SW6191101_Report (Geotech)_20191120

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
AND GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
COMBAT MEDICAL TRAINING FACILITY
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
BUILDING & EARTH PROJECT NO.: RD190396
PREPARED FOR:
Stantec, Inc.
REPORT DATE:
SEPTEMBER 10, 2019
BUILDING& EARTH
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers

1027 US Highway 70 West, Suite 102
Garner, North Carolina 27529
Ph: [phone]
www.buildingandearth.com
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
September 10, 2019
Stantec Architecture Inc.
4798 New Broad Street, Suite 100
Orlando, Florida, 32614
Attention: Kevin Brodber
Senior Associate
Subject: FINAL Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation
Combat Medical Training Facility
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
RN: W912PM-19-C-0020, PN: 85958
Building & Earth Project No: RD190394
Mr. Brodber:
Building & Earth Sciences, LLP. has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and FINAL
geotechnical engineering evaluation for the Combat Medical Training Facility located in Fort
Bragg, North Carolina.
The purpose of this exploration and evaluation has been to determine general subsurface
conditions at the site and to address applicable geotechnical aspects of the proposed construction
and site development. Consideration has been given regarding the client -provided USACE RFP
Geotechnical evaluation, including requests made of the 3rd party geotechnical firm mentioned
therein. The recommendations in this report are based on a physical reconnaissance of the site
and observation and classification of samples obtained from eight (8) soil test borings conducted
at the site. Confirmation of the 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
Nathan Anderson, E.I.T. Kurt . rMfiI
Staff Professional Regional Vice
CARO
�FEss�a �ft.
9r 7
o. 2
orge P. Ballock, PE
enior Geotechnical Engineer
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 Content
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............................................................................................................................................................6
3.3.2 CLAYEY SAND(SC)..........................................................................................................................................6
3.3.3 SILTY SAND (SM)............................................................................................................................................6
3,3A FAT CLAY (CH) OR LEAN CLAY (CL).............................................................................................................6
3.3.5 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT(SP-SM)..............................................................................................7
3.3.6 AUGER REFUSAL...............................................................................................................................................7
3.3.7 GROUNDWATER...............................................................................................................................................7
3.3.8 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION........................................................................................................................8
3.4 SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE AND INFILTRATION TESTING...........................................................................9
4.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................................................9
4.1 INITIAL SITE PREPARATION.................................................................................................................................. 10
4.2 SUBGRADE EVALUATION...................................................................................................................................... 11
4.3 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS................................................................................................................................ 11
4.4 UNDERCUTTING OF LOW RELATIVE DENSITY SOILS......................................................................................... 12
4.5 EVALUATION OF IN -SITU HIGHLY PLASTIC SOILS............................................................................................. 13
4.6 STRUCTURAL FILL.................................................................................................................................................. 14
4.7 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................................................................... 15
4.7.1 GROUNDWATER............................................................................................................................................ 15
4.8 CUT SLOPES........................................................................................................................................................... 15
4.9 UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL................................................................................................................................... 16
4.10 LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATION.......................................................................................... 16
4.11 WET WEATHER CONSTRUCTION...................................................................................................................... 16
5.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................17
5.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS.................................................................................................................................... 17
5.2 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................ 18
5.3 FOUNDATION QUALITY ASSURANCE.................................................................................................................. 18
6.0 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................19
7.0 FLOOR SLABS..........................................................................................................................................................20
Page I i

8.0 PAVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................................................................21
8.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT.............................................................................................................................................22
8.2 RIGID PAVEMENT..................................................................................................................................................23
9.0 SUBGRADE REHABILITATION............................................................................................................................23
10.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING....................................................................................................................24
11.0 CLOSING AND LIMITATIONS..........................................................................................................................24
F-IMIJUvom,
Page I ii

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
i 9120.11;103j:14 IUM k9:111*-714:1li1[•]►1
Proposed for construction is a new laboratory instructional facility planned for the site
located adjacent to the SOCM Course, along the west side of Bastogne Street, and north
of Kedenburg Street at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The facility will include one 28,870-
square foot, two-story building and associated gravel and paved parking lots. Additional
information regarding the project is summarized in Table 1, below. An aerial photograph
(Google Earth Imagery dated 9/2018) and site photographs made during our field
exploration follow the table.
Size (Ac.)
Existing Development
Vegetatio
General Site
Slopes
Retaining Walls
±2 acres
Undeveloped
vegetation Wooded with medium to large trees and forested
Yes
Yes
Drainage
Fair drainage
Cuts & Fills
Up to 6 ft. Fill, 10 ft. Cut
No. of Bldgs.
1
Square Ft.
28,870 ft.z
Stories
2
Proposed
Construction
Steel -framed with masonry walls
Buildings
Column Loads'
<_150 kips (Assumed)
Wall Loads'
<_4 klf (Assumed)
Preferred Foundation
Conventional shallow -spread
Preferred Slab
Traffic
Concrete slab -on -grade
Provided (USACE Specification Section 01 11 02)
Pavements Standard Duty
Yes, Rigid and Flexible
Heavy Duty
Yes, Rigid and Flexible
Table 1: Project and Site Description
Reference: SOF Combat Medic Training Facility, PN 85958 Specifications (USACE, 7212077)
Civil Site Plan, Sheet CS702 (717712077)
Notes.
1. If actual loading conditions exceed our anticipated loads, Building & Earth Sciences should be allowed
to review the proposed structural design and its effects on our recommendations for foundation design.
Page 11

proximate Building
'�' �j}�hr�'� .ter � ;: •h.-7j' �'"
go
10
'�• �?-�''' . � �'�?�.� ..+, � •�' ,,.� 'Y ice` �
` .''. f . � � �e�'�y �A F � Sip-� i. •'$'
+ hI. ' .+ I, ECG, _.
le Or
� aa.
ow
- -
BUILDING & EARTH

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The authorized subsurface exploration was performed on August 22 and 23, 2019 in
conformance with our proposal RD20006, dated January 5, 2018. Occasionally, some
modification of the scope outlined in our proposal is required to provide for proper
evaluation of the encountered subsurface conditions. Although (2) consolidation tests and
(1) triaxial shear test were proposed, they were not performed; instead, dilatometer
testing was performed in borings B-02 and B-08 in order to obtain direct data regarding
soil modulus properties.
The purpose of the geotechnical exploration has been to characterize general subsurface
conditions at specific boring locations and to gather data on which to base a geotechnical
evaluation with respect to the proposed construction. Subsurface exploration for this
project consisted of eight (8) soil test borings. The site was drilled using a GeoProbe
7822DT ATV drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer.
Soil boring locations were determined in the field by a representative of our staff using
Google Earth imagery and locations predetermined by the client. As such, boring
locations appearing on the attached Boring Location Plan 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 30
D4318 1 16
Material Finer Than No. 200 Sieve by Washing i D1140 16
Table 2: Scope of Laboratory Tests
The results of the laboratory analysis are presented on the enclosed Boring Logs and in
tabular form in the Appendix of this report. Descriptions of laboratory tests performed for
this study are also included in the Appendix.
Information gathered from the exploration was evaluated to identify a suitable foundation
type for the proposed structure. The information was also evaluated to help determine if
any special subgrade preparation procedures will be required during the project
earthworks phase.
Page 13

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
The results of the work are presented within this report that addresses:
Summary of existing surface conditions.
A description of the subsurface conditions encountered at the exploration
locations.
Site preparation considerations including material types to be expected during
foundation construction 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.
Subsurface soil logs that detail properties of the materials encountered with soil
classifications and depth to bedrock (if encountered).
Presentation of laboratory test results.
Recommendations for foundation and pavement design.
- Recommendations for lateral earth pressure design parameters
■ 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 encountered. 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, or due to natural
variations in site geologic conditions. It will therefore be necessary to confirm the
assumed conditions during site grading and foundation installation.
3.1 GEOLOGI
Appearing on the USGS Geologic Map of North Carolina, the project site is situated in the
Sand Hills of the North Carolina Coastal Plain, which is characterized by loose soils
associated with the Middendorf and Cape Fear formations, which have been deposited
over time as a result of erosion from rains and streams flowing toward the Atlantic Ocean.
The site is underlain by terrace deposits and upland sediments consisting of gravel, clayey
Page 14

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
sand, and sand, primarily caused by oceanic subsidence during the Cenozoic era (65
million years of age).
The Soil Survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North Carolina (USDA Soil Conservation
Service) describes the general area as characterized by deep sedimentary soils, ranging
from about 200 to about 400 feet in depth. Conditions encountered in borings drilled for
this study generally correlate to the published geological information.
,.2 EXISTING SURFACE CONDITIONS
At the time of our field work, the Combat Medical Training Facility site was described as
relatively sloped, with elevations gradually sloping downward from southwest to
northeast. According to Google Earth imagery, elevations on -site range from
approximately 230' to 245' MSL. The project site was covered in wooded trees and
vegetation, with trees typically in a mature stage. From review of historical aerial imagery,
it can be deduced that the general site area has not been cleared or developed in the past
30 years.
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
A general stratification summary has been prepared using data from the soil test borings
and is presented in Table 3, below. The stratification depicts general soil conditions and
strata types encountered during our field investigation.
1 6 in. Topsoil N/A
2 4.9 — 18.2 ft. Clayey Sand (SC) Very Loose to Dense
3 13.3 — 13.5 ft. Silty Sand (SM) Loose to Dense
4 6.5 — 15+ ft. Fat Clay (CH) or Lean Clay (CL) Very Soft to Hard
(Past B.T.) _
5 6.5+ Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM) Loose to Dense
(Past B.T.)
Table 3: Stratification Summary
Subsurface soil profiles have also been prepared using data obtained at specific boring
locations. Subsurface soil profiles are presented in the Appendix. For specific details on
the information obtained from individual soil borings, please refer to the Boring Logs
included in the Appendix. Ground surface elevations at the boring sites, reported on the
logs and in this report, were estimated using USACE provided Drawing No. CS102.
Page 15

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
3.3.1 TOPSOIL
Topsoil depth observed in the test borings is approximately 6 inches. No testing has been
performed to verify these soils meet requirements of "topsoil". Topsoil depths reported
on the boring logs should only be considered an estimate and topsoil thickness may vary
in unexplored portions of the site.
.5.c CLAYEY SAND (SC)
Soils described as clayey sand (SC) were observed in all the test borings beginning just
below the topsoil and extending to depths approximately 5 to 19 feet below the surface.
SPT N-values in this soil layer range from 1 to 36 blows per foot, with values in the range
of 8 to 14 blows per foot considered representative. Low relative density soils (N<_8) are
noted in the upper 5 feet of borings B-04, B-07, and B-08. Soils of this stratum are further
described as very loose to dense, light brown to yellowish red, fine to medium grained,
and moist to wet.
Laboratory classification testing was performed on selected samples collected from this
stratum. Testing indicates the soil has a liquid limit of 27 to 51, plasticity index of 9 to 25,
with 34 to 49 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. These data correspond to a USCS SC
classification.
3.3.3 SILTY SAND (SM)
Soils described as Silty Sand (SM) were encountered in borings B-01, B-02, and B-08,
extending approximately 3.2 to 13.5 feet below the SC layer. The soil in this layer is further
described as loose to dense, yellowish red, fine to medium grained, and moist to wet. SPT
N-values in the stratum range from 4 to 34 blows per foot, with values in the range of 14
to 16 considered representative.
Wash 200 grain size and Atterberg limits tests were performed on samples collected from
this layer. The testing indicates 13 to 21 percent passing the #200 sieve, a liquid limit of
non -plastic to 20, and a plasticity index of non -plastic to 2. This material is classified SM
in accordance with the USCS classification system.
3.3.4 FAT CLAY (CH) OR LEAN CLAY (CL)
Beneath the SM layer in B-01 and B-08, and beneath the SC layer in B-03 through B-07,
soils described as Fat Clay (CH) or Lean Clay (CL) were encountered, typically extending
below the boring termination depths. A 2-foot thick layer of Fat Clay is noted in B-05,
approximately 4 — 6 feet below the surface.
Page 16

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
The soil in this layer is generally described as very soft to hard, brown to gray, fine grained,
and moist to wet. SPT N-values in the stratum range from 1 to 44 blows per foot, with
values in the range of 12 to 23 considered representative. Wash 200 grain size and
Atterberg limits tests were performed on samples collected from this layer; testing
indicates 52 to 97 percent passing the #200 sieve, a liquid limit of 30 to 62, and a plasticity
index of 12 to 39. This material is classified CL (LL <_ 50) or CH (LL > 50) in accordance with
the USCS classification system.
3.3.5 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)
In boring B-03, soils described as Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM) were encountered,
extending from below the CH layer past depth of boring termination. The soil in this layer
is further described as loose to dense, light brown, fine to medium grained, and wet. SPT
N-values in the stratum range from 4 to 24 blows per foot.
A wash 200 grain size and Atterberg limits test were performed on a sample collected
from this layer. The testing indicates 11 percent passing the #200 sieve, a liquid limit of
20, and a plasticity index indicating the material is non -plastic in nature. This material is
classified SP-SM in accordance with the USCS classification system.
..�.6 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 the material below auger refusal. Auger refusal did
not occur in the borings drilled for this study.
3.3.7 GROUNDWATER
Groundwater (perched or otherwise) was encountered in boring numbers B-02 through
B-04, B-07, and B-08, from a depth of approximately 13.5 to 22.5 feet at time of drilling.
Water levels reported are accurate only for the time and date that the borings were drilled,
unless otherwise noted. Twenty four hour monitoring of the boreholes was completed
using piezometer readings. Borings were backfilled at least 24 hours after they were
drilled. Groundwater data is included in the following table.
Page 17

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
B-01
B-02
B-03
B-04
B-05
B-06
B-07
B-08
Not encountered
22.0
16.5
13.5
Not encountered
Not encountered
18.5
22.4
Table 4: Groundwater Depth
3.3.8 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION
ASCE/SEI 7-16
Not encountered
Not encountered
Not encountered
Not encountered
Not encountered
Not encountered
Not encountered
Not encountered
IS
The SeisOpt' refraction microtremor (ReMi') method was used to determine the Seismic Site Class of
the building area. SeisOpt® ReMi® V54.0 software uses data from conventional seismograph and P-wave
geophones to estimate average shear wave velocities and one and two-dimensional shear wave profiles
to a depth of 100 feet below the existing site grades. These velocities are used to classify a building site
with the Site Class A through E designation, in accordance with ASCE/SEI 7-16, Chapter 20. The average
shear wave velocity (VS) in the upper 100 feet was 1,661 feet per second (ft/s). The results of the shear
wave velocity analysis are included in the Appendix.
Table 5: Seismic Site Classification
The ASCE 7 Hazard Tool (https://asce7hazardtool.online/) was used to determine the
mapped Risk -targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) ground motion
parameters for 0.2-second (Ss) and 1-second (Si) spectral response acceleration, 5%
damped; the short -period (Fa) and long -period (Fv) site coefficients; the 0.2-second (Sans)
and 1-second (Smi) spectral response acceleration, adjusted for site class; the design
parameters for 0.2-second (SDs) and 1-second (SD1) spectral response acceleration; and
the Seismic Design Category.
The following assumptions were made: Risk Category II; approximate center of the site,
latitude 33.129422 N, longitude 78.987226 W. If actual Risk Category or location is
different, Building & Earth Sciences should be notified to review the effects on our
evaluation.
Page 18

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
The results of the evaluation using the ASCE 7 Hazard Tool are as follows:
Parameter MWOM
Ss: 0.154
r Parameter ���Value
Si:
0.072
Fa:
1.3
F,,:
1.5
SMS:
0.200
SM1
0.107
Sos: 0.134
Seismic Design Category:
Sp1:
0.072
B
Table 6: Seismic Parameters
A report provided by the ASCE 7 Hazard Tool is presented in the Appendix.
5.4 JEASONAL HIGH VVAILK 1 AISLL ANU INHLI KAI IUN 1 Lb I INU
In order to measure the depth to the Season High Water Table (SHWT), Mr. Mike Eaker, a
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist with Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates,
Inc., under contract to Building & Earth Sciences, performed the field measurements and
provided a letter summarizing his work. Mr. Eaker's report details the procedures used in
his field evaluation, the results of his soil observations, the depth to SHWT, and the depth
to observed water at each test location. Mr. Eaker's report is included in the Appendix.
Once the SHWT was measured, 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 August 23, 2019 at locations that are shown on the Boring
Location map, and identified as locations S-01, S-02, S-03, and S-04. Based on the results
of our testing, the soils at the site have a drainage rate that ranges from 0.12 to 16.43
inches per hour. The average drainage rate across the site was 5.8 inches per hour. The
data sheets for this testing are included in the Appendix of this report.
4.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
A grading plan was available at the time of this report, which indicates a finished floor
elevation of 236.65' (Drawing No. CS102, dated 11/7/2017). Based on the provided F.F.E.
and approximate elevations at boring locations, we anticipate up to 6 feet of fill and 9
feet of cut will be required to reach finished grades in the building pad area.
Page 19

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
Based on our evaluation of the subsurface soil information, and the anticipated
foundation loads, it appears that construction with a conventional shallow spread system
is feasible. The site development recommendations outlined below are intended for
development of the site to support construction with a conventional shallow spread
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.
The primary geotechnical concerns for this project are:
Proper placement of structural fill soils to achieve planned final grades
Assurance of suitable, stable subgrade soils in areas of undercutting prior to
construction
Clearing and grubbing operations required due to existing site conditions (trees,
shrubs, etc.)
Potential for settlement due to assumed loading conditions
Recommendations addressing the site conditions are presented in the following sections.
4.1 INITIAL JITE PREPARATION
All trees, roots, topsoil and deleterious materials should be removed from the proposed
construction areas. Approximately 3 inches of topsoil was observed in the borings.
However, it should be noted that, due to the density of trees and wooded areas on -site,
topsoil depths could vary in unexplored areas of the site. A geotechnical engineer should
observe stripping and grubbing operations to confirm that all unsuitable materials are
removed from proposed construction areas.
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 requirements presented below can be confirmed, and
to provide time for preparation of moisture -density relationship (Proctor) curves.
Page 110

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
4.2 SUBGRADE EVALUATION
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 will support
structures should be carefully proofrolled with a heavy (40,000 lb. 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 must be undercut or stabilized prior
to fill placement, pavement construction, or floor slab construction. All unsuitable material
identified during construction shall be removed and replaced in accordance with the
Structural Fill section of this report.
4.3 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS
Moisture sensitive silty sands (SM), clayey sands (SC), and clays (CL, CH) 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) is 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 111

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
4.4 UNDERCUTTING OF Low RELATIVE DENSITY SOILS
Low relative density soils (N<_8) were encountered in borings B-04, B-07, and B-08 in the
upper 1 to 5 feet of the building pad area. However, based on provided grading
information, it appears that low density soils in the area of B-07 will be undercut on the
order of 6 feet during grading operations; as a result, further undercutting should not be
required in this area. The near -surface low relative density soils encountered in B-04 and
B-08 within the building footprint should be undercut to a stable, suitable subgrade.
Although it may be possible to stabilize some of the surficial soils in -place, it appears
undercuts on the order of 2 to 5 feet can be anticipated within these low relative density
areas of the building pad. When necessary, the undercutting should extend laterally 5 feet
outside the building footprint. It is also noted that low density and low consistency soils
were encountered in 6 of the 8 borings at depths of >_14' below planned finished grades.
Thus, soft and loose soils at these depths are not expected to be affected by the influence
of the planned structure.
No borings were drilled in the planned pavement areas; if low consistency soils are
encountered in pavement areas, undercutting should extend laterally 3 feet outside of the
edge of pavement. It may be possible to stabilize soft soils in the pavement areas in place.
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 performed in pavement areas 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. The
final vertical and horizontal extent of undercutting should be determined by the
geotechnical engineer, or his qualified representative, during construction and could vary
based on final grades and conditions observed. Once the known undercut is complete,
the 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 112

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
4.5 EVALUATION OF IN -SITU HIGHLY PLASTIC SOILS
Soils with high swell potential, such as highly plastic clays and expansive silts, can pose
engineering issues in regards to settlement. Swelling can cause heave or lift, as well as
uneven settlement in areas of soil which are noted to have a high risk swell potential.
Based on laboratory test results, highly plastic fat clays (CH) were encountered in 5 of the
8 borings drilled across the site. Fat clay soils typically ranged in elevation from
approximately 212.5' to 221.0', which lies 15+ feet below planned finished grades. Liquid
limits range from 50 to 62 in the borings at this elevation. At this depth and liquid limit
range, shrink and swell potential are not expected to affect structure settlement. However,
a fat clay layer was also noted at an approximate elevation of 235.0' in boring B-05, about
1.5 feet below planned finished grade. We recommend that the building pad be undercut
in this area so that the highly plastic clay is removed from underneath the structural pad.
The undercutting should extend at least 5 feet horizontally outside the building footprint.
Please note that no laboratory swell testing was performed to evaluate the shrink/swell
potential of in -situ highly plastic soils. It is recommended that the geotechnical engineer
of record, or a qualified representative, observe undercutting operations due to highly
plastic soils. Subgrade conditions should be verified by the engineer prior to structural fill
placement. Weather conditions at the time of construction will affect the undercutting
depths and quantities. Some instability may exist during construction, depending on
climatic and other factors immediately preceding and during construction.
Page 113

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
4.6 STRUCTURAL FILL
Requirements for structural fill on this project are as follows:
PropertySoil LISCS
Type
Sand
Classification
GW, GP, GM, SW,
Areas where the material can be
and
SP, SM or
Maximum 2" particle size
confined, and adequate drainage
Gravel
combinations
provided.
Clay
SC, GC
LL<50, PI<25, yd>100 pcf
All areas
Clay
CL, CH
N/A
Not recommended for use
Silt
ML, MH
N/A
Not recommended for use
SP-SM, SC, SM: Areas where the
material can be confined, and
On -site
SC, SM, SP-SM, CL,
As noted above.
adequate drainage provided.
soils
CH
CL, CH: Not recommended for use as
Structural Fill.
Table 7: 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.
Page 114

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
Placement requirements for structural fill are as follows:
Lift Thickness 18" loose, 6" compacted
Density 192 Percent maximum per ASTM D-1557
Moisture
± 2.0 percent of optimum moisture as defined by ASTM D1557 for cohesive
soils.
For cohesionless soils with greater than 12 percent passing the US Standard No.
200 sieve, ± 3 percent of optimum moisture as defined above. Moisture
requirement is waived for cohesionless soils with less than 12 percent passing
the No. 200 sieve.
Density Testing Building Pad: 1 test per 2,500 S.F. Minimum 2 tests per lift
Frequency Pavement Areas: 1 test per 5,000 SF
Density Testing Roadways: 1 test per 100 linear feet
Frequency Utility Trenches: 1 test per 150 linear feet
Table 8: Structural Fill Placement Requirements
4.7 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.
4.1.1 uROUNUVVAItK
Groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 13.5 to 22.4 feet in 5 of the 8
building borings at the time of drilling, and was not encountered in standpipe
piezometers 24 hours after drilling. Based on planned finished grades at the time of this
report, it is considered unlikely that groundwater will be encountered during construction.
However, it should be noted that fluctuations in the water level could occur due to
seasonal variations in rainfall. The contractor must be prepared to remove groundwater
seepage from excavations if groundwater is 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.
1.8 CUT SLOPES
Based on the provided grading information, cut slopes up to 10 feet in height are
expected to be constructed at the site in the vicinity of the southwest building corner. The
maximum plan inclination of cut embankments is generally 2(H):1(V). It is very important
Page 115

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
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
silts. Therefore, the face of cut slopes will be susceptible to erosion. 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.
4.9 UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL
All utility trenches must 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.
4.10 LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATION
The potential for soil moisture fluctuations within structure areas and pavement
subgrades should be reduced to lessen the potential of subgrade movement. Site grading
should include positive drainage away from structures 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.
4.11 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.
Page 116

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
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 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Specific structural loading conditions were not known at the time of this report; however,
based on our experience with similar projects, we anticipate that the individual column
loads will be less than 150 kips and wall loads will be less than 4 kips per linear foot. Our
analysis has been performed using these foundation loads. If these assumptions
concerning structural loading are incorrect, our office should be contacted, such that
our recommendations can be reviewed.
5.7 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Based on conditions encountered during our field investigation and after our site
preparation and grading recommendations are implemented, the proposed detention
center building can be supported on conventional shallow spread foundations designed
using an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,000 psf.
We recommend 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 20 percent of the column footings, and 1 test per 75 linear foot
in strip footings. Soils not meeting the 2,000 psf allowable capacity recommendation
should be undercut and backfilled with compacted structural fill, or washed NCDOT No
57 stone wrapped in a filter fabric. Undercut depths may vary depending upon conditions
observed during construction.
Even though computed footing dimensions may be less, strip footings should be at least
24 inches wide, and column footings should have minimum 36-inch side dimensions.
These dimensions facilitate hand cleaning of footing subgrades disturbed by the
excavation process and the placement of reinforcing steel. They also reduce the potential
for localized punching shear failure. All exterior footings should bear at least24 inches
below the adjacent exterior grade. Total settlement of footings designed and
constructed as recommended above should be 1 inch or less. Settlement data can be
found in the Settlement Analysis section of this report.
Page 117

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
5.2 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
Due to concern for potential settlement, settlement analysis was performed for the
proposed structure. The analysis was performed under the following conditions to best
assess settlement potential on -site:
Condition 1:
o Average 5 feet of grade -raise structural fill placed per Section 4.6 over in -
situ soils. (i.e. borings B-01, B-02, B-03)
Condition 2:
o Average 5 feet of undercutting to stable subgrade to achieve planned
finished grade. (i.e. borings B-05, B-06, B-07)
E-values have been derived from dilatometer testing results, which are provided in the
appendix, and were used to calculate settlement potential. Note that in the dilatometer
test results, fields denoted by a dashed line were not measured as a result of stiff material,
causing refusal. The lowest density materials were successfully measured, providing useful
information to calculate potential settlement. Results of the analysis are summarized
below in Table 9. Total and differential settlement analysis was performed using the
Rocscience program Settle3D.
Structure
Condition
Total Estimated
Settlement (in.)
Estimated Differential
Settlement (in.)
< 1 inch
Building Footings
Condition 1
< 1 inch
< 1 inch
< 1 inch
Building Footings
Condition 2
Table 9: Settlement Calculations
Notes:
1. Rocscience Settle3D models can be found in the Appendix following the report.
5.3 FOUNDATION QUALITY ASSURANCE
We recommend the following be included in the construction documents, and that each
of these items be checked during construction.
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.
Page 118

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
Concrete should be placed the same day excavations are completed and bearing
material conditions 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 re-evaluated prior to concrete
placement.
Water should not be allowed to pond in foundation excavations prior to concrete
placement or above the concrete after foundations are completed.
■ Foundation concrete should not be placed over saturated or frozen ground.
■ 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.
6.0 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the site layout (CS102) provided, a retaining wall will be constructed along the
eastern side of the proposed parking lot. We assume the wall will range in height from 6
to 10 feet, and will require a site -specific design. The type of wall planned is currently
unknown.
For concrete retaining walls (does not include segmental retaining walls), the following
table provides recommended soil specific parameters to be used by the concrete wall
designer for calculation of lateral loads.
Soil Parameter
Static Coefficient of Sliding Friction between concrete and Washed Stone
Value
0.55
Static Coefficient of Sliding Friction between concrete and in -situ soils
0.35
Assumed unit weight of compacted structural fill
115 pcf
Ko = at -rest earth pressure for cp = 300 (Based on dilatometer testing)
0.50
Ka = active earth pressure for cp = 300 (Based on dilatometer testing)
0.33
Kp = passive earth pressure for cp = 300 (Based on dilatometer testing)
3.0
Equivalent Fluid Weight for structural fill (Ko) — Drained Condition
57.5 pcf
Equivalent Fluid Weight for structural fill (Ko) — Undrained Condition
88.7 pcf
Table 10: Soil Parameters and Lateral Earth Pressure Values
Freestanding retaining walls typically are not restrained at the top of the wall, but are
deigned to resist rotation under the action induced by earth pressure. Such walls should
therefore be designed for the active stress conditions. For the evaluation of the resistance
of soil to lateral loads, which is frequently necessary for evaluating the stability of retaining
Page 119

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
walls; the passive earth pressure must be calculated. However, the walls of the structure
are designed based upon a "fixed" condition with no rotation. As such, the walls should
be designed under "at -rest" conditions. We have assumed that the clayey and silty sand
(SC, SM) soils will be used as earthen fill to backfill the foundation walls. The elastic silt
(MH) soils encountered at the site will not be suitable for use as backfill.
The above design recommendations assume the following:
■ The wall backfill will be horizontal.
■ The backfill will be compacted to at least 92 percent of modified Proctor maximum
dry density. However, we recommend that the compaction of soils behind the wall
not exceed 95 percent in order to limit the lateral stresses applied by the soil into
the wall. Compaction of retained soils should be performed using hand
compaction equipment as heavier equipment will likely over -stress the wall.
■ Drainage behind the retaining wall will not allow development of hydrostatic
pressure.
■ No safety factor is included in the design factors provided.
■ Any surcharge is uniform.
■ Wall friction is negligible.
■ We are provided the opportunity to perform tests on the proposed, imported
backfill material to confirm it meets design criteria.
Depending upon the analysis of the specialty wall designer, consideration should be
provided towards incorporating surcharge loading from the sloped structural fill and the
building loads into the wall design.
7.0 FLOOR SLABF
Site development recommendations presented in this report should be followed to
provide for subgrade conditions suitable for support of grade supported slabs. Concrete
slabs for proposed structures should be supported on either stable, natural subgrade or
on compacted, engineered structural fill.
We recommend floor slabs for the proposed structure 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
Page 120

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
AASHTO No. 57 stone, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 140 pci can be used in the
design of a grade -supported building floor slab.
We recommend a minimum 10-mil thick vapor retarder meeting ASTM E1745, 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.
8.0 PAVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Based on the materials encountered at the boring locations and after our
recommendations for site preparation are implemented, pavements at the subject site
may be designed based on a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of five (5). Note that no CBR
testing was performed to develop these recommendations.
Pavement analysis and design has been completed using the U.S. Army COE PCASE
2.09.05 pavement design program. Traffic loads and weights were provided in USACE
RFP No. W912PM17R0021, Section 3.6, and appear in Table 11, below. Per the RFP, POV
parking lot and associated access drives will be standard duty asphalt; building access
drives and the service yard will be concrete. Required minimum sections are as follows:
Flexible Pavement: 3 inches asphalt over 6 inches aggregate base course
Rigid Pavement: 6 inches concrete over 6 inches aggregate base course
Page 121

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
Design and analysis are based on the provided traffic loading over a 25-year design life.
Car — Passenger
4,562,500
4,562,500
(Two 5-kip axles)
Forklift
(10 kips)
0
9,125
Fire Apparatus
(One 23-kip tandem axle, One 54-kip
0
1,300
single axle)
_
Tractor Trailer
(Two 36-kip tandem axle, One 8-kip
0
2,600
single axle)
_
Front Loading Refuse Truck
(One 46-kip tandem axle, One 20-kip
0
1,300
single axle)
Table 11:
Assumed Traffic Volume
It is the owner's responsibility to evaluate whether or not the traffic volumes shown
above are in line with those expected. If the owner would like Building & Earth to assess
other likely traffic volumes, we will gladly review other options.
Note: All subgrade, base and pavement construction operations should meet minimum
requirements of the NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. The
applicable sections of the specifications are identified in Table 12 below.
Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
710
Bituminous Asphalt Wearing Layer
610
Bituminous Asphalt Binder Layer
610
Mineral Aggregate Base Materials
520
Soil
500
Table 12: NCDOT Specification Sections
8.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
The asphalt pavement section described herein was evaluated using the pavement design
program PCASE 2.09.05 described above. The minimum required pavement section was
evaluated and found to be acceptable. This section is summarized below in Table 11.
Page 122

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
Surface Course
ABC Stone
Table 13: Asphalt Pavement Recommendations
1.2 RIGID PAVEMENT
The following rigid pavement sections are based on the design parameters presented
above. PCASE analysis confirms this section is suitable for support of the heavy-duty traffic
summarized in Table 11. We have assumed concrete elastic modulus (Ec) of 3.6 X 106 psi,
and a concrete modulus of rupture (S'c) of 650 psi.
ABC Stone Base
Table 14: Rigid Pavement Recommendations
The concrete should be protected against moisture loss, rapid temperature fluctuations,
and construction traffic for several days after placement. All pavements should be sloped
for positive drainage. We recommend that the pavements be reinforced to hold any
cracks that might develop tightly together and restrain their growth.
All pavement components must be placed and compacted in accordance with the
applicable sections of the North Carolina Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
Construction. All subgrade, base and pavement construction operations should meet
minimum requirements of this document.
).0 SUBGRADE REHABILITATION
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.
Page 123

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
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.
10.0 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
■ Foundation bearing surfaces, reinforcing steel and concrete
■ All other items subject to IBC Special Inspections
11.0 CLOSING AND LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared for Stantec, for specific application to the Combat Medical
Training Facility (PN: 85958) located in 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.
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.
Page 124

Subsurface Exploration and FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation,
Combat Medical Training Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190394, September 10, 2019
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 125

Appendix Table of ContentF
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGIES...........................................................................................................................................1
DRILLING PROCEDURES —STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D1586)
................................................................1
BORINGLOG DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................................................................................................2
DEPTHAND ELEVATION....................................................................................................................................................................2
SAMPLETYPE..........................................................................................................................................................................................2
SAMPLENUMBER.................................................................................................................................................................................2
BLOWS PER INCREMENT, REC%, RQD%.....................................................................................................................................2
SOILDATA...............................................................................................................................................................................................2
SOILDESCRIPTION...............................................................................................................................................................................3
GRAPHIC...................................................................................................................................................................................................3
REMARKS.................................................................................................................................................................................................3
SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................................................................................4
KEY TO LOGS
[e
KEYTO HATCHES..................................................................................................................................................................................................................8
BORINGLOCATION PLAN................................................................................................................................................................................................9
SUBSURFACE SOIL PROR
BORING LOGS
I
ReMiSEISMIC DATA..........................................................................................................................................................................................................12
DILATOMETER TESTING RESULTS...............................................................................................................................................................................13
SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE EVALUATION
INFILTRATION DATA
SETTLEMENT DAT
14
15
16
DESIGNCALCULATIONS..................................................................................................................................................................................................17
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES..............................................................................................................................................................................18
DESCRIPTION OF SOILS (VISUAL -MANUAL PROCEDURE) (ASTM D2488).................................................................18
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D2216)...................................................................................................................18
ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D4318).............................................................................................................................................18
MATERIAL FINER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE BY WASHING (ASTM D1140).........................................................................18
LABO RATO RY T EST RESULTS........................................................................................................................................................20
Table A-1: General Soil Classification Test Results..........................................................................................................20
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS GEOTECHNICAL-ENGINEERING REPORT...........................................................................21

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:
DEPTH AND ELEVATION
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.
SAMPLE NUMBER
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

W011611P ATO 11i000A
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.
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.
KtMARKs
Remarks regarding borehole observations, and additional information regarding the
laboratory results and groundwater observations.
Page I A-3

BUILDING & EARTH SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
1'W M •'W'
Gravel and
' 60 1.160
GW
Well -graded gravels, gravel - sand mixtures, little or
Gravelly
y
Clean Gravels
�� ��
no fines
soils
(Less than 5% fines)
Poorly -graded gravels, gravel - sand mixtures, little
�--
o 30 ° o �a<
o D�v D
GP
or no fines
Coarse More than
50% of
Grained coarse
a O
o
4
<
GM
Silty gravels, gravel - sand - silt mixtures
Soils fraction is
Gravels with Fines
o
larger than
(More than 72% fines)
No. 4 sieveVI-A,GC
Clayey gravels, gravel - sand - clay mixtures
More than
50% of Sand and
Sand
SW
Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
material is y
Clean Sands
larger than Soils
No. 200
(Less than 5% fines)
SP
Poorly -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no
sieve More than
fines
size 50% of
coarse
$M
Silty sands, sand - silt mixtures
fraction is
Sands with Fines
smaller than
No. 4
(More than 72% fines)
$C
Clayey sands, sand - clay mixtures
sieve
ML
Inorganic silts and very find sands, rock flour, silty or
Fine Silts and
clayey fine sands or clayey silt with slight plasticity
Clays
Inorganic
Grained
CL
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly
Soils
clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays
Liquid Limit
_ _ _
_
less than 50
Organic
— — —
OL
Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity
More than
— — — -
MH
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine
50% of
material is Silts and
sand, or silty soils
smaller Clays
Inorganic
than
No. 200
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity
Liquid Limit
sieve
greater than
size
50 sieve
Organic
�-
Ol'l
Organic clays o medium to high plasticity, organic
9 Y f 9 P Y 9
silts
PT
Highly Organic
Soils
Peat humus, swamp soils with high organic
contents
rage 1.

BUILDING & EARTH
Geotechnical, 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.
II —
Non -cohesive: Coarse -Grained Soil
I _
SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY
60
�e
501.1117 J�
CH OH
a
X 40
v
30 P
CL or OL
M 20
a
10 MH or OH M 4 CL
4 MLorOL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit (LL)
SPT Penetration
(blows/foot) Relative
Density
Automatic Manual
Hammer* Hammer
0-3 0-4 Very Loose
3-8 4-10 Loose
8-23 10-30 Medium Dense
SPT Penetration
(blows/foot)
Automatic
Hammer*
< 2
2-3
3-6
6 - 12
Manual
Hammer
< 2
2-4
4-8
8 - 15
23 - 38
30-50
Dense
12 -23
15 - 30
> 38
> 50
Very Dense
> 23
> 30
* - Modified based on 80% hammer efficiency
Cohesive: Fine -Grained Soil
Estimated Range of
Consistency Unconfined Compressive
Strength (tsf)
Very Soft
< 0.25
Soft
0.25 — 0.50
Medium Stiff
0.50 — 1.00
Stiff
1.00 — 2.00
Very Stiff
2.00 — 4.00
> 4.00
Hard
F.

BUILDING & EARTH
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Standard
Penetration Test
ASTM D1586 or
AASHTO T-206
Shelby Tube
Sampler
ASTM D1587
Rock Core Sample
ASTM D2113
Auger Cuttings
Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer
(Sower DCP)
ASTM STP-399
ONo Sample
Recovery
Groundwater at
Time of Drilling
Groundwater as
Indicated
KEY TO LOGS
Soil
Particle Size
U.S. Standard
Boulders
Larger than 300 mm
300 mm to 75 mm
75 mm to 4.75 mm
N.A.
Cobbles
N.A.
Gravel
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.
Less than 2 pm N.A.
TableStandard
Clay
Standard Penetration Test Resistance A measure of a soil's plasticity characteristics in
Atterberg general accordance with ASTM D4318. The soil
N Value calculated using ASTM D1586 or AASHTO T- Limits
206. Calculated as sum of original, field Plasticity Index (PI) is representative of this
�� characteristic and is bracketed by the Liquid Limit (LQ
recorded values. PL ILL
and the Plastic Limit (PL).
Ru Unconfined compressive strength, typically p g typ y 36 Moisture percent natural moisture content in general
Aestimated 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.
MV
Descriptor
Meaning
Trace
Likely less than 5%
Few
5 to 10%
Little
15 to 25%
Some
30 to 45%
Mostly
50 to 100%
Table
Page I A-6

KEY TO LOGS
Geotechnical, 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.
An automatic mechanism is used to lift and drop a sliding, 140-pound hammer
Automatic Trip 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.

BUILDING
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
KEY TO HATCHES
HatchDescription Description
Hi Description
• �' '• r' GW - Well -graded gravels, gravel — sand
Asphalt
Clay Gravel
mixtures, little or no fines
with
GP - Poorly -graded gravels, gravel —sand G
°Q°
Aggregate Base
na
Sand with Gravel
O� �D mixtures, little or no fines
GM - Siltygrovels, gravel— sand — silt ,� a,T,�.:\;_.;r '1,',� •. Topsoil
°
°
Silt with Gravel
oLlz5c d mixtures
o
c b
GC - Clayey gravels, gravel — sand — clay
..
■. ' ��.
mixtures
.ti a
�:'i'.•? i a"
Concrete.
Gravel with Sand
SW - Well -graded sands, gravelly sands,
Coal
Gravel with Clay
little or no fines
a ►
SP - Poorly -graded sands, gravelly sands,
r +
CL-ML -Silty Clay
Gravel with Silt
little or no fines
SM - Silty sands, sand — silt mixtures
Sandy Clay
Clayey Chert
Limestone
Chalk
SC - Clayey sands, sand — clay mixtures
ML - Inorganic silts and very find sands,
Low and High
x x x x x x
x x x x x x
rock flour, silty or clayey fine
Siltstone
Clay
x x x x x x
sands or clayey silt with slight plasticityPlasticity
x x x x x x
CL - Inorganic clays of low to medium
plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy
Low Plasticity Silt and
Till
Cla y
clays, silt clays, lean clays
=
OL - Organic silts and organic silty clays
High Plasticity Silt
`? =
Sandy Clay with
=
of low plasticity
and Clay
Cobbles and Boulders
Fill
Sandstone with Shale
MH - Inorganic silts, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sand, or silty soils
CH - Inorganic clays of high plasticity
as ' a '
Weathered Rock
-# 4� -0
Coral
�r Ys Yt
OH - Organic clays of medium to high
Sandstone
Boulders and Cobbles
plasticity, organic silts
...... ............
L \+, +, \+,/ PT- Peat humus, swamp soils with high Shale
0 . 0.
Soil and Weathered
organic contents
o
Rock
Table 1: Key to Hatches Used for Boring Logs and Soil Profiles
Page I A-8

BORING LOCATION PLAN
Page I A-9

a 1
1
,
`-S-01 -�`
c 13N n
/
� f
� .��135
1 n -.
VHdY EASlIH6 PFE:ff
LBUFYE]OSTNGPIPE 5IS
235 I PR3NQE AHC1101Yf01Hf
� Fence
Fence 4 5
wr «v. r.w. u..+
i:vnxr
~�+
RCPBElY1l�N& � �•. - V��
N � r +� 1 {
,zv
� Y3S • � ��� f6P fYSIER LMERWIE
Fence 1 1- �70 -02
~
-0
,
S-04 � IHEf NLdOI11G �OCI(J
rru�E Arno l sur.E..�"
•R �w'-
�
� r � Rreca�m N.wolrranaa
t �
B-04
r-
i(IlYR1EAIJER01f1E
.�
f•
,,,�-� Fence 2 ' ___
fRr.InlrNc==-d. IT
a
BER MD
-
Fence 3
219 /
C
C
�^
p I1
-143� _ � 14f LL II
r
1 1 1 IGl�EL.�S'A�@TO
` p59PATE INICFF
1
`
ie+R
Boring Location
+ SHWT & Infiltration Locations
O
Boring Location Ma
BES Project #:
RD190394
Address:
Bastogne St./Kedenburg
St.
Drawing Source:
USACE DWG No. CS102
City:
Fort Bragg, NC
BUILDING
Client:
Stantec
Figure 1
Project:
Combat Medical Training Facility

SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILES
Page I A-10

IN
E
250
250
245
245
240
240
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FFE = 236.65' (Drawing No. CS102)
235
B-01
B-02
235
N Qu
N Qu
13
8
B-03
19
16
N Qu
230
16
230
14
9
14
14
8
13
z
O
225
23
16
225
16
10 '.
14
w
34
220
4
7
14
220
..
A-z
23
215
13
8 .
Q
215
4
210
6
9
210
BT=25.0
BT=25.0
24
205
BT=25.0
201
0
20
40
60
80 100
120 140 160
Key to Hatches
Legend
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc.
910 Spring Branch Road, Dunn, NC 28334
��..'
Topsoil
USCS Clayey Sand
11
USCS Silty Sand
BT=Boring Termination, TPT=Test Pit Terminated
AR=Auger Refusal, ER=Excavation Refusal
Combat Medical Training Facility
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
Fort Bragg, NC
Fence 1 •Subsurface Profile
B_01 B_02 B_03
•-0� �-02
USCS Qu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
USCS High poor) raded P g
Plasticity Clay Poorly -graded from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
9
Sand with Silt
PROJECT N O: RD190394 PLATE NO: A-1 DATE:9/5/19
0
Q Water Level Reading at time of drilling.
drilling.
•
1 Water Level Reading after
BUILDING & EARTH
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers

IN
E
250
250
245
245
240
B-05
240
N Qu
8 ''
FFE = 236.65' (Drawing No. CS102)
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
15
B-04
235
N Qu
235
23
4
13
15Xz
230
29
12
230
11
28
26
Z
O
225
225
�
16
-
w
7 '
220
1
220
30
215
28
215
BT=25.0
24
210
BT=25.0
210
205
205
0
10
20 30 40
50 60
10 80 10
Key to Hatches
Legend
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc.
910 Spring Branch Road, Dunn, NC 28334
�..'
Topsoil
USCS Clayey Sand USCS High
BT=Boring Termination, TPT=Test Pit Terminated
AR=Auer Refusal, ER=Excavation Refusal
g
Combat Medical Training Facility
Plasticity Clay
Fort Bra NC
Bragg,
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
Fence 2 • Subsurface Profile
Qu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
6 p5
6
from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
Q Water Level Reading at time of drilling.
1 Water Level Reading after drilling.
B_04 B_05
PROJECT NO: RD190394 PLATE NO: A DATE: 9/5/19
BUILDING & EARTH
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers

IN
E
250
250
B-06
245
N Qu
245
7
B-07
12
N
Qu
5
240
11
240
14
14
F
FIFE236.65'Drawin
= No. CS102-----�-----'b
B-08
------------------(---g
----------------
-----------------------
N Qu
21
235
28
6
231
8 '
36
3XX
29
12
81,
6
XX
230
230
XX
20
12
23
Z 225
8
23
225
Q
>
5
w
w
4
1
M
zzo
BT=25.0
zzo
23
BT=25.0
6
215
215
44
210
BT=25.0
210
205
205
0
20
40 60
80 100
120 140
Key to Hatches
Legend
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc.
910 Spring Branch Road, Dunn, NC 28334
�..'
Topsoil
USCS Clayey Sand USCS Low
BT=Boring Termination, TPT=Test Pit Terminated
AR=Auer Refusal, ER=Excavation Refusal
g
Combat Medical Training Facility
Plasticity Clay
Fort Bra NC
Bragg,
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
Fence 3 • Subsurface Profile
B_06 B_07 B_08
p�
USCS Silty Sand
�g
USCS High
Plasticity Clay
Qu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
a Water Level Reading at time of drilling.
1 Water Level Reading after drilling.
PROJECT N O: RD190394 I PLATE NO: A-3 DATE:9/5/19
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers

S
N
250
250
B-06
245
N
245
B-07
N QL.
12
240
5
11
B-05
240
14
N
Qu
14
8
FFE = 236.65' (Drawing No. CS102)
16
_
-
--
---------
--- - - - - -----
--------------------------------------------------
z3s
z8
21
15
B-02 B-01
235
8
23
N
Qu N Qu
36
8
13
13 '
12
29
16
19
230
29
1230
9
14
12
11
8
14
Z
O 225
8
16
23
225
w
5
10
'. 16'
w
1
220
BT=25.0
7
4
220
23
BT=25.0
215
28
8
13
215
BT=25.0
210
9
6
210
BT=25.0 BT=25.0
205
205
0
10 20
30 40
50
60 70 80
90
100 110 120
Key to Hatches
Legend
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc.
910 Spring Branch Road, Dunn, NC 28334
• •
�..'
Topsoil
11 USCS Clayey Sand
USCS Silty Sand
BT=Boring Termination, TPT=Test Pit Terminated
AR=Auger Refusal, ER=Excavation Refusal
Combat Medical Training Facility
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
Fort Bragg, NC
Fence 4 : Subsurface Profile
B_01 B_02 B_05 B_06 B_07
USCS High USCS Low Qu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
Plasticity Clay Plasticity Clay from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
`'
a Water Level Reading at time of drilling.
1 Water Level Reading after drilling.
PROJECT
NO: RD190394 I PLATE NO: A-4 DATE:9/5/19
i 01
8-p6
•
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers

S
N
250
250
245
245
240
240
B-08
----
FFE = 236.65' (Drawing No. CS102)
---
-----------------
----------
---------
N QU----
B-04---------------------------------
235
6
N QO
235
4
3
is
B-03
6
N Qu
230
12
16
230
20
28
14
23
26
13
z
O
225
23
225
16
14
w
4
Q
34
7
zzo
14
220
6
23
30
215
Q
215
44
4
210
BT=25.0
24
210
BT=25.0
24
205
BT=25.0
205
0
10
20 30
40
50 60
10 80 10
Key to Hatches
Legend
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc.
910 Spring Branch Road, Dunn, NC 28334
•
��..'
Topsoil
i1'.�a
USCS Clayey Sand
USCS High
BT=Boring Termination, TPT=Test Pit Terminated
AR=Auger Refusal, ER=Excavation Refusal
Combat Medical Training Facility
Plasticity Clay
Fort Bra NC
Bragg,
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
Fence 5 • Subsurface Profile
B_03 B_04 B_08
-04
SCS Qu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
oorly-graded : USCS Silty Sand from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
Rand
with Silt
Q Water Level Reading at time of drilling.
7 Water Level Reading after drilling.
PROJECT NO: RD190394 I PLATE NO: A-5 DATE: 9/5/19
BUILDING & EARTH
g-Og
•
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers

BORING LOGS
Page I A-11

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
Combat Medical Training Facility
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190394
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
BORING LOCATION:
Northwest Building Corner
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-01
Sheet 1 of 1
910 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
DATE DRILLED:
8/22/19
WEATHER:
77 Degrees, Sunny
ELEVATION:
234
DRILL CREW:
Quantex
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
3
. . . . . . .
amp e I
L: 28L:
TOPSOIL: 3 inches
x
1
5
8
i
P 17
CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium dense, light
6
PI: 11
brown, fine to medium grained, moist
7
M: 9.6%
8
F 33.6/
2
11
230
11
Sample 3
ILL: 34
5
5
3
7
PL: 18
7
PI: 16
8
M: 17.4%
5
F: 36%
4
5
.....:..:..:..
9
6
225
5
10
10
13
16
Sample 6
9.8 224.2.
LL: 20
SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense, yellowish
g
_x
6
7
�..H.....:..:..:..:..:..:..
PL: 18
red, fine to medium grained, moist
9
PI: 2
10
M: 6.6%
F: 20.5 %
..:. ...:..:..:..:..:.
Sampl e 7
13.0 221.0:.
ILL: 62
FAT CLAY (CH): �ff b wn f�
medium stiff, brown, fine
220
7
WOH
PL:26
grained, moist
1
PI: 36
15
3
M: 28.8 %
F: 73.3 %
-
2'15
X
8
5
very stiff, dark gray
20
8
Sample 9
LL:54
210
9
2
. .
PL 27
medium stiff
25
3�
3
'
PI: 27
M: 31.3%
25.0 (COASTAL PLAIN)"_209.0
Groundwater not
F.encountered
94.6/
ered at time of
Boring Terminated at 25 feet.
�n T
drilling.
d � I�ng.
Borehole backfilled 24 - 48
hours after drilling.
.............................
Consistency/Relative Density
205
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:
Combat Medical Training Facility
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190394
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
BORING LOCATION:
North Center Building
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-02
Sheet 1 of 1
910 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
DATE DRILLED:
8/22/19
WEATHER:
79 Degrees, Sunny
ELEVATION:
234
DRILL CREW:
Quantex
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
4
TOPSOIL: 3 inches
1
4
4
CLAYEY SAND (SC): loose, light brown, fine to
4
medium grained, moist
6
2
9
7
medium dense
230
$
4
5
3
3
Sample 3
5.2 228.8
6
M: 19.8%
12
SILTY SAND (SM)medium dense, liht brown,
4
yellowish red, fineto medium grained, moist
4
3
5
loose
9
5
225
5
9
medium dense
10
9
2
6
3
Sample 6
7
M: .
8
220
7
2
1
... ..:..:..:..:..:..:.
loose
15
6
18.5 215.5
CLAYEY SANDeSC): loose, light brown, fine to
215
3
:..:..:..:..:..:.
8
medium grained, wet
20
5
Q
Groundwater encountered at
22 feet (EL 212) at time of
drilling.
210
9
3
:..:..:..:..:..:.
Sample9
6
M: 1. %
250 medium dense 209.0:.
25
(COASTAL PLAIN)
Boring Terminated at 25 feet.
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
Borehole backfilled 24 - 48
hours after drilling.
.............................
Consistency/Relative Density
205
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:
Combat Medical Training Facility
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190394
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
BORING LOCATION:
Northeast Building Corner
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-03
Sheet 1 of 1
910 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
DATE DRILLED:
8/23/19
WEATHER:
77 Degrees, Partly Cloudy
ELEVATION:
231
DRILL CREW:
Quantex
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
5
TOPSOIL: 3 inches
230
1
5
11
..........
CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium dense, light
10
brown, fine to medium grained, moist
10
2
7
:.�.......
Sample 2
M: 17.4%
9
8
5
3
5
8
225
9
8
4
4
10
13
g
5
15
�:..:..:..:... ........
Sample 5
19
M: 12.8%
dense
10
17
6
220x
6
6
8
medium dense, yellowish red
6
13.5 217.5
'
FAT CLAY (CH): very stiff, light brown, fine
-X
8
7
9
grained, moist
15
14
215
Q
Groundwater encountered at
16.5 feet (EL 214.5) at time of
5
Sample 8
18.5 212.5X
drilling.
d n .
ILL: 20
PL:20
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP SM):
$
2
�...:..:..:..:..:.
2
PI: NP
loose, lightbrown, fine o medium grained,
b t d
20
2
M:28.4%
wet
F: 11.4%
210
5
dense
9
25
15
25.0 (COASTAL PLAIN) 206.0..
Boring Terminated at 25 feet.
205
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
Borehole backfilled 24 - 48
hours after drilling.
.............................
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:
Combat Medical Training Facility
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190394
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
BORING LOCATION:
Center East Building
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-04
Sheet 1 of 1
910 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
DATE DRILLED:
8/22/19
WEATHER:
82 Degrees, Mostly Sunny
ELEVATION:
235
DRILL CREW:
Quantex
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
-
23S
1U.J
TOPSOIL: 3 inches 234.8
x
1
0
4
CLAYEY SAND (SC): loose, light brown, fine to
7
medium grained, moist
6
medium dense
2
Sample 2
$
M: 15.9%
7
5
5
230
3
5
7
13
_X
4
15
�:..:..:..:..:
Sample 4
dense, yellowish red
13
M:4.4%
12
8
x
5
12
.............................
14
10
225
16
5
-X
6
7
9
medium dense, white
5
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
Sample 7
�
LL:27
PL: 18
1
Groundwater encountered at
7
2
PI: 9
loose, yellowish red, wet
13.5 feet (EL 221.5) at time of
15
220
5
M:23.5%
drilling.
F: 43.2 %
18.5 216.5
FAT CLAY (CH): hard, light brown, fine
-
X8
129
grained, moist
20
215
18
6
.................:..:..:..:..
9
10
25
210-x
14
25.0 (COASTAL PLAIN) 210.0
Boring Terminated at 25 feet.
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
Borehole backfilled 24 - 48
hours after drilling.
.............................
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:
Combat Medical Training Facility
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190394
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
BORING LOCATION:
Center West Building
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-05
Sheet 1 of 1
910 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
DATE DRILLED:
8/23/19
WEATHER:
78 Degrees, Sunny
ELEVATION:
239
DRILL CREW:
Quantex
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
2
TOPSOIL: 3 inches
1
4
4
:..:..:..:. : :
CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium dense, light
5
brown, fine to medium grained, moist
4
2
5
10
235
12
Sample 3
4.0 235.0
LL: 68
FAT CLAY (CH): very stiff, brown, fine grained,
3
5
3
��
PL.29
PI: 39
moist
25
... ..:..:. :..:..:..:..:..:..
M:19.2%
6.0 233.0
CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium dense, yellowish
3
F: 70.4%
4
$
red, fine to medium grained, moist
6
9
230
5
14
�.................
Sample 5
dense
15
M:13.0%
10
18
6
-X
6
4
medium dense
6
225
7
4
4
loose
15
3
Sample 8
LL:41
220
8
1
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
PL:24
1
PI: 17
very loose
20
0
M: 20.7%
F: 45.1
215 -X
9
12
6
dense
25.0 214.0
Groundwater not
25
(COASTAL PLAIN)
encountered at time of
Boring Terminated at 25 feet.
drilling.
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
Borehole backfilled 24 - 48
hours after drilling.
.............................
Consistency/Relative Density
210
........
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:
Combat Medical Training Facility
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190394
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
BORING LOCATION:
Southwest Building Corner
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-06
Sheet 1 of 1
910 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
DATE DRILLED:
8/22/19
WEATHER:
93 Degrees, Partly Cloudy
ELEVATION:
245
DRILL CREW:
Quantex
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
-
24S
3
TOPSOIL: 3 inches 244.8
x
1
3
4
CLAYEY SAND (SC): loose, light gray, fine to
5
medium grained, moist
4
_X
2
4
Sample 2
8
M: 22.8%
medium dense
6
9
5
240
3
4
7
8
Sample 4
4
LL: 51
4
6
PI 25-x
yellowish red
ye
5
M: 16.2%
4
F.48.8/
loose
5
6
.................:..:..:..:..
15
10
235
16
Sample 6
LL: 41
5
-X
6
5
P L: 19
3
PI: 22
6
M: 13.0%
F: 40.7%
7
7
14
dense, white, yellowish red
15
230
15
18.5 226.5
LEAN CLAY (CL): stiff, yellowish red, fine
-X
1
8
3
grained, moist
20
225
5
Sample 9
LL:48
9
5
0
��: ;
PL:27
PI: 21
very soft
25
220
M: 27.4%
25.0 220.0
(COASTAL PLAIN)
Groundwater not
F. 74.4/
ered at time of
encountered
n T
Boring Terminated at 25 feet.
drilling.
d ling.
Borehole backfilled 24 - 48
.............................
hours after drilling.
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:
Combat Medical Training Facility
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190394
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
BORING LOCATION:
South Center Building
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-07
Sheet 1 of 1
910 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
DATE DRILLED:
8/22/19
WEATHER:
92 Degrees, Sunny
ELEVATION:
242
DRILL CREW:
Quantex
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
2
: : : : : : : : :
TOPSOIL: 3 inches
1
2
S ample 1
CLAYEY SAND (SC): loose, light brown, fine to
3
M: . o
4
240
5
medium grained, moist
11
2
8
6
medium dense, yellowish red
12
9
5
3
7
9
10
7
235
4
5
23
dense, light brown
25
Sample 5
11
LL: 35
5
18
F— ..�.i.....:..:.....:..:
PL:18
PI: 17
10
$
M:11.2%
10.0 232.0'.
'
LEAN CLAY (CL): stiff, light brown, fine
6
F:43.8%
6
grained, moist
5
230
10
7
X
7
4
yellowish red
15
8
225
..: ................... :..:..
Sample 8
�
LL:30
PL:18
3
Groundwater encountered at
8
2
F M
PI: 12
medium stiff, wet
18.5 feet (EL 223.5) at time of
20
3
M: 26.2%
drilling.
F: 51.8%
220
9
3
6
Sample 9
M: 22.9%
very stiff
25
17
250 (COASTAL PLAIN) 217.0
Boring Terminated at 25 feet.
215
Borehole backfilled 24-48
le d
hours after drilling.
.............................
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:
Combat Medical Training Facility
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190394
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
GeoProbe 7822DT
HAMMER TYPE:
Automatic
BORING LOCATION:
Southeast Building Corner
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-08
Sheet 1 of 1
910 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
DATE DRILLED:
8/22/19
WEATHER:
86 Degrees, Mostly Sunny
ELEVATION:
236
DRILL CREW:
Quantex
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
q
TOPSOIL: 3 inches
235
1
3
Sample 1
S
CLAYEY SAND (SC): loose, brown, fine to
3
M: . o
�
3
medium grained, moist
z
2
1
2
very loose, light brown
4
2
5
3
4
loose
230
5
5
4
10
Sample 4
medium dense
10
M: 5.4%
10
5
12
............ ...............
11
10
14
226.0':
'
SILTY SAND (SM). medium dense,
, light wn,
g brown,
14
225
6
11
�":":": :":":":":"
Sample 6
fine to medium grained, moist
12
M:8.3%
14
Sample 7
LL: NP
7
1
2
p L: NP
PI: NP
loose, yellowish red, wet
15
2
M: 24.0%
F: 13.3%
220
8
3
20
3
215
Groundwater encountered at
"
Sample 9
23.5 212.5
22.4 feet (EL 213.6) at time of
ILL:
PL: 23
FAT CLAY (CH): hard, gray, fine grained, moist
7
drilling.
9
PI: 27
VO4,
25
27
M: 18.1%
25.0 (COASTAL PLAIN) 211.0
210
F 965/
n
Boring Terminated at 25 feet.
Borehole backfilled 24 - 48
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
hours after drilling.
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

ReMi SEISMIC DATA
Page I A-12

ASCE
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Address:
No Address at This
Location
ASCE 7 Hazards Report
Standard: ASCE/SEI 7-16 Elevation: 236.73 ft (NAVD 88)
Risk Category: II Latitude: 35.129422
Soil Class: C - Very Dense Longitude:-78.987226
Soil and Soft Rock
SI
fR rrelt� Z- .. i
Fw
- RoCktien Leek
https://asce7hazardtooI.onIine/ Page 1 of 3 Wed Sep 04 2019

ASCE®
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Seismic
Site Soil Class: C - Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock
Results:
Ss
0.154
S,
0.072
Fa
1.3
F,
1.5
SMS
0.2
SM, :
0.107
SAS
0.134
Seismic Design
Category B
020
MCER Response Spectrum
0.18 •
0.16
0.14 #
0.12
0.10
0.0$
0.06
0.04
0.02
0 1 23Sa (g )vs T(s)
5 6 7 8 9
n 12 MCER Vertical Response Spectrum
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.03 !
0.07 •
•
0.06 !!
■
0.05 #!•
0.04 i066
0.03 +##f#!!
0.02
0.2 0.4 Sa . ) VS .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Sp,
0.072
TE
8
PGA:
0.076
PGA M :
0.099
FPGA
1.3
le :
1
Cv
0.7
01 Design Response Spectrum
0.12
0.10
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.02
0 1 2Sa (g) vs T(s)
5 6 7 8 9
008 Design Vertical Response Spectrum
0.07
0.06 ■
!
0.05 •
4
0.04 •
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.2 0.4 Sa 0-6
VS -8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Data Accessed: Wed Sep 04 2019
Date Source: USGS Seismic Design Maps based on ASCE/SEI 7-16 and ASCE/SEI 7-16
Table 1.5-2. Additional data for site -specific ground motion procedures in
accordance with ASCE/SEI 7-16 Ch. 21 are available from USGS.
https://asce7hazardtool.online/ Page 2 of 3 Wed Sep 04 2019

ASCE
ZERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
The ASCE 7 Hazard Tool is provided for your convenience, for informational purposes only, and is provided "as is" and without warranties of
any kind. The location data included herein has been obtained from information developed, produced, and maintained by third party providers;
or has been extrapolated from maps incorporated in the ASCE 7 standard. While ASCE has made every effort to use data obtained from
reliable sources or methodologies, ASCE does not make any representations or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability,
currency, or quality of any data provided herein. Any third -party links provided by this Tool should not be construed as an endorsement,
affiliation, relationship, or sponsorship of such third -party content by or from ASCE.
ASCE does not intend, nor should anyone interpret, the results provided by this Tool to replace the sound judgment of a competent
professional, having knowledge and experience in the appropriate field(s) of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such
professionals in interpreting and applying the contents of this Tool or the ASCE 7 standard.
In using this Tool, you expressly assume all risks associated with your use. Under no circumstances shall ASCE or its officers, directors,
employees, members, affiliates, or agents be liable to you or any other person for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential
damages arising from or related to your use of, or reliance on, the Tool or any information obtained therein. To the fullest extent permitted by
law, you agree to release and hold harmless ASCE from any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from any use of data
provided by the ASCE 7 Hazard Tool.
https://asce7hazardtool.online/ Page 3 of 3 Wed Sep 04 2019

0.0 Fre q--v. H: Sei.Opt(R)R.W(TMJ V" Vspect — tledsgy + Step Z 3, q 5 • Plane242�2
❑
_
II♦
I.
002
I
Ave,ageE ReMi Spe ct,al Ratio
Combat Medical Facility
BUILDING & EARTH
ReMi Seismic Picks
Project No.: RD190394
September 5, 2019
Geotechnical, Enyironmental, and Materials Engineers

Combat Medical Training, Fort Bragg, NC - Stantec
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
0
-Vs100' = 1661 ft/s
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
Shear -Wave Velocity, ft/s

DI LATOM ETER TESTI NG RESU LTS
Page I A-13

• 1 f 1 '
Geotechni�al and Construction MaterialsTesting Services
Id
0 2
4 6
0
U : (n
CO
5
10
rL
15
•
20
25
Water Depth
22 ft
DILATOMETER TEST RESULTS
Project Name: Fort Bragg Combat Medical Training Facility
Project Number: 1190682EA
Date: 8/26/2019
Modulus (ksf)
0 250 500 750 1000 1250
0
5
10
15
20
25
T.
Su (psf) Friction Angle (deg)
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 250 300 350 400 450
0 ! . . ri i . . i . . i . . -1 0 i Irt firm iI I I1
5
10
15
20
25
5
10
15
20
25

■ 1 f 1 '
Geotechnical and Construction Materials Testing Services
DILATOMETER TEST RESULTS
Project Name: Fort Bragg Combat Medical Training Facility
Project Number: 1190682EA
Date: 8/26/2019
B-2
Id
Modulus
(ksf)
Su
(psf)
Friction
Angle
(deg)
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
250
300
350
400
450
0 2 4 6 0
250
500
750
1000
1250 0
0
0 0
2C :- v 2
CO
2
2
CO
4 4
4
4
6 6
6
6
8 8
8
8
a 10 10
10
10
12 12
12
12
14 14
r-
14
14
16 V 16
16
16
18 18
18
18
20 20
20
20
Water Depth 22 ft

r-
10
15
20
25
MODULUS vs DEPTH
M (ksf)
250 500
Job Name : Fort Bragg Combat Medical Training Facility
GeoTech Job No.: 1190682EA
Date : 8/26/2019
FIGURE 5

0
0
5
10
w
s
C
a
v
G
15
20
25
250
■
C (psf) vs DEPTH
COHESION (psf)
500
■
750
1,000
Job Name : Fort Bragg Combat Medical Training Facility
GeoTech Job No.: 1190682EA FIGURE 6
Date : 8/26/2019
♦ B-8
■ B-2

Combat Medical Training Facility -Fort Bragg
Job # 1-19-0682EA
.-.
.-.
����®

Combat Medical Training Facility - Fort Bragg
M(ksf)
Depth
B-8
B-2
1
1772
---
2
540
---
3
188
---
4
---
---
5
---
---
6
---
---
7
---
---
8
---
---
9
---
---
10
---
---
11
---
---
12
---
---
13
---
---
14
676
317
15
773
253
16
604
45
17
771
234
18
201
327
19
367
20
272
21
116
22
182
23
994
Job # 1-19-0682EA
C(psf)
ore -.�
0®®
0®®
0®®
0®®
0®®
0®®
Phi(degrees)
ore -.�
0®®
0®®
0®®
0®®
0®®
Soil Type
Depth
B-8
B-2
1
Silty Sand
---
2
Silty Sand
---
3
Silty Sand
---
4
---
---
5
---
---
6
---
---
7
---
---
8
---
---
9
---
---
10
---
---
11
---
---
12
---
---
13
---
---
14
Sandy Silt
Sand
15
Silty Sand
Sandy Silt
16
Silty Sand
Silty Clay
17
Sandy Silt
Silt
18
Silty Clay
Silty Sand
19
Silty Sand
20
Sand
21
Silty Sand
22
Silt
23
Clayey Silt

SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE EVALUATION
Page I A-14

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
August 26, 2019
Mr. Kurt Miller, PE
Building and Earth Sciences, LLP
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Re. Seasonal High -Water Table (SHWT) evaluation for proposed stormwater
retention/treatment areas, Combat Medical Training Facility, Bastogne/Kedenburg Street,
BES Project # RD 190394, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Miller,
An evaluation of soil properties on a portion of the aforementioned property has been
conducted at your request. A map showing the test locations is attached. The purpose
of the investigation was to determine soil water table depths for use in stormwater
retention/treatment design.
Soils at the test site appear to be most similar to the Blaney soil series (see attached
boring logs). Four borings were advanced to a depth of at least 9.0 feet below the soil
surface. The shallowest Seasonal High -Water Table f SHWT as determined by evidence
of colors of chroma 2 or less was encountered at 58 inches below the round surface (S-
MI The attached chart shows each boring with SHWT depths.
I trust this is the information you require at this time.
Sincerely,
Mike Eaker
President
G L 0.
�G 44% �,•
r3
1p N! r
f2l Al�
CPAVw C �
SOIL/SITE EVALUATION - SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS - LAND USF/SUBDIVISION PLANNING - WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING - SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
SHWT depths, Combat Medical Training Facility, Bastogne/Kedenburg
Street, Fort Bragg, NC
BORING SHWT DEPTH (inches) Observed Water (inches)
S-01 81 None
S-02 58 None
S-03 >120 None
S-04 117 None
SOIUSITE EVALUATION • SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING • WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING • SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
Soil Boring Log (S-OIL), Combat Medical Training Facility, Bastogne/Kedenburg
Street, Fort Bragg, NC
This map unit consists of well drained soils on uplands. These soils formed in loamy
and sandy sediments. SIopes range from 2 to 5 percent.
0 to 50 inches; yellowish brown (I OYR 5/6) and light gray (I OYR 7/1) mixed sand and
clay fill; abrupt smooth boundary.
C1- 50 to 81 inches; brownish yellow (1OYR 6/6) loamy sand; approximately 10 percent
kaolin; weak fine granular structure; abrupt smooth boundary.
C2 - 81 to 90 inches; light gray (I OYR 7/1) fine loamy sand; many medium prominent
yellowish brown (I OYR 5/8) mottles; massive structure; very friable; gradual diffuse
boundary.
C3 - 90 to 108 inches; light gray (1OYR 7/1) silt loam; many medium prominent strong
brown (7.5YR 5/6) mottles; massive structure; very friable; gradual wavy boundary.
CR - 108 inches — Auger Refusal
SHWT @ 81 inches (10YR 7/1)
No observed water within 108 inches of ground surface on the day of testing
SOIL/SITE EVALUATION • SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING • WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGF/MOUNDING • SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
Soil Boring Log (S-02), Combat Medical Training Facility, Bastogne/Kedenburg
Street, Fort Bragg, NC
This map unit consists of well drained soils on uplands. These soils formed in loamy
and sandy sediments. Slopes range from 2 to 5 percent.
0 to 15 inches; reddish yellow (7.5YR 4/6) loamy sand fill; abrupt smooth boundary.
A- 15 to 28 inches; very dark gray (IOYR 3/1) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure;
very friable; abrupt smooth boundary.
E- 28 to 40 inches; light yellowish brown (2.5Y 7/3) fine sand; weak fine granular
structure; very friable; gradual diffuse boundary.
Bt- 40 to 58 inches; yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4) sandy loam; weak fine subangular
blocky structure; friable; clear smooth boundary.
BC- 58 to 90 inches; light gray (IOYR 7/1) sandy loam to sandy clay loam; many
medium prominent strong brown (7.5YR 518) mottles; massive parting to angular blocky
structure; very firm; ; gradual diffuse boundary.
C1 - 90 to 99 inches; mottled red (2.5YR 5/8) and light gray (IOYR 7/1) sandy clay;
massive parting to angular blocky structure; very firm; gradual diffuse boundary.
C2 - 99 to 104 inches; bluish black (5PB 2/1) silty clay; massive parting to angular
blocky structure; very firm; clear smooth boundary.
C3 - 104 to 120 inches; bluish black (5PB 2/1) silt loam, massive structure; very friable.
SHWT , 58 inches (IOYR 7/1)
No observed water within 120 inches of ground surface on the day of testing
SOILJSITE EVALUATION • SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • LAND USF/SUBDIVISION PLANNING • WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING • SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
Soil Boring Log (S-03), Combat Medical Training Facility, Bastogne/Kedenburg
Street, Fort Bragg, NC
This map unit consists of well drained soils on uplands. These soils formed in loamy
and sandy sediments. Slopes range from 2 to 5 percent.
0 to 28 inches; reddish yellow (7.5YR 4/6) loamy sand fill; abrupt smooth boundary.
A - 28 to 39 inches; dark gray (10YR 4/1) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very
friable; many fine roots; abrupt smooth boundary.
E - 39 to 58 inches; light yellowish brown (2.5Y 4/4) loamy sand; approximately 10
percent clean sand; single grained; loose; very friable; abrupt smooth boundary.
Btl - 58 to 84 inches; brownish yellow (10YR 6/8) sandy loam to loamy sand; weak fine
granular structure; very friable; gradual diffuse boundary.
Bt2 - 84 to 120 inches; yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/8) sandy clay loam to sandy loam;
weak fine subangular blocky structure; firm.
SH'ViWT > 120 inches
No observed water within 120 inches of ground surface on the day of testing
SOIL/SITE EVALUATION • SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • LAND USEISUBDIVISION PLANNING • WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING • SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email mike@ south easternsoil. cam
Soil Boring Log (S-04), Combat Medical Training Facility, Bastogne/Kedenburg
Street, Fort Bragg, NC
This map unit consists of well drained soils on uplands_ These soils formed in loamy
and sandy sediments. Slopes range from 2 to 5 percent.
A - 0 to 6 inches; dark gray (I OYR 4/1) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very
friable; many fine roots; abrupt smooth boundary.
E - 6 to 22 inches; light yellowish brown (2.5Y 7/3) loamy sand; approximately 10
percent clean sand; single grained; loose; very friable; abrupt smooth boundary.
Btl - 22 to 44 inches; brownish yellow (I OYR 6/8) sandy clay loam; weak fine granular
structure; firm; gradual diffuse boundary.
BC - 44 to 55 inches; mottled yellowish red (5YR 5/8) and yellowish brown (I OYR 5/8)
sandy clay loam; many medium prominent white (N8/) mottles; weak fine subangular
blocky structure; firm; clear smooth boundary.
C1 - 55 to 65 inches; light gray (I OYR 7/1) silty clay; common fine red (2.5YR 5/8)
mottles; massive parting to angular blocky structure; very firm; clear smooth boundary.
C2 - 65 to 86 inches; white (N8/) silt loam; massive structure; very friable; clear smooth
boundary.
C3 - 86 to 101 inches; very pale brown (1 OYR 7/4) fine sand; massive structure; very
friable; clear smooth boundary.
C4 - 101 to 110 inches; white (N8/) silt loam; massive structure; very friable; clear
smooth boundary.
C5 - 110 to 117 inches; yellowish red (5YR 6/8) fine sandy loam; massive structure; very
friable; clear smooth boundary.
C6 - 117 to 120 inches; white (N8/) silt loam; many medium prominent light gray (1 OYR
7/1) mottles; massive structure; friable.
SHWT @ 117 inches (10YR 7/1)
No observed water within 120 inches of ground surface on the day of testing
SOIL/SITE EVALUATION • SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING • WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING • SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

9t
Ln
p
u
J
W
03
L.
a,
I's
r_
m
C
LL
L
C
�c
C
'
m Eu
=
rn a
r u a
w _� cn C a -n
u p o
0 nC � ci7 V
L
a r
kA
m 0 u a

INFILTRATION DATA
Page I A-15

Geaxechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Project Name: Combat Medical Training Facility
Client Name: Stantec
Technician: Moniaue Lumokin
Test Constants
Liquid Used: Municipal Water
Test Location: 5-01
Depth of Water Table
Constants:
Capacity
Liquid Containers
setting
Rate cm cm
Sight Tube
1 L
n
Storage Tube
5L
n
Flow rate used
Project Number: RD190394
Report Number: 1 of
Date: 8/23/2019
81" Water Tern p(IF):
Depth of Observed Water
105 Hole Diameter:
Start Saturation: 11:19 Water Head:
4
ivH mcnes
3 inches
8 inches
Hole Radius: 1.500 Hole Depth: 36 inches
es a a
Date
Time
Elapsed
Time (hrs)
A I Total
Flow Readings
HOW mate
in3/hr
Conductivity
Remarks: Weather conditions, etc.
Reading
IUDe
Flow
Flow
cm'
Ksat In/hr
1
S
8/23
11 :19
0.0015
0.00
21.0
105
105
4271.66
16.43
Desired Elevation: 226.50 ft.
E
8/23
11 :19
20.0
2
S
8/23
11 :19
0.0012
0.00
20•0
105
105
..
533958
2054
Approximate Actual Elevation:
229.0 ft.
E
8/23
11 :19
19.0
3
S
8/23
11 :19
0.0015
0.00
19.0
105
105
4271.66
16.43
E
8/23
11 :19
18.0
4
S
8/23
11 :19
0.0013
0.01
18.0
105
105
4928.84
18.96
E
8/23
11 :20
17.0
5
S
8/23
11 :20
0.0015
0.01
17.0
105
105
4271.66
16.43
E
8/23
11 :20
16.0
6
S
8/23
11 :20
0.0015
0.01
16.0
105
105
4271.66
16.43
E
8/23
11 :20
15.0
S
8/23
11 :20
0.0015
0.01
15.0
105
105
4271.66
16.43
E
8/23
11 :20
14.0
8
S
E
9
S
E
10
S
E
11
S
E
12
S
E
13
S
E
14
S
i
I
Stabilized Ksatln/hr
16.43
5-01

Geaxechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Project Name: Combat Medical Training Facility
Client Name: Stantec
Technician: Moniaue Lumokin
Test Constants
Liquid Used: Municipal Water
Test Location: 5-02
Depth of Water Table
Constants:
I
Capacity
Liquid Containers
setting
Rate cm cm
Sight Tube
1 L
n
Storage Tube
5L
n
Flow rate used
Project Number: RD190394
Report Number: 2 of
Date: 8/23/2019
58" Water Tern p (IF):
Depth of Observed Water
105 Hole Diameter:
Start Saturation: 11:36 Water Head:
4
ivH mcnes
3 inches
8 inches
Hole Radius: 1.500 Hole Depth: 36 inches
es a a
Date
Time
Elapsed
Time (hrs)
A Total
Flow Readings
HOW mate
in3/hr
Conductivity
Remarks: Weather conditions, etc.
Reading
IUDe
Flow
Flow
cm'
Ksat In/hr
1
S
8/23
11 :37
0.02
0.02
37.0
105
525
1922.25
7.39
Desired Elevation: 227.0 ft.
E
8/23
11 :38
32.0
2
S
8/23
11 :38
0.02
0.03
32.0
105
420
1537.80
5.91
Approximate Actual Elevation:
230 ft.
E
8/23
11 :39
28.0
3
S
8/23
11 :39
0.02
0.05
28.0
105
420
1537.80
5.91
E
8/23
11 :40
24.0
4
S
8/23
11 :40
0.02
0.07
24.0
105
420
1537.80
5.91
E
8/23
11 :41
20.0
5
S
E
6
S
E
7
S
E
8
S
E
9
S
E
10
S
E
11
S
E
12
S
E
13
S
E
14S
Stabilized Ksatln/hr
5.91
5-02

Geaxechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Project Name: Combat Medical Training Facility
Client Name: Stantec
Technician: Moniaue Lumokin
Test Constants
Liquid Used: Municipal Water
Test Location: 5-03
Project Number: RD190394
Report Number: 3 of
Date: 8/23/2019
Depth of Water Table: > 120'
Constants:
I
Capacity
Liquid Containers
setting
Rate cm cm
Sight Tube
1 L
n
Storage Tube
5L
n
Flow rate used
Water Tern p (IF):
Depth of Observed Water
105 Hole Diameter:
Start Saturation: 11:55 Water Head:
4
ivH mcnes
3 inches
8 inches
Hole Radius: 1.500 Hole Depth: 73 inches
es a a
Date
Time
Elapsed
Time (hrs)
A Total
Flow Readings
HOW mate
in3/hr
Conductivity
Remarks: Weather conditions, etc.
Reading
IUDe
Flow
Flow
cm'
Ksat In/hr
1
S
8/23
12 :03
0.05
0.05
32.5
105
105
128.15
0.49
Desired Elevation: 227.0 ft.
E
8/23
12 :06
31.5
2
S
8/23
12 :06
0.05
0.10
31.5
105
105
128.15
0.49
Approximate Actual Elevation:
233.0 ft.
E
8/23
12:09
30.5
3
S
8/23
12 :09
0.03
0.13
30.5
105
105
192.22
0.74
E
8/23
12:11
29.5
4
S
8/23
12:11
0.03
0.17
29•5
105
105
192.22
0.74
E
8/23
12 :13
2g.5
5
S
8/23
12 :13
0.03
0.20
28.5
105
105
192.22
0.74
E
8/23
12:15
27.5
6
S
E
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
0.74
5-03

Geaxechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Project Name: Combat Medical Training Facility
Client Name: Stantec
Technician: Moniaue Lumokin
Test Constants
Liquid Used: Municipal Water
Test Location: 5-04
Project Number: RD190394
Report Number: 4 of
Date: 8/23/2019
Depth of Water Table: 117"
Constants:
Capacity
Liquid Containers
setting
Rate cm cm
Sight Tube
1 L
n
Storage Tube
5L
n
Flow rate used
Water Tern p (IF):
Depth of Observed Water
105 Hole Diameter:
Start Saturation: 12:31 Water Head:
4
ivH mcnes
3 inches
13 inches
Hole Radius: 1.500 Hole Depth: 61 inches
es a a
Date
Time
Elapsed
Time (hrs)
A Total
Flow Readings
HOW mate
in3/hr
Conductivity
Remarks: Weather conditions, etc.
Reading
IUDe
Flow
Flow
cm'
Ksat In/hr
1
S
8/23
12 :39
0.07
0.07
35.5
105
105
96.11
0.18
Desired Elevation: 231.0 ft.
E
8/23
12 :43
34.5
2
S
8/23
12 :43
0.07
0.13
34.5
105
105
96.11
0.18
Aproximate Actual Elevation:
236.0 ft.
E
8/23
12:47
33.5
3
S
8/23
12 :47
0.10
0.23
33.5
105
105
64.07
0.12
E
8/23
12:53
32.5
4
S
8/23
12 :53
0.10
0.33
32.5
105
105
64.07
0.12
E
8/23
12:59
31.5
5
S
8/23
12 :59
0.10
0.43
31.5
105
105
64.07
0.12
E
8/23
13:05
30.5
6
S
E
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
0.12
5-04

SETTLEMENT DATA
Page I A-16

BUILDING & EARTH
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Combat Medical Training Facility
Project No.: RD190394 I September 5, 2019
Settlement Evaluation
Column Footing on 5' Structural Fill

J
----
MaterialNa— CUbr Weight Weightikip.f kjp,R Clayey SIA (5C] ❑0.'11 `. 0.125 Silty 5antl(SM) 6115 6115 Fet Cby(CH) 011 012
Combat Medical Training Facility Settlement Evaluation
BUILDING & EARTH
Column Footing on 5' Cut
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Project No.: RD190394 September 5, 2019

DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Page I A-17

Design Name:
Design Type
Pavement Type
Road Type
Terrain Type
Analysis Type
Depth of Frost (in)
Wander Width (in) :
Layer Information
STANDARD DUTY FLEXIBLE
Roads
Flexible
Parking Area
Flat
CBR
0
33.35
Pavement Design Report
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
PCASE Version 2.09.05
Date : 9/4/2019
Non frost
Reduced
Limited
Layer Type
Material Type
Frost Code
Analysis
Design
Subgrade
Subgrade
CBR
Thickness
Strength
Penetratio
Strength
(in)
(in)
n (in)
Asphalt
Asphalt
NFS
Compute
2
0
0
0
Base
Unbound Crushed Stone
NFS
Compute
4.97
0
0
100
Natural Subgrade
Cohesionless Cut
NFS
Manual
0
0
0
5
Traffic Information
Pattern Name: FLEXIBLE STANDARD DUTY
Vehicles Weight (lb) Passes per Life Equivalen
Span tPasses
CAR - PASSENGER 10000 4562500 4562500
CAR - PASSENGER 10000 4562500
PCASE Equivalent Single Axle 1472
Loads

Design Name: HEAVY DUTY RIGID
Design Type :
Roads
Pavement Type :
Rigid
Road Type :
Parking Area
Terrain Type :
Flat
Analysis Type :
K
Depth of Frost (in) :
0
Wander Width (in) :
33.35
% Load Transfer:
25
Effective K (pci) :
140
Reduced Sub Effective K (pci) :
0
Joint Spacing :
10 to 15 ft
Dowel Spacing:
12.00 in
Dowel Length :
16.00 in
Dowel Diameter:
.75 in
Layer Information
Pavement Thickness Report
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
PCASE Version 2.09.05
Date : 9/4/2019
Flexural
Non frost
Reduced
Limited
K
Layer Type Material Type Frost Code Strength
% Analysis
Design
Subgrade
Subgrade
Strength
(psi)
Steel
Thickness
Strength
Penetration
(pci)
(in)
(in)
(in)
PCC N/A NFS 650
0 Compute
6
0
0
0
Natural Subgrade Cohesionless Cut NFS 0
0 Manual
0
0
0
140
Traffic Information
Pattern Name: HEAVY DUTY RIGID
Passes per Life
Equivalent
Vehicles
Weight (lb)
Span
Passes
CAR - PASSENGER
10000
4562500
1
CMP 60 FORKLIFT
10000
9125
1
P-15 CRASH TRUCK (FIRE
77000
1300
1300
TRUCK)
TRUCK, 3 AXLE
66000
1300
625
TRUCK, 5 AXLE
80000
2600
56
P-15 CRASH TRUCK (FIRE
77000
1983
TRUCK)
PCASE Equivalent Single Axle 52975
Loads

Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations
Using Bowles' Equations - Foundation Analysis and Design, 5 ed.
For footing width, greater than 4 ft.:
\4/ rB B 1lZ
t kips
Qa = K = allowable soil bearing capacity, in-7-
(10l (9 9 1l2
4 9 > 2,000 s 2 000 s allowable bearing capacity
Qa= 1.07 pf pf 9 p Y
where:
N = 10 (average across borings)
K = 1.07
B=9ft.
D=2ft.

Schmertmann Settlement Analysis
Job No.: RD190394
Job Name: Combat Medical Training Facility
Calculations based on Boring
No:
B-02 (Dilatometer Results) Notes: Settlement Estimate
Using Average E for the layer
Footing Size, B
9
ft
C1= 0.94
Bearing Pressure,p
2000
psf
C2 = 1.54
Soil Unit Wt.
115
pcf
t = -- years
Bearing Depth, Fd
2
ft
Top of
Layer (ft)
*Btm of
Layer (ft)
dz
(inches)
N count (bpf)
Es (ksf)
Zc
(inches)
Zc (ft)
Iz
Iz*dz/Es
(in/tsf)
0
13
156
N/A (Direct E value)
NIA
250
78
6.5
0.600
0.374
13
14
12
317
162
13.5
0.289
0.011
14
15
12
253
174
14.5
0.244
0.012
15
16
12
45
186
15.5
0.200
0.053
16
1 17
12
234
1 198
16.5
0.156
1 0.008
17
18
12
327
210
17.5
0.111
0.004
18
19
12
250
222
18.5
0.067
0.003
19
20
12
250
234
19.5
0.022
0.001
Sum = 0.467
Total Estimated Settlement by Schmertmann = 0.68 in
Estimated Potential Settlement = 1 0.34 in
(Schmertmann is typically reduced by a factor of 2)
bottom of last layer must equal to 2B from the bottom of the footing
•• see Sheet 2 ram, , u, , j- - . --- ,,, , --.. , ,

Schmertmann Settlement Analysis
Job No.: RD190394
Job Name: Combat Medical Training Facility
Calculations based on Boring
No:
B-08 (Dilatometer Results) Notes: Settlement Estimate
Using Average E for the layer
Footing Size, B
9
ft
C1= 0.94
Bearing Pressure,p
2000
psf
C2 = 1.54
Soil Unit Wt.
115
pcf
t = -- years
Bearing Depth, Fd
2
ft
Top of
Layer (ft)
*Btm of
Layer (ft)
dz
(inches)
N count (bpf)
Es (ksf)
Zc
(inches)
Zc (ft)
Iz
Iz*dz/Es
(in/tsf)
0
1
12
N/A (Direct E value)
NIA
1772
6
0.5
-0.200
-0.001
1
2
12
540
18
1.5
-0.067
-0.001
2
3
12
188
30
2.5
0.067
0.004
4
13
108
250
102
8.5
0.511
0.221
14
1 15
12
676
1 174
14.5
0.244
1 0.004
15
16
12
773
186
15.5
0.200
0.003
16
17
12
604
198
16.5
0.156
0.003
17
18
12
771
210
17.5
0.111
0.002
18
19
12
201
222
18.5
0.067
0.004
19
20
12
367
234
19.5
0.022
0.001
Sum = 0.239
Total Estimated Settlement by Schmertmann = 0.35 in
Estimated Potential Settlement = 1 0.17 in
(Schmertmann is typically reduced by a factor of 2)
bottom of last layer must equal to 2B from the bottom of the footing
•• see Sheet 2 ram, , u, , j- - . --- ,,, , --.. , ,

LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES
A brief description of the laboratorytests 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 D22 76)
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 D4378)
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 D7 740)
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.

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
The results of the laboratory testing are presented in the following tables.
MBORING .
NO.
DEPTH
NTENT
INDEX
00 SIEVE
CLASSIFICATION
B-01
0.0 - 2.0
9.6
28
17
11
34
SC
B-01
4.0 - 6.0
17.4
34
18
16
36
SC
B-01
10.0 - 12.0
6.6
20
18
2
21
SM
B-01
13.5 - 15.0
28.8
62
26
36
73
CH
B-01
23.5 - 25.0
31.3
54
27
27
95
CH
B-02
4.0 - 6.0
19.8
B-02
10.0 - 12.0
22.6
B-02
23.5 - 25.0
21.9
B-03
2.0 - 4.0
17.4
B-03
8.0 - 10.0
12.8
B-03
18.5 - 20.0
28.4
20
20
NP
11
SP-SM
B-04
2.0 - 4.0
15.9
B-04
6.0 - 8.0
4.4
B-04
13.5 -15.0
23.5
27
18
9
43
SC
B-05
4.0 - 6.0
19.2
68
29
39
70
CH
B-05
8.0 - 10.0
13.0
B-05
18.5 - 20.0
20.7
41
24
17
45
SC
B-06
2.0 - 4.0
22.8
B-06
6.0 - 8.0
16.2
51
26
25
49
SC
B-06
10.0 - 12.0
13.0
41
19
22
41
SC
B-06
23.5 - 25.0
27.4
48
27
21
74
CL
B-07
0.0 - 2.0
4.9
B-07
8.0 - 10.0
11.2
35
18
17
44
SC
B-07
18.5 - 20.0
26.2
30
18
12
52
CL
B-07
23.5 - 25.0
22.9
B-08
0.0 - 2.0
6.4
B-08
6.0 - 8.0
5.4
B-08
10.0 - 12.0
8.3
B-08
13.5 - 15.0
24.0
NP
NP
NP
13
SM
B-08
23.5 - 25.0
18.1
50
23
27
97
CH
TABLE L-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

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 notperform 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-21

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
havingyour 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 laboratoiy
data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a
geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn
for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, Only
photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but
recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they
can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface
conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation.
To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the
complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with
a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise
constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes
of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited;
encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer
who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/
or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of
information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also
be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform
additional study. Only then might you be in a position to
give constructors the best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial
responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to
recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than
other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding
has created unrealistic expectations that have led to
disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include
a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes
labeled "limitations; many of these provisions indicate where
geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help
others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read
these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical
engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform
an environmental study differ significantly from those used to
perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical-
engineering report does not usually relate any environmental
findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about
the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks
or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental
problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not
yet obtained your own environmental information,
ask your geotechnical consultant for risk -management
guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
someone else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal
with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design,
construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent
significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.
To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for
the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a
comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a
professional mold -prevention consultant. Because just a small
amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of
severe mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategies
focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater,
water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed
as part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in
charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant;
none of the services performed in connection with the
geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for
the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the
recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be
sufficient to prevent mold fromgrowing 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
GARCIUM BUSINESS COUNCIL
of fix Geopr*,sionWBruinec Asmciahon
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone; 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail; [e-mail] www.geoprofessional.org
Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GSA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part,
by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document
is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review_ only members of GBA may use
this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without
being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
Page I A-22