
Multi -Purpose Training
Sand with Silt
Sand
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
Facility - Fort Bragg, NC
Fence 4 • Subsurface Profile
Qu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
p9
6 10
from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
2
1 Water Level Reading at time of drilling.
�
PROJECT NO: RD190121 I PLATE NO: A-1 DATE: 4/22/19
0 1
11111111116mm"
BUILDING & EARTH
Horizontal Scale (feet)
Vertical Exaggeration: Ox
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Site Map Scale 1 inch equals 5 feet

BORING LOGS
Page I A-11

LOG OF BORING
610 Spring Branch Road
EARTHBUILDING &
Designation: B-01
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Sheet 1 of 2
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental,
and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
PROJECT NAME:
Multi -Purpose Training Facility LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190121
DATE DRILLED:
4/3/19
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
67 Degrees, Sunny
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
ELEVATION:
232
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
DRILL CREW:
Building & Earth
BORING LOCATION:
NE Corner of Mission Space
LOGGED BY:
M.Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
z
w
zz
H
n w
10 20 30 40
Q
V
A Qu (tsf) A
a
O
Q
J
a
J
0-
w 2
1 2 3 4
m
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
0
J
Q
Q
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
TOPSOIL: Approximately 3"
1
0-0-1-1
":":":":":":":":":"
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM):
very loose, brown, fine to medium grained,
230
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
moist
2
1-1-2-2
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
loose
4.0
228.0
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP): loose, brown,
5
3
2-2-2-2
fine to medium grained, moist
225
4
2-2-2-3
light
9 brown
Sample
mple 5
LL: NP
_X
5
1-2-3-3
;.�..:..:..:..:.......
PL: NP
PI: NP
brown, wet
M: 17.6%
10
F: 4.2
6
6-6-5-8
.:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:
medium dense
220
7
3-3-5
loose
No Recovery
15
215
8
3-7-7
... ........................
medium dense
20
210
9
4-4-4
loose
SAMPLE TYPE
® Split Spoon
N-VALUE
STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206)
REC RECOVERY LL:
LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE
PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL:
PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ
GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI:
PLASTICITY INDEX
1
STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL
Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

LOG OF BORING
610 Spring Branch Road
EARTHBUILDING &
Designation: B-01
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Sheet 2 of 2
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental,
and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
PROJECT NAME:
Multi -Purpose Training Facility LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
SOTF PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190121
DATE DRILLED:
4/3/19
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
67 Degrees, Sunny
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
ELEVATION:
232
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
DRILL CREW:
Building & Earth
BORING LOCATION:
NE Corner of Mission Space
LOGGED BY:
M.Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
z
w
zz
H
n w
10 20 30 40
Q
V
A Qu (tsf) A
a
O
Q
J
a
J
0-
w 2
1 2 3 4
m
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
0
J
Q
a
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
205
..: .:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
Sample
10 28.5 203.5
LL. 43 SANDY CLAY (CL): very stiff, brown, fine to
10 6-7-8 PL:21 medium grained, moist
PI: 22
30 M: 19.3%
F: 54.6%
200
...... ......................
11 7-12-8
35
195
...... .....................
12 6-12-8 gray
40 40.0 192.0
(COASTAL PLAIN)
Boring Terminated at 40 feet.
190
45
185
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Automatic hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
Multi -Purpose Training Facility
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190121
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
BORING LOCATION:
Southeast Corner of Mission Space
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-02
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
DATE DRILLED:
4/3/19
WEATHER:
67 Degrees, Sunny
ELEVATION:
236
DRILL CREW:
Building & Earth
LOGGED BY:
M.Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
w
H
w
10 20 30 40
V
A Qu (tsf) A
z
zz
n
Q
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL: Approximately 4"
236
1
brown, fine to medium grained, moist
2
1 1 1 1
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
Sample 3
LL:21
6
3
w-O-H
PL:17
PI:4
reddish brown
M: 7.6%
230
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
F: 13.4%
4
1 1 1 2
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
root fragments present
X
5
.:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
9.0 227.0.
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP): medium dense,
2-2-5-6
10
. . . . . . . . .
yellowish -red, white, fine to medium grained,
moist
226
6
5-5-8-10
..:
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
7
....
..................:.
Sample 7
5-8-10
M:12.2%
wet
16
220
8
7-9-5
light brown
20
20.0 216.0
(COASTAL PLAIN)
Boring Terminated at 20 feet.
216
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Automatic hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
Multi -Purpose Training Facility
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190121
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
BORING LOCATION:
Center of Middle Mission Space
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-03
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
DATE DRILLED:
4/2/19
WEATHER:
67 Degrees, Sunny
ELEVATION:
240
DRILL CREW:
Building & Earth
LOGGED BY:
M.Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
w
H
10 20 30 40
A Qu (tsf) A
z
zz
n w
Q
V
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL: Approximately 4"
� "
`
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM):
1
0-0-1-1
":":":"...... :"
very loose, brown, fine to medium grained,
Sample 2
moist
1.
LL: NP
2
............:.
PL: NP
1-1-2-2
PI: NP
loose, yellowish -red
M: 5.6%
. .....................:..:..
F: 12%
5
235
3
2-4-4-3
4
3-3-5-8
.:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:
medium dense
5
2-3-3-3
................
loose
10
230
10.0 230.0
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP): medium dense,
6
....
light yellowish -red fine to mediumgrained,
moist
_X
7
4-6-6
.............................
15
225
.
. . . . . . . .
8
3-6-9
............................
wet
20
220-X
.
. . . . . . . .
20.0 220.0
(COASTAL PLAIN)
Boring Terminated at 20 feet.
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Automatic hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
Multi -Purpose Training Facility
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190121
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
BORING LOCATION:
North of Middle Mission Space
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-04
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
DATE DRILLED:
4/3/19
WEATHER:
67 Degrees, Sunny
ELEVATION:
239
DRILL CREW:
Building & Earth
LOGGED BY:
M.Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
w
H
w
10 20 30 40
V
A Qu (tsf) A
z
zz
n
Q
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
8.3 TOPSOIL: Approximately 3"
SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM): very loose,
1
w-o-H
brown, fine to medium grained, moist
2
1 1 1 1
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
235
5
3
2-3-3-4
loose
Sample 4
LL:23
4
3-3-4-3
P L: 19
PI:4
reddish -brown
M: 7.4%
F: 12.7%
230
5
3-3-4-5
.....:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
medium dense, root fragments
10
10.0 229.0
POORLYGRADED SAND (SP): medium dense,
-X
6
...
y llowish-red fine to medium grained moist
4-6-8-7
225
7
.:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
Sample 7
3-6-6
M: /o
15
220
8
3-5-5
20
20.0 219.0
Groundwater not
(COASTAL PLAIN)
encountered at time of
Boring Terminated at 20 feet.
drilling.
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
........
noted.
215
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Automatic hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-05
Sheet 1 of 2
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
PROJECT NAME:
Multi -Purpose Training Facility
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190121
DATE DRILLED:
4/2/19
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
67 Degrees, Sunny
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
ELEVATION:
244
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
DRILL CREW:
Building & Earth
BORING LOCATION:
East Side of Tunnel
LOGGED BY:
M.Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
z
w
zz
H
n w
10 20 30 40
Q
V
A Qu (tsf) A
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
a
Q
a
0-
1 Atterberg Limits I
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
w
`^
• % Moisture •
20 40 60 80
0.3
TOPSOIL: Approximately 4"
_X
":":"...... :"
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM):
very loose, brown, fine to medium grained,
moist
X
2
1 1 1 2
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
yellowish -red
240-
5
3
2-2-2-4
loose
4
4-4-3-3
...........................
235
5
2-2-4-4
.......................
10
10.0
234.0
.' .
'.'.
POORLYGRADED SAND (SP): medium dense,
-X
6
4-5-8-8
" " " " " " " " "
light yellowish -red, fine to medium grained,
moist
230
7
6-8-9
15
225
8
5-6-10
light brown
20
220
9
6-10-8
..... .......................
reddish yellow, wet
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

LOG OF BORING 610 Spring Branch Road
BUILDING & EARTH Dunn, NC 28334
Designation: B-05
Office: [phone]
Sheet 2 of 2 Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers www.BuildingAndEarth.com
PROJECT NAME: Multi -Purpose Training Facility LOCATION: Fort Bragg, North Carolina
PROJECT NUMBER: RD190121 DATE DRILLED: 4/2/19
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger WEATHER: 67 Degrees, Sunny
EQUIPMENT USED: GeoProbe 7822DT ELEVATION: 244
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic DRILL CREW: Building & Earth
BORING LOCATION: East Side of Tunnel LOGGED BY: M.Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
z
w
zz
H
n w
10 20 30 40
Q
V
A Qu (tsf) A
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
°� Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
215
10
4.10.8
light brown
30
........
Sample
11
210
ILLNP
11
4.5.5
•
PL: NP
PI: NP
35
M: 18.2%
F: 2.6 %
38.5 205.5
LA SAND u e
CLAYEY A (SC): medium dense,
NE
205
12
3-5a
yellowish -red, fine to medium grained, wet
M
40
40.0 204.0
(COASTAL PLAIN)
Boring Terminated at 40 feet.
. . . .
200
45
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
195
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Automatic hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
Multi -Purpose Training Facility
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190121
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
BORING LOCATION:
West Side of Tunnel
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-06
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
DATE DRILLED:
4/2/19
WEATHER:
67 Degrees, Sunny
ELEVATION:
247
DRILL CREW:
Building & Earth
LOGGED BY:
M.Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
w
H
w
10 20 30 40
V
A Qu (tsf) A
z
zz
n
Q
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
: :
TOPSOIL: Approximately 4"
'� "
�`
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM):
X
very loose, brown, fine to medium grained,
245
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
moist
2
1-1-2-2
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
loose, reddish -yellow
5
3
2-2-3-3
240
4
1-2-4-4
.............................
5
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
Sample 5
2233
M: . 5/ o
5
10
X
6
2-2-3-4
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
'''
235-
.,..:
13.5 233.5
' .'.'
.
POORLYGRADED SAND (SP): medium dense,
7
4-6-7
light yellowish -red, fine to medium grained,
15
moist
230
8_X
4-8-8
20
20.0 227.0
Groundwater not
(COASTAL PLAIN)
encountered at time of
Boring Terminated at 20 feet.
drilling.
225
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Automatic hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-07
Sheet 1 of 1
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
PROJECT NAME:
Multi -Purpose Training Facility
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190121
DATE DRILLED:
4/2/19
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
67 Degrees, Sunny
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
ELEVATION:
248
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
DRILL CREW:
Building & Earth
BORING LOCATION:
SW of West Mission Space
LOGGED BY:
M.Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
w
H
w
10 20 30 40
V
A Qu (tsf) A
z
zz
n
Q
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL: Approximately 3"
A
Al
very loose, brown, fine to medium grained,
moist
245-X
2
1-1-1-1
5
3
1-1-1-2
4
2-4-4-4
.....:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
loose, reddish -yellow
5
3-3-3-4
....................
;. .
10
6
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
Sample 6
2234
M: . 7/ o
5
7
4-7-7
... ........................
medium dense
15
230
18.5 229.5
POORLY -GRADED SAND (SP): medium dense,
..................:..
8
4-6-e
light brown, fine to medium grained, moist
20
20.0 228.0
Groundwater not
(COASTAL PLAIN)
encountered at time of
Boring Terminated at 20 feet.
drilling.
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
225
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Automatic hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

LOG OF BORING
610 Spring Branch Road
EARTHBUILDING &
Designation: B-08
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Sheet 1 of 2
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental,
and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
PROJECT NAME: Multi -Purpose Training Facility
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190121
DATE DRILLED:
4/3/19
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
67 Degrees, Sunny
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
ELEVATION:
245
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
DRILL CREW:
Building & Earth
BORING LOCATION:
West Mission Space
LOGGED BY:
M.Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
z
w
zz
H
n w
10 20 30 40
Q
V
A Qu (tsf) A
a
O
Q
J
a
J
0-
w 2
1 2 3 4
m
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
0
J
Q
Q
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
TOPSOIL: Approximately 5"
—
1
4-4-3-4
SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC SM): loose, brown,
fine to medium grained, moist
2
1-2-2-2
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
reddish brown
Sample 3
LL:24
5
240
3
2-2-2-2
PL:18
PI:6
M: 6.9 %
F: 17.6%
4
3-3-3-4
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
X
5
2-2-3-3
..................:..:..:...
10
235-
6
medium dense
2-8-5-8
13.5
231.5
..
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP): medium dense,
7
3-6-8
yellowish -red, fine to medium grained, moist
15
230
_X
8
2-6-8
............................
white, yellowish -red
20
225
9
5-9-10
SAMPLE TYPE
® Split Spoon
N-VALUE
STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206)
REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE
PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ
GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1
STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL
Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
Multi -Purpose Training Facility
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190121
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
BORING LOCATION:
West Mission Space
❑ N-Value ❑
w
OZ
H
10 20 30 40
Z
- w
A Qu (tsf) A
Q
a
O
Q
J
a
J3:
0-
w 2
1 2 3 4
m
1 Atterberg Limits I
0
J
Q
a
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
w
`^
• % Moisture •
101 7-7-7
30--1 215
111 0-0-1
35--1 210
121 13-13-21
40--1 205
45--1 200
SAMPLE TYPE LX� Split Spoon
Sample
11
ILL: 0
P L: 0
PI: 0
M: 26.3 %
F: 9.9 %
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-08
Sheet 2 of 2
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
DATE DRILLED:
4/3/19
WEATHER:
67 Degrees, Sunny
ELEVATION:
245
DRILL CREW:
Building & Earth
LOGGED BY:
M.Lumpkin
x
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Boring Terminated at 40 feet
REMARKS
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY ILL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-09
Sheet 1 of 1
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
PROJECT NAME:
Multi -Purpose Training Facility
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190121
DATE DRILLED:
4/3/19
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
67 Degrees, Sunny
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
ELEVATION:
242
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
DRILL CREW:
Building & Earth
BORING LOCATION:
NW of West Mission Space
LOGGED BY:
M.Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
w
H
w
10 20 30 40
V
A Qu (tsf) A
z
zz
n
Q
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
: :
TOPSOIL: Approximately 3"
A
Al
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM):
X
1
w-o-H
":":":":":":":":":"
very loose, brown, fine to medium grained,
240
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
moist
2
5
3
2-2-2-3
loose
235
4
1-2-3-3
reddish brown
5
4-4-4-2
.....:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
,. .
10
-
X
6
1-2-2-7
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:
medium dense
230
13.5 228.5
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP): medium dense,
_X
7
4-6-7
light brown, fine to medium grained, moist
15
225
_X
8
5-9-10
20
20.0 222.0
Groundwater not
(COASTAL PLAIN)
encountered at time of
Boring Terminated at 20 feet.
drilling.
220
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Automatic hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-10
Sheet 1 of 1
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
PROJECT NAME:
Multi -Purpose Training Facility
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190121
DATE DRILLED:
4/3/19
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
67 Degrees, Sunny
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
ELEVATION:
242
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
DRILL CREW:
Building & Earth
BORING LOCATION:
N of West Mission Space
LOGGED BY:
M.Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
w
H
w
10 20 30 40
V
A Qu (tsf) A
z
zz
n
Q
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL: Approximately 2"
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM):
1
1-1-1-1
very loose, brown, fine to medium grained,
240
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
moist
2
0 1 1 1
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
reddish brown, root fragments present
5
3
235
4
1-2-2-3
.....................:.
loose
5
2-2-3-2
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:...'.
10
6
2334
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
.,.
..
230
13.5 228.5
POORLY -GRADED SAND (SP): medium dense,
4-7-7
light brown, fine to medium grained, moist
15
225
8
3-7-8
20
20.0 222.0
' .
Groundwater not
(COASTAL PLAIN)
encountered at time of
Boring Terminated at 20 feet.
.
drilling.
220
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Automatic hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-11
Sheet 1 of 1
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
PROJECT NAME:
Multi -Purpose Training Facility
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190121
DATE DRILLED:
4/3/19
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
67 Degrees, Sunny
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
ELEVATION:
241
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
DRILL CREW:
Building & Earth
BORING LOCATION:
NE of West Mission Space
LOGGED BY:
M.Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
w
H
w
10 20 30 40
V
A Qu (tsf) A
z
zz
n
Q
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL: Approximately 4"
� "
`
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM):
240
1
very loose, brown, fine to medium grained,
moist
2
1 1 1 2
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
'
5
3
2-2-2-2
loose
235
4
3-3-2-3
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
yellowish -red
.............................
8.0 233.0
:..'.
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP): loose,
5
y llowish-re medium g fine to e df m grained, ra d m
a-a-3-z
10
230
6
9-4-9-5
medium dense
7
4.7.7
... .........................
15
225
.
8
6-9-8
............................
white
20
20.0 221.0
'':.'.
Groundwater not
(COASTAL PLAIN)
encountered at time of
Boring Terminated at 20 feet.
220
drilling.
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Automatic hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
Multi -Purpose Training Facility
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190121
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
BORING LOCATION:
N of Tunnel
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-12
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
DATE DRILLED:
4/3/19
WEATHER:
67 Degrees, Sunny
ELEVATION:
242
DRILL CREW:
Building & Earth
LOGGED BY:
M.Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
w
H
w
10 20 30 40
V
A Qu (tsf) A
z
zz
n
Q
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL: Approximately 4"
� "
`
very loose, brown, fine to medium grained,
240
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
moist
2
1 1 1 2
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
'
6
3
reddish brown
236
4
1.1.1.1
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
7.0 236.0.:':
'
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP): very loose,
yellowish -red, fine to medium grained, moist
5
1-2-2-6
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
loose
10
6
4-4-6-6
.....:..:..:..:..:..:..:
medium dense
230
7
3-6-7
.............................
light yellowish -red
16
226
$
s-e
...
........................
white
20
20.0 222.0
(COASTAL PLAIN)
' .'':'
Groundwater not
encountered at time of
�n T
Boring Terminated at 20 feet.
d � �n
drilling.
220
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Automatic hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

INFILTRATION TESTING
Page I A-12

Geaxechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Project Name: Multi Train Fac @ SOTF (SF-00015-18)
Client Name: Stantec, Inc.
Technician: Monique Lumpkin & Joshua O'neal
Test Constants
Liquid Used: Municipal Water
Test Location: 1-01
Project Number: RD190121
Report Number: 1 of
Date: 4/22/2019
Depth of Water Table: >36"
Constants:
Capacity
Liquid Containers
setting
Rate cm cm
Sight Tube
1L
n
Storage Tube
5L
n
Flow rate used
Water Temp (IF):
Depth of Observed Water
105 Hole Diameter:
Start Saturation: 14:30 Water Head:
2
FC of
26.4 inches
2.4 inches
7 inches
Hole Radius: 1.200 Hole Depth: 33 inches
Test a a
�*
-76
Date
Time
Elapsed
Time (hrs)
4 Total
Flow Readings
HOWKate
in3/hr
Conductivity
Remarks: Weather conditions, etc.
Reading
Flow
cm'
Ksat In/hr
1
S
4/22
2 :30
0.02
0.02
40.5
105
105
384.45
2.02
E
4/22
2:31
39.5
2
S
4/22
2:31
0.02
0.03
39.5
105
105
384.45
2.02
E
4/22
2:32
38.5
3
S
4/22
2 :32
0.02
0.05
38.5
105
105
384.45
2.02
E
4/22
1 2:33
37.5
4
S
4/22
2 :33
0.02
0.07
37.5
105
105
384.45
2.02
E
4/22
2:34
36.5
5
S
4/22
2 :34
0.02
0.08
36.5
105
105
384.45
2.02
E
4/22
2:35
35.5
6
S
4/22
2 :35
0.02
0.10
35.5
105
105
384.45
2.02
E
4/22
2:36
34.5
7
S
E
8
S
E
9
S
E
10
S
E
11
S
E
12
S
E
13
S
E
14
S
Stabilized Ksatln/hr
2.02
1-01

Geotechnical. Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Project Name: Multi Train Fac @ SOTF (SF-00015-18)
Client Name: Stantec, Inc.
Technician: Moniaue Lumpkin & Joshua O'neal
Test Constants
Liquid Used: Municipal Water
Test Location: 1-02
Project Number: RD190121
Report Number: 2 of
Date: 4/22/2019
Depth of Water Table: >96"
Constants:
Capacity
Liquid Containers
setting
ate cm cm
Sight Tube
1 L
1 On
Storage Tube
5L
n
Flow rate used
Water Temp ( °F):
Depth of Observed Water
105 Hole Diameter:
Start Saturation: 15:00 Water Head:
N
rc or
44 inches
2.4 inches
5 inches
Hole Radius: 1.200 Hole Depth: 56 inches
esr vara
Date
Time
Elapsed
Time (hrs)
0 Total
Flow Readings
Flow Kate
in3Ar
Conductivity
Remarks: Weather conditions, etc.
Reading
UlDe
Flow
Flow
cm3
Ksat In/hr
1
S
4/22
3 :00
0.02
0.02105
105
384.45
3.30
E
4/22
3:01
2
S
4/22
3 :01
0.02
0.03105
fl8.
105
384.45
3.30
E
4/22
3:02
3
S
4/22
3:02
0.02
0.05
37.5
105
105
384.45
3.30
E
4/22
3:03
36.5
4
S
4/22
3 :03
0.02
0.07
36.5
105
105
384.45
3.30
E
4/22
3:04
35.5
5
S
4/22
3 :04
0.02
0.08
35.5
105
105
384.45
3.30
E
4/22
3:05
34.5
6
S
4/22
3 :05
0.02
0.10
34.5
105
105
384.45
3.30
E
4/22
3:06
33.5
7
S
E
8
S
E
9
S
E
10
S
E
11
S
E
12
S
E
13
S
E
14
S
Stabilized Ksatin/hr
3.30
I-02

Geotechnical. Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Project Name: Multi Train Fac @ SOTF (SF-00015-18)
Client Name: Stantec, Inc.
Technician: Moniaue Lumpkin & Joshua O'neal
Test Constants
Liquid Used: Municipal Water
Test Location: 1-03
Project Number: RD190121
Report Number: 3 of
Date: 4/22/2019
Depth of Water Table: >96"
Constants:
Capacity
Liquid Containers
setting
ate cm cm
Sight Tube
1 L
1 On
Storage Tube
5L
n
Flow rate used
Water Temp ( °F):
Depth of Observed Water
105 Hole Diameter:
Start Saturation: 10:00 Water Head:
N
rc or
48 inches
2.4 inches
5 inches
Hole Radius: 1.200 Hole Depth: 60 inches
esr vara
MEN
Elapsed
Time (hrs)
A Total
Flow Readings
Flow Kate
in 3/ hr
Conductivity
Stabilized K,at in /h,

Geotechnical. Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Project Name: Multi Train Fac @ SOTF (SF-00015-18)
Client Name: Stantec, Inc.
Technician: Moniaue Lumpkin & Joshua O'neal
Test Constants
Liquid Used: Municipal Water
Test Location: 1-04
Project Number: RD190121
Report Number: 4 of
Date: 4/22/2019
Depth of Water Table: >96"
Constants:
Capacity
Liquid Containers
setting
ate cm cm
Sight Tube
1 L
1 On
Storage Tube
5L
n
Flow rate used
Water Temp ( °F):
Depth of Observed Water
105 Hole Diameter:
Start Saturation: 13:00 Water Head:
N
rc or
54 inches
2.4 inches
6 inches
Hole Radius: 1.200 Hole Depth: 59 inches
esr vara
MEN
Elapsed
(hrs)
A Total
Flow ReadingsConductivity
Flow Kate
in 3/ hr
StabilizedTime
at Ir
,.

LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES
A brief description of the laboratory tests performed is provided in the following sections.
DESCRIPTION OF SOILS (VISUAL -MANUAL PROCEDURE) (ASTM D2488)
The soil samples were visually examined by our engineer and soil descriptions were
provided. Representative samples were then selected and tested in accordance with the
aforementioned laboratory -testing program to determine soil classifications and
engineering properties. This data was used to correlate our visual descriptions with the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D2216)
Natural moisture contents (M%) were determined on selected samples. The natural moisture
content is the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the weight of water in a given amount of
soil to the weight of solid particles.
ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D4318)
The Atterberg Limits test was performed to evaluate the soil's plasticity characteristics. The soil
Plasticity Index (PI) is representative of this characteristic and is bracketed by the Liquid Limit
(LL) and the Plastic Limit (PL). The Liquid Limit is the moisture content at which the soil will
flow as a heavy viscous fluid. The Plastic Limit is the moisture content at which the soil is
between "plastic" and the semi -solid stage. The Plasticity Index (PI = LL - PL) is a frequently
used indicator for a soil's potential for volume change. Typically, a soil's potential for volume
change increases with higher plasticity indices.
MATERIAL FINER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE BY WASHING (ASTM D 1140)
Grain -size tests were performed to determine the partial soil particle size distribution. The
amount of material finer than the openings on the No. 200 sieve (0.075 mm) was determined
by washing soil over the No. 200 sieve. The results of wash #200 tests are presented on the
boring logs included in this report and in the table of laboratory test results.

The results of the laboratory testing are presented in the following tables.
Sample Depth LL PL
Boring Location
(ft)
PI
% Passing Moisture
#200 Sieve Content (%)
Table A-1: General Soil Classification Test Results
Soils with a Liquid Limit (LL) greater than 50 and Plasticity Index (PI) greater than 25 usually
exhibit significant volume change with varying moisture content and are considered to be
highly plastic. Soils with a LOI value greater than 3 percent are usually not suitable for
supporting building and pavement sections.

Schmertmann Settlement Analysis
Job No.: RD190121 Job Name: Multi -Purpose Training Facility
Calculations based on Boring No:
Footing Size, B
14
ft
Bearing Pressure,p
1500
psf
Soil Unit Wt.
110
pcf
Bearing Depth, Fd
3
ft
Overall Average B01 - 1312 1 Notes
C1= 0.89
C2 = 1.54
t = years
Settlement Estimate
Using Average N for the layer
Top of
Layer (ft)
*Btm of
Layer (ft)
dz
(inches)
N count (bpf)
Es/N"
Es (tsf)
Zc (inches)
Zc (ft)
Iz
Iz*dz/Es
(in/tsf)
0
8
96
4
16
48
4
0.086
0.514
8
28
240
7
77
216
18
0.371
1.158
Sum = 1.672
Total Estimated Settlement by Schmertmann = 1.72 in
Estimated Potential Settlement = 1 0.86 in
(Schmertmann is typically reduced by a factor of 2)
Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations
Using Bowles' Equations - Foundation Analysis and Design, 5 ed.
For footing (width, greater than 4 ft.:
l4) l8 B 11Z
J kips
QQ = K = allowable soil bearing capacity, in i
�7� �14 4 1)2
Qa = 4 107 = 1.87 ksf = 1,870 psf z� 1,500 psf allowable bearing capacity
where:
N = 7 blows per foot
K = 1.07
B=14ft.
D=3ft.

r- Geotechnical-Engineering Report --)
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
Page I A-15

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 ageotechnical 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.
FTMWA GEOTECHNICAL
BUSINESS COUNCIL
,GH4C1&= ofdw GeoprofessionWBusinwAs dadon
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone.[phone] Facsimile:301/589-2017
e-mail; [e-mail] www.geoprofessionatorg
Copyright 201: 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 CBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
Page I A-16