SW1190901_Geotech Report_20190910

PREPARED FOR:
AVCON, Inc.
13801 Reese Boulevard, Suite 160
Huntersville, North Carolina 28078
PREPARED BY:
S&ME, Inc.
44 Buck Shoals Road, Suite C-3
Arden, North Carolina 28704
July 25, 2019

July 25, 2019
AVCON, Inc.
13801 Reese Boulevard
Huntersville, South Carolina 298078
Attention: Mr. James Moose, P.E.
Reference: Subsurface Exploration
AVL (Parking Lots
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013
NC PE Firm License No. F-0176
Dear Mr. Moose:
S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) is pleased to submit this Subsurface Exploration report for the referenced project. The
exploration was made in accordance with our Proposal No. 14-1900301 dated May 3, 2019, and Standard Master
Subconsultant Agreement dated May 31, 2019. This report presents a brief confirmation of our understanding of
the project, the exploration results, and our geotechnical conclusions and recommendations regarding site
grading and pavement support.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide the geotechnical engineering services for AVCON, Inc. on this project.
Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the information in this report, or when further services are
needed.
Sincerely,
S&ME, Inc.
III
�� 1 CA
/ ////'
Jordan Titus, P.E. Matt McCurdy, P.E. -- 4 S S/p .
9
Project Engineer Senior Engineer = a- SEAL T', J
jtitus(a smeinc.com mmccurdyPsmeinr-com 032471
S&ME, Inc. 144 Buck Shoals Road, Suite C-3 I Arden, NC 28704 1 p 828.687.9080 1 www.smeiric.com

Subsurface Exploration
AVL Parking Lots
Fletcher, South Carolina 111
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013 S
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Information...........................................................................................................1
2.0 Exploration and Testing...................................................................................................2
2.1 Field Exploration............................................................................................................................ 2
2.2 Laboratory Testing......................................................................................................................... 2
3.0 Site Conditions..................................................................................................................2
3.1
Surface Features..............................................................................................................................2
3.2
Regional Geology...........................................................................................................................3
3.3
Subsurface Conditions...................................................................................................................4
3.3.1
Surface Materials.............................................................................................................................. 4
3.3.2
Existing Fill.......................................................................................................................................4
3.3.3
Residual Soils.................................................................................................................................... 4
3.3.4
Subsurface Water..............................................................................................................................4
3.3.5
Laboratory Testing............................................................................................................................4
4.0 Conclusions........................................................................................................................5
5.0 Site Grading Recommendations....................................................................................6
5.1 Site Preparation...............................................................................................................................6
5.1.1 General..............................................................................................................................................6
5.1.2 Existing Fill and Undercutting........................................................................................................ 6
5.1.3 Proofrolling and Subgrade Evaluation.............................................................................................. 7
5.2 Excavation....................................................................................................................................... 7
5.3 Fill Placement and Compaction....................................................................................................8
5.3.1 Use of Excavated Soils as Fill............................................................................................................ 8
5.3.2 Use of Off -Site Borrow Materials as Fill........................................................................................... 8
5.4 Excavated Slopes and Fill Embankments...................................................................................9
5.5 Subgrade Repair and Improvement Methods............................................................................9
6.0 Pavement Thickness Recommendations......................................................................9
6.1 Flexible Pavements.......................................................................................................................10
July 25, 2019

Subsurface Exploration
AVL Parking Lots
Fletcher, South Carolina III
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013
6.2 Rigid Pavements...........................................................................................................................11
6.3 Subgrade and Drainage...............................................................................................................11
7.0 Limitations of Report.....................................................................................................11
Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report
List of Tables
Table 6-1: Pavement Thickness Recommendations ...........................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix
Boring Location Plan (Figure 1)
Legend to Soil Classification and Symbols
Boring Logs (A-1 through A-5, B-1 and B-2)
Summary of Laboratory Test Data
Laboratory Test Results
Field Testing Procedure
Important Information About Geotechnical Reports
July 25, 2019

Subsurface Exploration
AVL Parking Lots
Fletcher, South Carolina 111
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013 S
1.0 Project Information
Our understanding of the project is based on the following:
Phone conversation between Mr. James Moose, P.E. with AVCON and Mr. John Weavil, P.E. with S&ME on
April 24, 2019;
An email transmittal from Mr. Moose to Mr. Weavil on April 24, 2019;
Our review of the Remote Parking Alternatives, which was provided in the above referenced April 24, 2019
email transmittal, and is dated 4/10/2019;
Email correspondence between Mr. Moose and Mr. Matt McCurdy, P.E. with S&ME on April 26 through
July 12, 2019;
Email correspondence between Mr. Moose, Mr. McCurdy and Christopher Birkmeyer, P.E. with AVCON,
Inc. on July 8 through July 12, 2019;
A site visit by Mr. Matt McCurdy on May 2, 2019; and
Our review of aerial images of the site from Google Earth TM.
Based on the above information, it is our understanding that construction of the parking lots labeled A and B
shown on the Remote Parking Alternatives Plan is being planned at Asheville Regional Airport (AVL). The site for
Lot A is bordered by Airport Road to the west, Airport Park Road to the north, woods and a warehouse structure
(Electrolux) to the south, and a hotel to the east. The site currently contains an asphalt pavement drive and
grassed areas, and the northern and southern portions are separated in tiers with about 10 to 15 feet in elevation
change.
The site for Lot B is bordered by Wright Brothers Way to the west, Aviation Way to the north, Terminal Drive to
the south, and a wooded strip to the east. The site is currently a gravel parking lot being used primarily for
construction equipment.
The drawing indicates parking lots A and B will have 400 and 100 parking spaces, respectively. However, Mr.
Birkmeyer informed us that Lot A could actually have approximately 300 spaces and Lot B could have
approximately 90 spaces, depending on the final selected geometry. At the time of this report, plans were for Lot
A to be daily or long term parking, and for Lot B to be the cell phone waiting lot and parking for some businesses
in the area. Each lot will likely have a shuttle bus stop to assist customers with transportation to the terminal. We
were informed the shuttle buses will be Ford F-350 buses, or similar vehicle weights.
Based on our site visit and images from Google Earth TM, parking lot B and the northern portion of parking lot A
are relatively level, although the north part of Lot A inclines gently to the east. The southern portion of parking lot
A slopes upward generally to the east and there is a higher elevation area in the southern third. Since the majority
of the sites are pre -graded and relatively flat and level, we assume that site grading will consist of maximum
excavation and fill placement depths on the order of about 1 to 3 feet in most locations throughout the lots.
However, in the southern portion of parking lot A, we expect the higher elevation area could require excavation
depths ranging from 5 to 10 feet.
July 25, 2019

Subsurface Exploration
AVL Parking Lots
Fletcher, South Carolina 111
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013 S
2.0 Exploration and Testing
2.1 Field Exploration
The field exploration included a site reconnaissance by a Geotechnical Engineer and Staff Professional, the drilling
of five soil test borings for Lot A (borings A-1 through A-5) and two soil test borings for Lot B (borings B-1 and B-
2). The borings were drilled to a depth of 10 feet below the existing ground surface, except for one 15 foot boring
(A-2) which was drilled in a higher elevation/potential cut area. Our personnel established the boring locations by
using aerial photographs, the provided drawing, and by measuring distances from existing site features. Prior to
conducting the borings, NC 811 was notified to mark public underground utilities in the vicinity of the borings.
The soil test borings were drilled with a track -mounted drill rig (Diedrich D-50 with an automatic hammer), using
hollow -stem augers to advance the boreholes. Split -spoon samples and Standard Penetration Resistance (N)
values were obtained at 2.5-foot intervals in the upper 10 feet of the borings and at a 5-foot interval, thereafter (in
the 15 feet deep borehole). After completion of drilling and attempting subsurface water depth measurements,
the boreholes were backfilled with soil cuttings and a mechanical hole plug was inserted near the top of each
borehole to help reduce borehole settlement. A Boring Location Plan (Figure 1) showing the approximate boring
locations, a Legend to Soil Classification and Symbols, Boring Logs, and the Field Testing Procedures are included
in the Appendix.
In addition to the SPT sampling, we also collected bulk samples of the auger cuttings (from the upper 1 to 6 feet
of soil) from many of the borings.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
The split -spoon samples and bulk samples were transported to our laboratory, where members of our engineering
staff visually and manually classified the soils in general accordance with the guidelines of the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS). The results of the classifications and the field testing results are presented on the
individual Boring Logs in the Appendix.
Selected split -spoon and bulk samples were subjected to laboratory index testing (moisture content, Atterberg
limits, and sieve analysis) to aid in the classification and evaluation of the soils' engineering properties. We also
performed Modified Proctor compaction and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing on three of the bulk samples
to help evaluate the soils' pavement support characteristics and suitability for use as structural fill. The Appendix
contains the individual laboratory test reports, and the results are discussed in Section 3.3.5 of this report.
3.0 Site Conditions
3.1 Surface Features
As previously mentioned, the southern portion of proposed parking lot A is currently occupied by an asphalt
pavement drive and grassed areas and the northern portion is occupied by a grassed area. The northern portion
is relatively flat and approximately 10 to 15 feet higher in elevation than the southern portion. The southern
July 25, 2019

Subsurface Exploration
AVL Parking Lots
Fletcher, South Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013
=0
portion of parking lot A slopes upward generally to the east and there is a higher elevation area in the southern
third. On the eastern side of the southern portion of parking lot A, the site steeply slopes upward toward the tree
line. Based on Google Earth images, the northern portion of parking lot A has been cleared of vegetation since
1994. The images indicate a parking lot was constructed sometime between 2013 and 2015 and has been since
removed orjust overgrown with vegetation. The southern portion of the parking lot was previously wooded, but
was cleared and graded sometime between 2013 and 2015. The asphalt pavement drive was also constructed
during this period of time. It appears a sewer line extends along the western perimeter of the southern portion of
parking lot A.
Parking lot B is currently occupied by a gravel parking lot. The Google Earth images indicate the area has been at
least partially cleared of vegetation and used for parking since about 1994. The parking area is relatively flat and
level.
Our site visits and exploration were made during sunny, dry weather. The ground surface was observed to be
generally stable beneath the drill rig.
3.2 Regional Geology
The project site is in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province of North Carolina, an area underlain by ancient
igneous and metamorphic rocks. Geologic mapping by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicates the underlying
bedrock consists primarily of metagraywacke and muscovite-biotite gneiss.
The soils encountered in this area are the residual product of in -place physical and chemical weathering of the
rock presently underlying the site. In areas not altered by erosion or disturbed by the activities of man, the typical
residual soil profile typically consists of clayey soils near the surface, where soil weathering is more advanced,
underlain by sandy silts and silty sands with varying amounts of mica. The boundary between soil and rock is not
sharply defined. This transitional zone, termed "partially weathered rock," is normally found overlying parent
bedrock. Partially weathered rock is defined, for engineering purposes, as residual material with standard
penetration resistance values of at least 50 blows per 6 inches. Weathering is facilitated by fractures, joints, and
the presence of less resistant rock types. Consequently, the profile of the partially weathered rock (as well as hard
rock) is quite irregular and erratic, even over relatively short horizontal distances. Also, it is not unusual to find
lenses and boulders of hard rock and zones of partially weathered rock within the soil mantle, well above the
general bedrock level.
The natural geological profile of portions of the site have been modified/disturbed by past construction and
grading activities that have resulted in the placement of fill. Please keep in mind that fill soils can vary in
composition and consistency, and the engineering characteristics of these soils can be difficult to predict.
Although there is no specific correlation between the degree of compaction of existing fill and the results of
standard penetration testing, a qualitative assessment of existing fill can often be made based on visual
observation of the fill materials sampled in the borings and the general magnitude of the standard penetration
test values.
July 25, 2019

Subsurface Exploration
AVL Parking Lots
Fletcher, South Carolina I I I
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013
3.3 Subsurface Conditions
The following description of subsurface conditions is a brief overview. More detailed information is provided on
the individual Boring Logs included in the Appendix.
3.3.1 Surface Materials
The borings in Parking Lot A initially penetrated approximately 2 inches of rootmat (grass and roots). Please note
that this thickness will vary throughout the site and there could be some topsoil in unexplored areas. The borings
in Parking Lot B initially penetrated approximately 3 inches of crushed stone.
3.3.2 Existing Fill
Boring A-2 was drilled on the higher elevation strip of ground in the southeast part of Lot A. The boring
encountered existing fill below the surface materials to an approximate depth of 5.5 feet below the existing
ground surface. The sampled fill soils generally consisted of moist, silty sand (SM) with trace amounts of clay, a
large piece of wood in one sample. The upper attempted split -spoon sample yielded no recovery of the sample.
N-values obtained in the fill soils ranged from 3 to 4 blows per foot, indicating a low degree of compaction.
Based on the low N-values and the wood in the sample, it appears the material was likely placed in a relatively
loose stockpile, rather than compacted in place.
Please note that fill soils, and particularly stockpiled soils, generally tend to become wet due to rainwater runoff
infiltrating these soils and becoming trapped or "perched" above layers of more consistent residual soils. In
addition, the upper residual soils near the fill/residuum interface can be moist or wet as well. The depth and
composition of fill in unexplored areas will vary and could be deeper and/or erratically compacted.
3.3.3 Residual Soils
Beneath the existing fill in boring A-2, and beneath the rootmat and crushed stone in the remaining borings,
residual soils of the type common to the Fletcher area were encountered in both lots. The residuum consisted of
sandy silt (ML) and silty sand (SM). Some samples contained trace amounts of clay and varying amounts of mica
content and some samples were moist. The N-values recorded in the residual soils ranged from 6 to 28 blows per
foot, indicating a firm to very stiff consistency for silts and indicating a loose to medium dense relative density for
sands. All of the borings were terminated in the residual soils at their planned termination depths.
3.3.4 Subsurface Water
Subsurface water was not encountered at the time of boring (FOB). Please note that subsurface water levels will
fluctuate during the year, due to seasonal variations, precipitation, and construction activity in the area, and could
be within the depths drilled in the future.
3.3.5 Laboratory Testing
As previously discussed in Section 2.0 Exploration and Testing, we collected bulk samples of the auger cuttings
(from the upper 1 to 6 feet of soil) from many of the borings. We evaluated and combined these samples into
three composite bulk samples, blended by similar soil types (i.e., predominantly sandy) and proximity, to provide a
July 25, 2019 4

Subsurface Exploration
AVL Parking Lots
Fletcher, South Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013
=0
range of properties forthe representative fill and residual soils encountered across the site. In addition to
laboratory index testing (moisture content, Atterberg limits, and sieve analysis) we performed Modified Proctor
compaction and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing to help evaluate the soil's pavement support characteristics.
The CBR specimens were remolded to 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, based on the Modified
Proctor (ASTM D 1557). This degree of compaction is not necessarily representative of the existing/in situ
condition; however, we will recommend that that subgrade soils be compacted to at least this minimum
compaction threshold during site preparation and fill placement.
The Appendix contains the individual laboratory test reports and a Summary of Laboratory Test Data table, and the
results are summarized below:
The composite samples classified as silty sand (SM). These soil classifications generally represented the
majority of the site soils sampled in the upper 1 to 6 feet;
Percent fines for the SM soils ranged from about 42 to 49 percent;
Plasticity Index for the SM soils ranged from 10 to 11 percent;
Modified Proctor Maximum Dry Density (MDD) for the SM soils ranged from 118.9 to 121.5 pcf,
Modified Proctor Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) for the SM soils ranged from 12.1 to 13.0 percent;
In situ Moisture Content for the SM soils ranged from 13.1 to 23.5 percent (roughly 1 to 11 percent over
OMC); and
CBR values for the SM soils ranged from approximately 4 to 7 percent.
4.0 Conclusions
The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon our understanding of the proposed construction
and results of the exploration as discussed in Sections 1.0 and 3.0. If the above -described project information is
incorrect or modified after submission of this report, or if subsurface conditions encountered during construction
of the parking lots are different from those reported, S&ME should be notified and these recommendations must
be re-evaluated to make the appropriate revisions. When reviewing this information, please remember the site
has been previously disturbed, developed, and graded. Our experience with sites such as this indicates
unexpected conditions, such as deposits of unsuitable existing fill or low consistency natural soils, could exist
between the boring locations and unexplored areas of the site.
The boring data indicates the site is generally underlain by moderate -consistency residual soils, except for the
low -consistency existing fill encountered in boring A-2 (which appears to be a possible stockpile). Based on the
Standard Penetration Resistance values obtained, it appears the site will generally be adaptable for structural
support of the proposed parking lots. Because the existing fill was encountered in the higher elevation strip of
ground, we anticipate it will likely be excavated if grading is performed in this area. However, it is possible that
some existing fill will still be encountered after excavation, and in other areas between the borings, and could
require some undercutting if low -consistency or debris -laden fill is encountered.
The development and construction team must understand our recommendations are based on the premise that
our representative will be on -site to observe and document site work, including site preparation, proofrolling,
July 25, 2019

Subsurface Exploration
AVL Parking Lots
=0
Fletcher, South Carolina I I I
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013
undercutting, stabilization, excavation, and fill placement, and to perform density testing of fills. Proper site
preparation and maintenance is very important in helping to provide time- and cost-efficient construction. Our
observations and tests can be a vital component in improving the performance and efficiency of the site work.
5.0 Site Grading Recommendations
5.1 Site Preparation
5.1.1 General
Site preparation should extend at least 5 feet outside pavement limits, where practical. Site preparation should
begin with the removal of all unsuitable surface materials. This would include surface vegetation, organic laden
topsoil, trees, rootmat, and any unstable near -surface soils. The borings indicate the rootmat to be about 2 inches
thick; however, the thicknesses will vary in unexplored areas. Large roots can be expected near the surface for the
stumps of any trees or tree remnants onsite. If tap roots and stumps are encountered, they should be completely
removed and any voids left in the soil should be cleaned of all roots and backfilled with well -compacted fill as
described in Section 5.3.
If the existing crushed stone at Lot B is planned to remain in place, several test areas should be excavated in the
presence of our geotechnical representative to confirm that there is no topsoil or organic material below the
stone layer. However, this layer should not be planned to replace the new pavement base course, because the
subgrade soils have likely migrated into the existing crushed stone.
5.1.2 Existing Fill and Undercutting
As previously discussed, existing fill was encountered in boring A-2 to a depth of about 5.5 feet below the existing
ground surface. We note the fill appeared poorly compacted and contained some wood debris. We are not
aware of any construction records that document the placement and compaction of the fill at the time of grading.
Based on the SPT N-values and the topography it appears that the fill may have been stockpiled and may be
excavated during new grading. However, depending on final grades some other existing fill may be exposed at
planned subgrade and existing fill may be encountered between the borings.
The most positive approach is to undercut all existing fill and replace it (as needed to achieve final grades and
reusing suitable soil) as a controlled, structural fill with observation and in -place density testing as described in
Section 5.3. This is because undocumented fills can contain pockets of buried debris, organics, or softer and
wetter soils than were detected by the borings. Because of these reasons, leaving existing fill in place carries an
inherent risk of future pavement distress and maintenance/repair. Again, Boring A-2 was performed in a relatively
higher portion of parking lot A; therefore, it is possible that this is a planned cut section. We recommend the
contractor excavate a few test pits with a backhoe in our presence to evaluate if any existing fill material is below
planned grades in this area, and to observe its character and consistency. Any previously stockpiled soils should
not remain under the planned pavement.
July 25, 2019

Subsurface Exploration
AVL Parking Lots
Fletcher, South Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013
=0
If fill is encountered in other areas, and undercutting all of the fill is not feasible due to site constraints or
economics, another approach is to undercut and replace a portion of the fill, or at a minimum, all soft/unstable
areas detected near the surface. With this approach some risk of compromised pavement performance must be
understood and accepted, but the risks can be lowered somewhat with thorough evaluation in the field. Parts of
the fill can possibly be left in place, provided they are assessed to be adequately stable by the proofrolling
methods discussed in the following section. During warmer and drier parts of the year, the remedial work
required could be less than during cold and/or wet weather. In drier weather, these soils can sometimes be
scarified and densified in -place, while they would otherwise need to be undercut/replaced during other times.
This is typically dictated by season of the year and weather conditions. Evaluation and undercutting should be
closely observed by an S&ME Geotechnical Professional or Site Technician.
5.1.3 Proofrolling and Subgrade Evaluation
After stripping and removing unsuitable surface materials (and prior to planned fill placement), the exposed
subgrades should be evaluated by a Geotechnical Professional to help assess whether all unsuitable materials
have been sufficiently removed. To aid the Professional during this evaluation, the exposed subgrade should be
proofrolled with a heavily loaded tandem -axle dump truck or similar rubber -tired equipment. Proofrolling not
only helps reveal the presence of disturbed, unstable, or otherwise unsuitable surface materials, but will help
densify the exposed subgrade for subsequent structural fill placement and pavement support. Any areas that
deflect excessively under proofrolling should be undercut and/or stabilized as recommended by the Geotechnical
Professional. Any questionable areas could be further explored by shallow test pits and/or hand auger borings
with DCP testing.
Where undercutting is recommended (if required, based on our observations during proofrolling), it should
extend laterally beyond the pavement limits to a distance of 5 feet, where practical. Undercutting should extend
vertically down to stable soil and backfilled to plan subgrade elevation with well -compacted structural fill. If stable
soil is not encountered and the undercutting will approach 2 to 3 feet, consideration could be given to stabilizing
the area with geotextiles and/or crushed stone. Typically, soft pavement areas can be stabilized with a layer of
woven stabilization fabric (such as Mirafi HP 570), geogrid, and/or 1 to 2 feet of crushed stone (surge stone,
railroad ballast, or ABC stone, depending on conditions encountered). The selection of the remedial approach and
extents is normally more economically determined based on actual site conditions observed by our representative.
We recommend having a budget contingency to account for repair or improvement of parts of the subgrade by
undercutting or other stabilization measures. The need for this remediation will also be very dependent on the
weather conditions at the time of construction.
5.2 Excavation
The boring data indicates excavations will extend through moderate -consistency residual soils and low -
consistency fill soils. These materials can typically be excavated by routine earthmoving equipment used in this
area, such as a bulldozer, moderately heavy front end loader, or tracked excavator. Local excavation for shallow
utility trenches can be accomplished by a heavy backhoe or tracked excavator.
Please keep in mind rock in a weathered, boulder, and massive form varies very erratically in depth and location in
the Blue Ridge Geologic Province. Accordingly, although not anticipated, there is always a potential that refusal
July 25, 2019

Subsurface Exploration
AVL Parking Lots
=0
Fletcher, South Carolina I I I
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013
materials could be encountered in unexplored areas of the site and blasting or the use of pneumatic excavation
tools could be required. Similarly, boulders or debris could be encountered within the existing fill.
All excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations, including
OSHA (29 CFR Part 1926) excavation trench safety standards. The contractor is solely responsible for site safety.
This information is provided only as a service and under no circumstances should S&ME be assumed to be
responsible for construction site safety.
5.3 Fill Placement and Compaction
After stripping and subgrade preparation as described above, areas requiring fill placement should be raised to
their design subgrade configuration with soil free of deleterious materials. Any rock fragments within the new fill
should be less than 4 inches in diameter. The fill should be uniformly spread in 6- to 8-inch thick loose lifts and
be compacted to at least 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as determined by a laboratory modified
Proctor compaction test (ASTM D-1557). The moisture content should be controlled at plus to minus 3 percent of
optimum. Stricter moisture control could be required to achieve satisfactory compaction of the soils at this site.
Fill placement should be observed by a qualified Materials Technician working under the general direction of the
Geotechnical Engineer. In addition to this visual evaluation, the Technician should perform a sufficient number of
in -place field density tests to confirm the required degree of compaction is attained. Periodic field "check plugs"
should be performed to help determine the correct Proctor data to use.
5.3.1 Use of Excavated Soils as Fill
The majority of the sampled residual soil appears generally adaptable for use as well -compacted structural fill.
The in -situ moisture contents of two of the bulk samples were about 6 to 11 percent over optimum moisture
content, indicating a significant drying effort could be required. The Contractor should have equipment, such as
disk harrows, to help scarify and dry wet soil. Some spreading of the soil and aerating could be needed.
(Alternatively, consideration could be given to replacing wet soil with drier soil from another source or ABC stone.)
Existing fill materials should be evaluated by our technician during excavation to assess whether they are suitable
for possible re -use. We note one of the split spoon samples in the fill contained a large piece of wood. This
indicates there could be pockets of organics that will need to be removed.
The moisture content of the on -site soil, especially those near the surface, will fluctuate with weather conditions.
Depending upon the time grading begins, moisture adjustment (likely drying, but possibly some wetting) could be
required to achieve the required degree of compaction.
5.3.2 Use of Off -Site Borrow Materials as Fill
Imported fill used for site grading should consist of a clean (free of organics and debris), low plasticity soil (Liquid
Limit less than 50, Plasticity Index less than 20), and be evaluated by a Geotechnical Engineer prior to use.
However, to truly gain the benefits of using more favorable "select" fill material for improved pavement subgrade
support, we recommend refining the following physical characteristic requirements:
Liquid Limit less than 40, Plasticity Index less than 10;
July 25, 2019

Subsurface Exploration
AVL Parking Lots
Fletcher, South Carolina 111
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013 S
Percent fines less than 35 percent;
Mica content less than 0.5 percent by weight; and
Modified Proctor maximum dry density greater than 120 pounds per cubic foot.
5.4 Excavated Slopes and Fill Embankments
Along the eastern boundary of parking lot A, the site slopes steeply towards the wooded area. Our experience
shows that slopes should be stable if properly constructed and maintained. Excavated slopes in residual materials
at moderate heights should be stable when excavated at an inclination no steeper than 2H:1 V (Horizontal to
Vertical). Similarly, fill embankments anticipated for this project should be stable at an inclination no steeper than
2H:1V when constructed of well compacted fill over a properly prepared subgrade. Flatter slope inclinations are
suggested to reduce maintenance and repair, and allow landscaping equipment to more easily operate. Also, we
recommend for slopes or embankments taller than 20 feet that intermediate benches (at least 5 feet wide) with
drainage be provided.
Fill placed in embankments should be compacted to a similar requirement as recommended in Section 5.3 (95
percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density). Because it is difficult to compact soils near the
embankment face, we suggest constructing the embankments outside their design limits and then cutting them
back, leaving the exposed face well -compacted.
We advise the face of slopes and embankments be protected by establishing vegetation with the use of erosion
control blankets or turf mats as soon as practical after grading. Also, rainwater runoff should be diverted away
from the crest of slopes. In general, utilities should be routed away from fill embankments. Any utilities that must
be located near the face or the crests of the fill slopes should be designed with extra precautions to ensure they
do not leak or rupture. All utility line backfill should be compacted to project specifications. It is very important
that all factors associated with slopes be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications
5.5 Subgrade Repair and Improvement Methods
The exposed subgrade soil of both excavation and fill areas can deteriorate when exposed to construction activity
and environmental changes such as freezing, erosion, softening from ponded rainwater, and rutting from
construction equipment. We recommend the exposed subgrade surfaces which have deteriorated be properly
repaired by scarifying and recompacting immediately prior to construction. If this has to be performed during wet
weather conditions, it would be worthwhile to consider undercutting the deteriorated soil and replacing it with
compacted crushed stone.
6.0 Pavement Thickness Recommendations
Pavement type and thickness selection should be based primarily on the supporting soils, drainage characteristics,
and traffic volume for the subject pavement area. Based on the information provided, we understand that Parking
Lot A and B will have approximately 300 and 90 spaces, respectively. Parking Lot B will be used as the cell phone
lot (short term parking) and for parking for some of the nearby businesses. Parking Lot A will be used for daily or
long term parking. Both parking lots are anticipated to have a shuttle bus stop and buses (Ford F-350 buses, or
similar vehicle weights) may stop in each lot up to 72 times per day (4 trips per hour between 6 am and midnight).
July 25, 2019

Subsurface Exploration
AVL Parking Lots
=0
Fletcher, South Carolina I I I
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013 q
NW
When design information is more final, pavement thicknesses will need to be designed and evaluated based on
appropriate traffic data, vehicle loads, and frequencies that can be represented as Equivalent Single Axle Loads
(ESALs). All materials and workmanship should meet the 2018 NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and
Structures manual.
6.1 Flexible Pavements
Flexible pavement can be used for the proposed roadway following proper drainage, subgrade preparation, and
compaction procedures. From our laboratory testing, California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values in parking lot A ranged
from 6.4 to 6.6. For parking lot B a CBR value of 3.7 was obtained. Based on our experience in the Asheville area
and our laboratory testing results, we have assigned parking lots A and B with a design CBR value of 4 percent for
the subgrade soils. Use of this CBR value also assumes the recommendations for site preparation/evaluation,
undercutting, and fill placement have been followed.
The design procedures used are based on the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures and associated
literature. We recommend the following minimum thicknesses for the standard -duty (areas only subjected to
automobiles) and heavy-duty pavements (drives subject to buses and heavy trucks).
Table 6-1- Flexible Pavement Thickness Recommendations
Asphalt Surface Course 3 1.5
Asphalt Intermediate Course -- 2.5
Aggregate Base Course 6 8
Sufficient tests and evaluations should be performed during pavement installation to confirm the required
thickness, density, and quality requirements of the specifications are followed. Please note the asphalt pavement
thickness should not be deficient by more than 1/4 inch in any area. Also, to confirm the ABC course has been
uniformly compacted, in -place field density tests should be performed by a qualified Materials Technician, and the
area should be proofrolled under his or her evaluation.
To achieve the design performance period of 15 to 20 years, the pavements should be properly maintained,
including sealing temperature cracks as they occur, cleaning the pavement of debris, and patching any areas that
have deteriorated quicker than others. Our experience indicates that a thin surface overlay of asphalt pavement
may be required in about 7 to 10 years due to normal wear and weathering of the surface. Such wear is typically
visible in several forms of pavement distress; such as aggregate exposure and polishing, aggregate stripping,
asphalt bleeding, and various types of cracking. There are means to methodically estimate the remaining
pavement life based on a systematic statistical evaluation of pavement distress density and mode of failure. We
recommend the pavement be evaluated in about 7 years after construction to assess the pavement condition and
remaining life.
July 25, 2019 10

Subsurface Exploration
AVL Parking Lots
Fletcher, South Carolina 111
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013 S
6.2 Rigid Pavements
Rigid pavements are typically constructed for areas entering and exiting the main roads and in areas where trucks
may turn around. The concrete should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi at 28 days and a
minimum flexural strength of 550 psi at 28 days. A minimum concrete pavement thickness of 8 inches is
recommended for heavy duty areas. We recommend a minimum of 6 inches of well -compacted Aggregate Base
Course (ABC) underlie the concrete pavement. This layer will help provide additional support, provide drainage
and will help with the long-term performance of the concrete pavements when subjected to freeze -thaw actions.
6.3 Subgrade and Drainage
Pavement performance is highly dependent on the subgrade condition. Drainage will have a major impact on
this. Design should not result in water standing on the pavement surface or behind curbing. Design should also
result in positive drainage being available from the stone base material.
The performance of the flexible and rigid pavement will be influenced by a number of factors including the actual
condition of subgrade soils at the time of pavement installation, installed thickness, compaction, and drainage.
The subgrade soils should be re-evaluated by proofrolling immediately prior to pavement construction and after
any unstable areas have been repaired. This recommendation is important to the long-term performance of the
pavements. Areas adjacent to pavements, such as embankments, landscaped islands, ditching, etc., which can
drain water (rainwater or sprinklers) should be designed to prevent water seepage below the pavements. This
could require the use of subdrains (French drains) or swales. Sufficient tests and inspections should be performed
during pavement installation to confirm the required thickness, density, and quality requirements of the
specifications are followed.
If pavement installation is performed in wet weather (although this is not recommended), special care will be
needed. Our experience is that pavement installation over wet subgrade soils and crushed stone will significantly
reduce the pavement's life.
7.0 Limitations of Report
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice for
specific application to this project. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based
upon applicable standards of our practice in this geographic area at the time this report was prepared. No other
representation or warranty, either expressed or implied, is made.
We relied on project information given to us to develop our conclusions and recommendations. If project
information described in this report is not accurate, or if it changes during project development, we should be
notified of the changes so that we can modify our recommendations based on this additional information if
necessary.
Our conclusions and recommendations are based on limited data from a field exploration program. Subsurface
conditions can vary widely between explored areas. Some variations may not become evident until construction.
July 25, 2019 11

Subsurface Exploration
AVL Parking Lots
=0
Fletcher, South Carolina I I I
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013
If conditions are encountered which appear different than those described in our report, we should be notified.
This report should not be construed to represent subsurface conditions for the entire site.
Unless specifically noted otherwise, our field exploration program did not include an assessment of regulatory
compliance, environmental conditions or pollutants, or presence of any biological materials (mold, fungi, bacteria).
If there is a concern about these items, other studies should be performed. S&ME can provide a proposal and
perform these services if requested.
We recommend that S&ME be provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications in
order to ensure earthwork recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented. The recommendations
in this report are contingent on S&ME's review of final plans and specifications followed by our observation and
monitoring of earthwork activities.
July 25, 2019 12

Appendix

VI
r
^
17a61H1t1i ������ I N���yiL
Y
�pl■, �11 A IWa=x=��1 �r MSKLY�=+l lkl�y�R�
AIRPORT ROAD _ _ .• �•
�..-
A-1 ® ® .. A-4 (' A-5r i
y "p
s -.
L 'A
ot
`"�N
1 ++■ a --
SOURCE: REMOTE PARKING ALTERNATIVES PROVIDED BYAVCON, INC. APRIL 2079
APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS
BORING LOCATION PLAN FIGURE NO.
I I AVL PARKING LOTS
FLETCHER, NORTH CAROLINA
S&ME PROJECT NO. 1441-19-013
DRAWN BY: JPT
DATE: 7/25/2019 1 CHECKED BY: MHM

LEGEND TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS
SOIL TYPES (USCS CLASSIFICATION)
(Shown in Graphic Log)
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
CONSISTENCY
Fill
Very Soft
Soft
Asphalt Firm
Stiff
Concrete Very Stiff
Hard
Very Hard
Topsoil
STD. PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
BLOWS/FOOT
0to2
3to4
5to8
9 to 15
16 to 30
31 to 50
Over 50
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS
Gravel (GW, GM, GP)
STD. PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
Sand (SW, SP)
RELATIVE DENSITY BLOWS/FOOT
Very Loose 0 to 4
Silt (ML)
Loose 5 to 10
Medium Dense 11 to 30
Dense 31 to 50
Clay (CL, CH)
Very Dense Over 50
Organic (OL, OH)
SAMPLER TYPES CONSTITUENT MODIFIERS
(Shown in Samples Column) Trace: <5%0
Silty Sand (SM)
Few: 5 to <15 /o
Shelby Tube
Little: 15 to <30%
Clayey Sand (SC)
❑ Split Spoon Some: 30 to <50%
Mostly: 50 to 100 /o
Sandy Silt (ML)
m Rock Core
❑ No Recovery
Clayey Silt (MH)
TERMS
Sandy Clay (CL, CH)
Standard - The Number of Blows of 140 lb. Hammer Falling
Penetration 30 in. Required to Drive 1.4 in. I.D. Split Spoon
Silty Clay (CL, CH)
Resistance Sampler 1 Foot. As Specified in ASTM D-1586.
Partially Weathered
REC - Total Length of Rock Recovered in the Core
Rock
Barrel Divided by the Total Length of the Core
Run Times 100%.
Cored Rock
WATER LEVELS
(Shown in Water Level Column)
�Z = Water Level At Termination of Boring
1 = Water Level Taken After 24 Hours
= Loss of Drilling Water
HC = Hole Cave
RQD - Total Length of Sound Rock Segments
Recovered that are Longer Than or Equal to 4"
(mechanical breaks excluded) Divided by the
Total Length of the Core Run Times 100%.
TOB - Termination of Boring
N.E. - Not Encountered
III

PROJECT: AVL Parking Lots
Fletcher, North Carolina
BORING LOG A-1
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013
NOTES:
CLIENT: AVCON Inc.
ELEVATION:
DATE DRILLED: 614119
BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50
WATER LEVEL: Not Encountered at TOB
DRILLER: Jordan Environmental LLC
CAVE-IN DEPTH: NIA
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic
LOGGED BY: P. Patton
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Au er
w
z0
w
0 }/
BLOW COUNT
CORE DATA
SPT N-Value (bpf) •
=
H=
W w
U
C9
Q 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~
� w
w ~
-J
z w C3
FINES % A
w
Q
o
Q
Lijw
ii
Q
PL NM ILL
Z
Q
o
U)
cq c:5
10 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
ROOTMAT - 2 inches
RESIDUUM: SANDY SILT (ML) -very stiff, tan
1
6
9
10
19
brown, fine, trace mica, moist
2
7
8
12
20
5
3
5
9
10
19
SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense, tan
brown, fine to medium, trace mica, moist
4
6
10
13
23
10
Boring terminated at 10 feet
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORbANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1

PROJECT: AVL Parking Lots
Fletcher, North Carolina
BORING LOG A-2
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013
CLIENT: AVCON Inc.
ELEVATION:
NOTES: Bulk sample obtained from 1 to 6 feet
DATE DRILLED: 614119
BORING DEPTH: 15.0 ft
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50
WATER LEVEL: Not Encountered at TOB
DRILLER: Jordan Environmental LLC
CAVE-IN DEPTH: NIA
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic
LOGGED BY: P. Patton
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Au er
U
>
w
z0
w
0 }/
BLOW COUNT
CORE DATA
SPT N-Value (bpf) •
=
H=
W w
C9
Q o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~
� w
w ~
-J
z w C3
FINES % A
w
Q
o
Q
Lijw
ii
Q
PL NM ILL
Z
Q
U)
o
cq c:5
10 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
ROOTMAT - 2 inches
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM) - loose, brown tan,
1
6
2
2
4
fine to coarse, trace clay, moist
sample 1 had no recovery
sample 2 had a large piece of wood
3
1
2
2
3
5
RESIDUUM: SANDY SILT (ML) - stiff to very
stiff, tan brown, fine, moist
3
2
6
6
12
sample 5 was micaceous
4
3
4
5
9
10
5
3
9
10
19
15
Boring terminated at 15 feet
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
z BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORbANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1

PROJECT: AVL Parking Lots
Fletcher, North Carolina
BORING LOG A-3
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013
NOTES: Bulk sample obtained from 1 to 6 feet
CLIENT: AVCON Inc.
ELEVATION:
DATE DRILLED: 614119
BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50
WATER LEVEL: Not Encountered at TOB
DRILLER: Jordan Environmental LLC
CAVE-IN DEPTH: NIA
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic
LOGGED BY: P. Patton
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Au er
w
z0
w
0 }/
BLOW COUNT
CORE DATA
SPT N-Value (bpf) •
=
H=
W w
U
C9
Q 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~
� w
w ~
�
z w 0
FINES %
w
D
Q
o
Q
w
ii
Q
PL NM ILL
Z
Q
o
U)
cq c:5
10 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
ROOTMAT - 2 inches
RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - loose to
1
3
4
5
9
medium dense, tan brown, fine to coarse,
sample 1 contained trace roots and trace clay
sample 2 contained trace clay and trace mica
6
4
4
2
$
5
3
4
5
6
11
4
3
4
6
10
10
Boring terminated at 10 feet
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
z BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORbANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1

PROJECT: AVL Parking Lots
Fletcher, North Carolina
BORING LOG A-4
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013
NOTES:
CLIENT: AVCON Inc.
ELEVATION:
DATE DRILLED: 614119
BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50
WATER LEVEL: Not Encountered at TOB
DRILLER: Jordan Environmental LLC
CAVE-IN DEPTH: NIA
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic
LOGGED BY: P. Patton
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Au er
>
w
z0
w
0 }/
BLOW COUNT
CORE DATA
SPT N-Value (bpf) •
=
H=
W w
U
C9
Q 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~
� w
w ~
-J
z w C3
FINES % A
w
Q
o
Q
Lijw
ii
Q
PL NM ILL
Z
Q
o
U)
cq c:5
10 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
ROOTMAT - 2 inches
RESIDUUM: SANDY SILT (ML) -stiff, tan
1
3
4
5
9
brown, fine, trace mica
2
6
5
4
9
5
SANDY SILT (ML) - stiff, red brown, fine to
medium, trace mica, trace clay, moist
3
3
5
8
13
4
4
6
8
14
10
Boring terminated at 10 feet
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORbANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1

PROJECT: AVL Parking Lots
Fletcher, North Carolina
BORING LOG A-5
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013
CLIENT: AVCON Inc.
ELEVATION:
NOTES: Bulk sample obtained from 1 to 6 feet
DATE DRILLED: 614119
BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50
WATER LEVEL: Not Encountered at TOB
DRILLER: Jordan Environmental LLC
CAVE-IN DEPTH: NIA
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic
LOGGED BY: P. Patton
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Au er
U
>
w
z0
w
0 }/
BLOW COUNT
CORE DATA
SPT N-Value (bpf) •
=
H=
W w
C9
Q 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~
� w
w ~
-J
z w C3
FINES % A
w
Q
o
Q
Lijw
ii
Q
PL NM ILL
Z
Q
U)
o
cq c:5
10 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
ROOTMAT - 2 inches
RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - loose to
1
3
3
4
medium dense, tan brown, fine to coarse
sample 2 contained trace rocks
2
10
5
6
11
5
SANDY SILT (ML) - firm to stiff, red brown,
fine to medium, trace mica, trace clay, moist
3
2
2
4
s
4
2
4
6
10
10
Boring terminated at 10 feet
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
z BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORbANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1

PROJECT: AVL Parking Lots
Fletcher, North Carolina
BORING LOG B-1
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013
NOTES: Bulk sample obtained from 1 to 6 feet
CLIENT: AVCON Inc.
ELEVATION:
DATE DRILLED: 614119
BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50
WATER LEVEL: Not Encountered at TOB
DRILLER: Jordan Environmental LLC
CAVE-IN DEPTH: NIA
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic
LOGGED BY: P. Patton
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Au er
>
w
z0
w
0 }/
BLOW COUNT
CORE DATA
SPT N-Value (bpf) •
=
H=
W w
U
C9
Q 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~
� w
w ~
-J
z w C3
FINES % A
w
Q
o
Q
w
ii
Q
PL NM ILL
Z
Q
o
U)
cq c:5
10 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
CRUSHED STONE - 3 inches
RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - loose to
1
5
5
5
10
medium dense, brown red, fine to coarse, trace
rock pieces
2
11
8
8
16
5
3
5
5
5
10
4
3
6
5
11
10
Boring terminated at 10 feet
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
z BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORbANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1

PROJECT: AVL Parking Lots
Fletcher, North Carolina
BORING LOG B-2
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013
NOTES: Bulk sample obtained from 1 to 6 feet
CLIENT: AVCON Inc.
ELEVATION:
DATE DRILLED: 614119
BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50
WATER LEVEL: Not Encountered at TOB
DRILLER: Jordan Environmental LLC
CAVE-IN DEPTH: NIA
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic
LOGGED BY: P. Patton
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Au er
w
z0
w
0 }/
BLOW COUNT
CORE DATA
SPT N-Value (bpf) •
=
H=
W w
U
C9
Q 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~
� w
w ~
-J
z w C3
FINES % A
w
Q
o
Q
w
0-
Q
PL NM ILL
Z
Q
o
U)
cq c:5
10 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
CRUSHED STONE - 3 inches
RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - medium
1
5
7
10
17
dense, brown red, fine to coarse
2
17
11
11
22
5
3
7
10
13
23
4
6
10
18
28
10
Boring terminated at 10 feet
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
z BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORbANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1

a
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA
AVL Parking Lots
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1441-19-013
44 Buck Shoals Road, Suite C-3
Arden, NC 28704
828.687.9080
Boring Number
Sample
ID
Sam le
P
Depth
(feet)
USCS
Symbol
Percent
Finer #200
Sieve
(%)
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%)
Atterberg Limits
Modified Proctor
CBR
N
LL
N
PL
N
PI
N
MDD
(Pcfl
OMC
N
A-2
SS
3.5 - 5.0
SM
23.5
A-5
SS
1.0 - 2.5
SM
18.8
B-2
SS
1.0 - 2.5
SM
13.1
A-2/A-3 Combined
Bulk
1.0 - 6.0
SM
45.8
39.0
29.0
10.0
120.3
12.4
6.4
A-5/A-3 Combined
Bulk
1.0 - 6.0
SM
41.9
40.0
29.0
11.0
118.9
13.0
6.6
B-2/B-1 Combined
Bulk
1.0 - 6.0
SM
48.6
40.0
30.0
10.0
121.5
12.1
3.7
TOTAL QUANTITIES:
3
3
3 -T
3
3
Notes:
USCS = Unified Soil Classification System
LL = Liquid Limit
PL = Plastic Limit
PI = Plasticity Index
MDD = Maximum Dry Density
OMC = Optimum Moisture Content
pcf = pounds per cubic foot
CBR = California Bearing Ratio (samples were remolded to 95% of MDD, near OMC)

Form No: TR-D2216-T265-1 LABORATORY DETERMINATION OF
Revision No.1 WATER CONTENT
Revision Date: 08/16/17
ASTM D 2276 0 AASHTO T 265 ❑
S&ME, Inc. Charlotte: 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28273
Project #: 1441-19-013
Report Date: 7/3/19
Project Name: AVL Parking Lot Test Date(s): 6/13-14/19
Client Name: AVCON
Client Address: 13801 Reese Boulevard, Huntersville, NC 28078
Sample by: Driller Sample Date(s): 6/3/19
Sampling Method: NI Drill Rig : NI
Method: A (1%) ❑ B (o.1%)
Balance ID. 20233 Calibration Date: 9/25/18
�
Oven ID. 10844 Calibration Date: 9/25/18
:• •
•Sample
Tare"TTeight'PDepth
Wet Wt
Dry Wt
Weight
ercent
Moisture
/ Deviations / References
ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
Juan Cruz NICET #147806 6/14/2019
Technician Name Si atur Certification Type/No. Date
Jordan Titus, P.E. Project Engineer neer 7/3/2019
Technicat Responsibitity Signature Position Date
S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road 1441-19-013 6-3-19 Moistures.xlsm
Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of 4

Form No. TR-D1883-Tl93-3 CBR (CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO)
Revision No. 2 �
OF LABORATORY COMPACTED SOIL
Revision Date: 08/11/17 III E
ASTM D 7883
S&ME, Inc. Charlotte: 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28273
Project #: 1441-19-013 Report Date: 6/29/19
Project Name: AVL Parking Lots Test Date(s) 6/13-28/19
Client Name: AVCON
Client Address: 13801 Reese Boulevard, Huntersville, NC 28078
Boring #: A-2, A-3 Combined Sample #: Bulk Sample Date: 6/3/19
Location: NI Offset: NI Elevation: 1-6'
Sample Description: Brown Tan Silty Coarse to Fine Sand (SM) w/Mica
ASTM D1557 Method A Maximum Dry Density: 120.3 PCF Optimum Moisture Content: 12.4%
% Retained on the 3/4" sieve: 0.0%
Uncorrected CBR Values
Corrected CBR Values
CBR at 0.1 in. 6.4
CBR at 0.2 in. 7.4
CBR at 0.1 in. 6.4
CBR at 0.2 in. 7.4
200.0
a
y
100.0
r
0.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Strain( inches)
CBR Sample Preparation:
The entire gradation was used and compacted in a 6" CBR mold in accordance with
Before Soaking
After Soaking
Compactive Effort (Blows per Layer)
33
Initial Dry Density (PCF)
114.0
Final Dry Density (PCF)
111.0
Moisture Content of the Compacted Specimen
12.9%
Moisture Content (top 1" after soaking)
22.7%
Percent Compaction
94.8%
Percent Swell
2.8%
Soak Time: 96 Hrs. Surcharge Weight 10.0 Surcharge Wt. per sq. Ft. 50.9
Liquid Limit 39 Plastic Index 10 Apparent Relative Density 2.650
Notes/Deviations/References:
Top 1" of sample very soft after soaking
Jordan Titus, P.E.Project Engineer 7/3/2019
Technical Responsibility Signature Position Date
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.
S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road 1441-19-013 A-2,A-3 Bulk (1-6) CBR .xlsx
Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of]

Form No. TR-D422-3 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOIL
Revision No. 2 r •
Revision Date: 08/29/17 III
ASTM D422
S&ME, Inc. Charlotte: 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28273
S&ME Project #:
1441-19-013
Report Date:
6/28/19
Project Name:
AVL Parking Lots
Test Date(s):
6/13-19/19
Client Name:
AVCON
Address:
13801 Reese Boulevard, Huntersville, NC 28078
Boring #:
A-2, A-3 Combined Sample #: Bulk
Sample Date:
6/3/19
Location:
NI Offset: NI
Elevation:
1-6'
Sample Description: Brown Tan Silty Coarse to Fine Sand (SM) W/Mica
iIIIIIIII01111 IIVIIIIi1 11 11
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1�:1■■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111`►\■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
. , , , IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111■`\■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
' IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111■■\ ■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111■■■ \■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
' IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111■■■��1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
- IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111■■■■�\IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■
' ' IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111■■■■illll�■■■■1111�■■■■
-- , , IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111■■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111■■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111■■■■■Ill�i�\■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111■■■■■1111�■tom■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111■■■■■1111�■■\,■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111■■■■■1111�■■■ �1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111■■■■■1111�■■■�:�11�■■■■
' IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111■■■■■1111�■■■■111���■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111■■■■■1111�■■■■1111�\�\■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111■■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■��
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111■■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
Cobbles
< 300 mm (12") and > 75 mm (3")
Fine Sand
< 0.425 mm and > 0.075 mm (#200)
Gravel
< 75 mm and > 4.75 mm (#4)
Silt
< 0.075 and > 0.005 mm
Coarse Sand
< 4.75 mm and >2.00 mm (#10)
Clay
< 0.005 mm
Medium Sand
< 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm (#40)
Colloids
< 0.001 mm
Maximum Particle Size:
#4
Gravel: 0.3%
Silt
29.8%
Silt & Clay (% Passing #200):
45.8%
Total Sand: 53.9%
Clay
16.0%
imed Apparent Relative Density
2.650
Moisture Content 23.5%
Colloids
Liquid Limit
39
Plastic Limit 29
Plastic Index
10
Coarse Sand:
1.3%
Medium Sand: 14.7%
Fine Sand:
37.9%
Description of Sand and Gravel
Rounded ❑
Angular ❑x Hard & Durable ❑x Soft
❑ Weathered & Friable ❑x
Mechanical Stirring Apparatus A
Dispersion Period: 1 min. Dispersing Agent: Sodium Hexam eta phosphate:
40 g./ Liter
References / Comments / Deviations:
Jordan Titus, P.E.
Project Engineer
7/3/2019
Technical Responsibility
signature Position
Date
This report shalt not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.
S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road 1441-19-013 A-2,A-3 Bulk (1-6) Hydrometer.xlsx
Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of I

Form No. TR-D4318-T89-90 LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, ;
Revision No.1 & PLASTIC INDEX
Revision Date: 7/26/17 "1
ASTM D 4318 ❑x AASHTO T 89 ❑ AASHTO T 90 ❑
S&ME, Inc. Charlotte: 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28273
Project#: 1441-19-031 Report Date: 6/28/19
Project Name: AVL Parking Lot Test Date(s) 6/13-19/19
Client Name: AVCON
Client Address: 13801 Reese Boulevard Huntersville, NC 28078
Boring #: A-2, A-3 Combined Sample #: Bulk Sample Date: 6/3/19
Location: NI Offset: NI Elevation: 1-6'
Sample Description: Brown Tan Silty Coarse to Fine Sand (SM) w/Mica
Type and Specification S&ME ID # Cal Date: Type and Specification S&ME ID # Cal Date:
Balance (0.01 g) 3222 7/30/2018 Grooving tool 30339 10/23/2018
LL Apparatus 30336 2/22/2019 Grooving tool
Oven 10844 9/23/2018 Grooving tool
Pan #
Tare #:
Liquid
Limit
Plastic Limit
J23
J24
J26
J54
J56
A
Tare Weight
14.19
14.02
14.01
14.02
14.04
B
Wet Soil Weight + A
25.20
25.01
25.90
20.35
20.44
C
Dry Soil Weight + A
22.29
21.98
22.46
18.93
19.03
D
Water Weight (B-C)
2.91
3.03
3.44
1.42
1.41
E
Dry Soil Weight (C-A)
8.10
7.96
8.45
4.91
4.99
F
% Moisture (D/E)*100
35.9%
38.1%
40.7%
28.9%
28.3%
N
# OF DROPS
32
27
19
Moisture Contents determined by
ASTM D 2216
LL
LL = F * FACTOR
Ave.
I Average
28.6%
45.0
°
40.0
°
° 35.0
e
30.0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
100
One Point
Liquid Limit
N
Factor
N
Factor
20
0.974
26
1.005
21
0.979
27
1.009
22
0.985
28
1.014
23
0.99
29
1.018
24
0.995
30
1.022
25
1.000
NP, Non -Plastic ❑
Liquid Limit 39
Plastic Limit 29
Plastic Index 10
Group Symbol SM
# of
Drops
Multipoint Method 0
VI e-poh IL IVICII IUU U
Wet Preparation ❑ Dry Preparation El Air Dried El -stimate the % Retained on the #40 Sieve:
Notes / Deviations / References:
ND: Not Determined NI: No Information Provided
ASTM D 4318: Liquid Limit Plastic Limit & Plastic Index of Soils
Sandra Colley 6/19/2019 Jordan Titus, P.E. 7/3/2019
Technician Name Date Technical Responsibility Date
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.
S&ME, INC. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road 1441-19-013 A-2,A-3 Bulk (1-6) PI .xlsx
Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of I

Form No. TR-D698-2 MOISTURE - DENSITY REPORT '
Revision No.: 1
Revision Date: 07/25/17 1 1 I E
Quality Assurance
S&ME, Inc. Charlotte: 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28273
S&ME Project #:
1441-19-013
Report Date:
6/28/19
Project Name:
AVL Parking Lot
Test Date(s):
6/13-18/19
Client Name:
Client Address:
AVCON
13801 Reese Blvd., Huntersville, NC 28078
Boring #:
A-2, A-3 Combined Sample #: Bulk
Sample Date:
6/3/2019
Location:
NI Offset: NI
Depth:
1-6'
Sample Description: Brown Tan Silty Coarse to Fine Sand (SM) w/Mica
Maximum Dry Density 120.3 PCF. Optimum Moisture Content 12.4%
ASTM 11/557 _ _ Methnd d
Moisture Density Relations of Soil and Soil Aggregate Mixtures
130.0
Soil Properties
Natural
Moisture 23.5%
Content
Specific
Gravity of Soil
Liquid Limit 39
Plastic Limit 29
Plastic Index 10
125.0
---
---
2.65
—
---
w
120.0
---
—�=� —
---
— �=�
— —
—
---
% Passing
3/4" 100.0%
#4 99.7%
#40 83.6%
#60 71.2%
#700 58.7%
#200 45.8%
Oversize Fraction
—
---
per,
a)115.0
---
---
---
Q
1
110.0
1
1
105.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Moisture Content (%)
Moisture -Density Curve Displayed: Fine Fraction 0 Corrected for Oversize Fraction (ASTM D 4718) ❑
Sieve Size used to separate the Oversize Fraction: #4 Sieve 0 3/8 inch Sieve ❑ 3/4 inch Sieve ❑
Mechanical Rammer 0 Manual Rammer ❑ Moist Preparation ❑ Dry Preparation I]
References/Comments/Deviations: ND: Not Determined NI: No Information Provided
ASTM D 1557: Laborator
on Characteristics,of,Soij)�sir)gModified Effort
Jordan Titus, P.E. Gam(/ Project Engineer 7/3/2019
Technical Responsibility Signature Position Date
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.
S&ME,Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road 1441-19-013 A-2,A-3 Bulk (1-6) Proctor .xlsx
Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of I

Form No. TR-D1883-Tl93-3 CBR (CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO)
Revision No. 2 �
OF LABORATORY COMPACTED SOIL
Revision Date: 08/11/17 III E
ASTM D 7883
S&ME, Inc. Charlotte: 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28273
Project #: 1441-19-013 Report Date: 6/29/19
Project Name: AVL Parking Lots Test Date(s) 6/24-29/19
Client Name: AVCON
Client Address: 13801 Reese Boulevard, Huntersville, NC 28078
Boring #: A-5, A-3 Combined Sample #: Bulk Sample Date: 6/3/19
Location: NI Offset: NI Elevation: 1-6'
Sample Description: Brown Tan Silty Coarse to Fine Sand (SM) w/Mica
ASTM D1557 Method A Maximum Dry Density: 118.9 PCF Optimum Moisture Content: 13.0%
% Retained on the 3/4" sieve: 0.0%
Uncorrected CBR Values
Corrected CBR Values
:' at 0.1 in. ..
CBR at 0.2 in. 7.6
CBR at 0.1 in. ..
CBR at 1
1 11 1 1 I I 1 1 11 1 1
Before Soaking
After Soaking
Compactive Effort (Blows per Layer)
Initial Dry .-
Dry .-
Moisture Content of the Compacted Specimen
Moisture Content (top 1 " after soaking)
Percent Compaction
•.Percent
Swell•.
Soak Time: 96 Hrs. Surcharge Weight 10.0 Surcharge Wt. per sq. Ft. 50.8
Liquid Limit 40 Plastic Index 11 Apparent Relative Density 2.650
Notes/Deviations/References:
Top 1" of sample very soft after soaking.
Jordan Titus, P.E. Y,✓L— ('� Project Engineer 7/3/2019
Technical Responsibility Signature Position Date
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.
S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road 1441-19-013 A-5,A-3 Bulk (1-6) CBR .xlsx
Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of]

Form No. TR-D422-3 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOIL
Revision No. 2
Revision Date: 08/29/17 I I I
ASTM D422
S&ME, Inc. Charlotte: 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28273
S&ME Project#: 1441-19-013 Report Date: 6/28/19
Project Name: AVL Parking Lots Test Date(s): 6/13-19/19
Client Name: AVCON
Address: 13801 Reese Boulevard, Huntersville, NC 28078
Boring #: A-5, A-3 Combined Sample #: Bulk Sample Date: 6/3/19
Location: NI Offset: NI Elevation: 1-6'
Sample Description: Brown Tan Silty Coarse to Fine Sand (SM) w/Mica
' IIII�■r■■�Iliiili:���M11�■■■�IIr1�■■■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■Illi�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�► ■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
. , , IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■1\■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
' IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■\■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■17■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■.�1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
- , , , , IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■\�1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■�,1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
-, , IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■��111�■■■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■11�!■�■■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111����■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■\�1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■\\IIII�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■`IIII�■■■■
' IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■li:!�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111����■
' IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■\'�
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
Cobbles
< 300 mm (12") and > 75 mm (3")
Fine Sand
< 0.425 mm and > 0.075 mm (#200)
Gravel
< 75 mm and > 4.75 mm (#4)
Silt
< 0.075 and > 0.005 mm
Coarse Sand
< 4.75 mm and >2.00 mm (#10)
Clay
< 0.005 mm
Medium Sand
< 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm (#40)
Colloids
< 0.001 mm
Maximum Particle Size:
3/8"
Gravel:
1.4%
Silt
26.9%
Silt & Clay (% Passing #200):
41.9%
Total Sand:
56.8%
Clay
15.0%
umed Apparent Relative Density
2.650
Moisture Content
18.8%
Colloids
Liquid Limit
40
Plastic Limit
29
Plastic Index
11
Coarse Sand:
1.2%
Medium Sand:
10.6%
Fine Sand:
44.9%
Description of Sand and Gravel
Rounded ❑ Angular ❑x Hard & Durable
❑x
Soft ❑ Weathered & Friable ❑x
Mechanical Stirring Apparatus A
Dispersion Period:
1 min. Dispersing Agent: Sodium H exam eta phosphate:
40 g./ Liter
References / Comments /Deviations:
l
Jordan Titus, P.E. Project Engineer 7/3/2019
Technical Responsibility Signature Position Date
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.
S&A&, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road 1441-19-013 A-5,A-3 Bulk (1-6) Hydrometer.xlsx
Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of]

Form No. TR-D4318-T89-90 LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT,
Revision No.1 & PLASTIC INDEX
Revision Date: 7/26/17
ASTM D 4318 ❑x AASHTO T 89 ❑ AASHTO T 90 ❑
S&ME, Inc. Charlotte: 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28273
Project #: 1441-19-031 Report Date: 6/29/19
Project Name: AVL Parking Lot Test Date(s) 6/13-17/19
Client Name: AVCON
Client Address: 13801 Reese Boulevard Huntersville, NC 28078
Boring #: A-5, A-3 Combined Sample #: Bulk Sample Date: 6/3/19
Location: NI Offset: NI Elevation: 1-6'
Sample Description: Brown Tan Silty Coarse to Fine Sand (SM) w/Mica
Type and Specification S&ME ID # Cal Date: Type and Specification S&ME ID # Cal Date:
Balance (0.01 g) 3222 7/30/2018 Grooving tool 30339 10/23/2018
LL Apparatus 30336 2/22/2019 Grooving tool
Oven 10844 9/23/2018 Grooving tool
Pan #
Tare #:
Liquid
Limit
Plastic Limit
J32
J37
J38
J7
J17
A
Tare Weight
14.04
13.98
14.03
14.20
14.07
B
Wet Soil Weight + A
24.07
25.23
24.08
20.51
20.25
C
Dry Soil Weight + A
21.23
21.95
21.10
19.09
18.83
p
Water Weight (B-C)
2.84
3.28
2.98
1.42
1.42
E
Dry Soil Weight (C-A)
7.19
7.97
7.07
4.89
4.76
F
% Moisture (D/E)*100
39.5%
41.2%
42.1%
29.0%
29.8%
N
# OF DROPS
28
21
15
Moisture Contents determined by
ASTM D 2276
LL
LL = F * FACTOR
Ave.
Average
29.4%
50.0
+' 45.0
c
U
44
40.0
0 35.0
30.0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
100
One Point
Liquid Limit
N
Factor
N
Factor
20
0.974
26
1.005
21
0.979
27
1.009
22
0.985
28
1.014
23
0.99
29
1.018
24
0.995
30
1.022
25
1.000
NP, Non -Plastic ❑
Liquid Limit 40
Plastic Limit 29
Plastic Index 11
Group Symbol SM
#of
Drops
Multipoint Method L
Wet Preparation Dry Preparation ✓ Air Dried ✓ Estimate the % Retained on the #40 Sieve:
Notes / Deviations /References:
ND: Not Determined NI: No Information Provided
ASTM D 4318: Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, & Plastic Index of Soils
Sandra Colley 6/17/2019 Jordan Titus, P.E. 7/3/2019
Technician Name Date Technical Responsibility Date
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.
S&ME, INC. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road 1441-19-013 A-5,A-3 Bulk (1-6) PI .xlsx
Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of I

Form No. TR-D698-2 MOISTURE - DENSITY REPORT '
Revision No.: 1
III
Revision Date: 07/25/17
u
Quality Assurance
S&ME, Inc. Charlotte: 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28273
S&ME Project #:
1441-19-013
Report Date:
6/29/19
Project Name:
AVL Parking Lot
Test Date(s):
6/13-18/19
Client Name:
AVCON
Client Address:
13801 Reese Blvd., Huntersville, NC 28078
Boring #:
A-5, A-3 Combined Sample #: Bulk
Sample Date:
6/3/2019
Location:
NI Offset: NI
Depth:
1-6'
Sample Description: Brown Tan Silty Coarse to Fine Sand (SM) w/Mica
Maximum Dry Density 118.9 PCF. Optimum Moisture Content 13.0%
ASTM D 1557 - - Method A
Moisture -Density Relations of Soil and Soil Aggregate Mixtures
130.0
Soil Properties
Natural
Moisture 18.8%
Content
Specific
ND
Gravity of Soil
Liquid Limit 40
Plastic Limit 29
Plastic Index 11
125.0
---
—
2.65
---
---
U120.0
--
--
---
---
% Passing
3/4" 100.0%
#4 98.6%
#70 97.5%
#20 95.5%
#40 86.8%
#60 70.3%
#700 55.1%
#200 41.9%
Oversize Fraction
a
\
115.0
---
---
Q
\
110.0
---
---
a
\
105.0
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Moisture Content (%)
Moisture -Density Curve Displayed: Fine Fraction 0 Corrected for Oversize Fraction (ASTM D 4718) ❑
Sieve Size used to separate the Oversize Fraction: #4 Sieve 0 3/8 inch Sieve ❑ 3/4 inch Sieve ❑
Mechanical Rammer 0 Manual Rammer ❑ Moist Preparation ❑ Dry Preparation I]
References/Comments/Deviations: ND: Not Determined NI: No Information Provided
ASTM D 1557: Laboraton
Faction Characteri<
cs of SA U/�ing Modified Effort
Jordan Titus, P.E. /-'I(—le'� Project Engineer 7/5/2019
Technical Responsibility Signature Position Date
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.
S&ME,Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road 1441-19-013 A-5,A-3 Bulk (1-6) Proctor .xlsx
Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of I

Form No. TR-D1 883-Tl 93-3 CBR (CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO)
Revision No. 2 OF LABORATORY COMPACTED SOIL
Revision Date: 08/11/17
ASTM D 7883
S&ME, Inc. Charlotte: 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28273
Project#: 1441-19-013 Report Date: 6/29/19
Project Name: AVL Parking Lots Test Date(s) 6/24-29/19
Client Name: AVCON
Client Address: 13801 Reese Boulevard, Huntersville, NC 28078
Boring #: B-2, B-1 Combined Sample #: Bulk Sample Date: 6/3/19
Location: NI Offset: NI Elevation: 1-6'
Sample Description: Brown Red Silty Coarse to Fine Sand (SM) w/Mica
ASTM D7557 Method A Maximum Dry Density: 124.6 PCF Optimum Moisture Content: 11.1%
% Retained on the 3/4" sieve: 0.0%
Uncorrected CBR Values
Corrected CBR Values
:' at 0.1 in. 3.7
CBR at 0.2 in. 4.1
CBR at 0.1 in. 3.7
CBR at 1
Il�iwwws�wwws�wwwwwwwwwwwwww
1 11 I I � � I I 1• 1 I I
M.
Before Soaking
After Soaking
Compactive Effort (Blows per Layer)
al Dry .-
ensity (PCF)
al Dry DMoisture
Content of the Compacted Specimen
Moisture Content (top 1 " after soaking)
Percent Compaction
Percent Swell
Time: 96 Hrs
Liquid Limit 40
Notes/Deviations/References:
Top 1" of sample very soft after soaking
Surcharge Weight 10.0 Surcharge Wt. per sq. Ft. 50.9
Plastic Index 10 Apparent Relative Density 2.650
Jordan Titus, P.E. Project Engineer 7/5/2019
Technical Responsibility Signature Position Date
This report shaft not be reproduced, except in full without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.
S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road 1441-19-013 B-2,B-1 Bulk (1-6) CBR .xlsx
Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of]

Form No. TR-D422-3 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOIL
Revision No. 2 r •
Revision Date: 08/29/17 III
ASTM D422
S&ME, Inc. Charlotte: 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28273
S&ME Project #:
1441-19-013
Report Date:
6/28/19
Project Name:
AVL Parking Lots
Test Date(s):
6/13-19/19
Client Name:
AVCON
Address:
13801 Reese Boulevard, Huntersville, NC 28078
Boring #:
B-2, B-1 Combined Sample #: Bulk
Sample Date:
6/3/19
Location:
NI Offset: NI
Elevation:
1-6'
Sample Description: Brown Red Silty Coarse to Fine Sand (SM) w/Mica
iIIIIIIII01111 IIVIIIIi1 11 11
' ' I111�■r■\r1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■�71111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
' IIII�■■■��Iii:���_■1111�■■■■11111■■■■1111�■■■■
. , , , IIII�■■■■1111�■■��!�II�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
' IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■Illi:�■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■\`�■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■r�1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
- , , , IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■�1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■
' IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■11`��■■■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111��■■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■ \■■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■��■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■\,■1111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■��1111�■■■■
' IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■�!111�■■■■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■111��\■■■
' IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■��■
IIII�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■■1111�■■■�7
Cobbles
< 300 mm (12") and > 75 mm (3")
Fine Sand
< 0.425 mm and > 0.075 mm (#200)
Gravel
< 75 mm and > 4.75 mm (#4)
Silt
< 0.075 and > 0.005 mm
Coarse Sand
< 4.75 mm and >2.00 mm (#10)
Clay
< 0.005 mm
Medium Sand
< 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm (#40)
Colloids
< 0.001 mm
Maximum Particle Size:
1/2"
Gravel: 13.1%
Silt
36.1%
Silt & Clay (% Passing #200):
48.6%
Total Sand: 38.3%
Clay
12.5%
imed Apparent Relative Density
2.650
Moisture Content 13.1 %
Colloids
Liquid Limit
40
Plastic Limit 30
Plastic Index
10
Coarse Sand:
3.4%
Medium Sand: 7.7%
Fine Sand:
27.3%
Description of Sand and Gravel
Rounded ❑
Angular ❑x Hard & Durable ❑x Soft
❑ Weathered & Friable ❑x
Mechanical Stirring Apparatus A
Dispersion Period: 1 min. Dispersing Agent: Sodium Hexam eta phosphate:
40 g./ Liter
References / Comments / Deviations:
Jordan Titus, P.E.
Project Engineer
7/5/2019
Technical Responsibility
Signature Position
Date
This report shalt not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.
S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road 1441-19-013 B-2,B-1 Bulk (1-6) Hydrometer.xlsx
Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of I

Form No. TR-D4318-T89-90 LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, ;
Revision No.1 & PLASTIC INDEX
Revision Date: 7/26/17 "1
ASTM D 4318 ❑x AASHTO T 89 ❑ AASHTO T 90 ❑
S&ME, Inc. Charlotte: 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28273
Project#: 1441-19-031 Report Date: 6/28/19
Project Name: AVL Parking Lot Test Date(s) 6/13-19/19
Client Name: AVCON
Client Address: 13801 Reese Boulevard Huntersville, NC 28078
Boring #: B-2 Sample #: Bulk Sample Date: 6/3/19
Location: NI Offset: NI Elevation: 1-6'
Sample Description: Brown Red Silty Coarse to Fine Sand (SM) w/Mica
Type and Specification S&ME ID # Cal Date: Type and Specification S&ME ID # Cal Date:
Balance (0.01 g) 3222 7/30/2018 Grooving tool 30339 10/23/2018
LL Apparatus 30336 2/22/2019 Grooving tool
Oven 10844 9/23/2018 Grooving tool
Pan #
Tare #:
Liquid
Limit
Plastic Limit
J19
J20
J21
J42
J43
A
Tare Weight
14.07
14.06
14.04
14.10
14.05
B
Wet Soil Weight + A
24.73
24.06
24.25
20.75
20.11
C
Dry Soil Weight + A
21.75
21.10
21.19
19.21
18.71
D
Water Weight (B-C)
2.98
2.96
3.06
1.54
1.40
E
Dry Soil Weight (C-A)
7.68
7.04
7.15
5.11
4.66
F
% Moisture (D/E)*100
38.8%
42.0%
42.8%
30.1%
30.0%
N
# OF DROPS
26
21
16
Moisture Contents determined by
ASTM D 2276
LL
LL = F * FACTOR
Ave.
I Average
30.1 %
50.0
45.0
'v
0
40.0
0
e 35.0
30.0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
100
One Point
Liquid Limit
N
Factor
N
Factor
20
0.974
26
1.005
21
0.979
27
1.009
22
0.985
28
1.014
23
0.99
29
1.018
24
0.995
30
1.022
25
1.000
NP, Non -Plastic ❑
Liquid Limit 40
Plastic Limit 30
Plastic Index 10
Group Symbol SM
# of
Drops
Multipoint Method 0
VI IC-IJUII IL Me Ll IVU U
Wet Preparation ❑ Dry Preparation El Air Dried El -stimate the % Retained on the #40 Sieve:
Notes / Deviations / References:
ND: Not Determined NI: No Information Provided
ASTM D 4318: Liquid Limit Plastic Limit & Plastic Index of Soils
Sandra Colley 6/19/2019 Jordan Titus, P.E. 7/5/2019
Technician Name Date Technical Responsibility Date
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.
S&ME, INC. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road 1441-19-013 B-2,B-1 Bulk (1-6) PI.xlsx
Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of I

Form No. TR-D698-2 MOISTURE - DENSITY REPORT '
Revision No.: 1
III
Revision Date: 07/25/17
u
Quality Assurance
S&ME, Inc. Charlotte: 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28273
S&ME Project #:
1441-19-013
Report Date:
6/29/19
Project Name:
AVL Parking Lot
Test Date(s):
6/13-19/19
Client Name:
AVCON
Client Address:
13801 Reese Blvd., Huntersville, NC 28078
Boring #:
B-2, B-1 Composite Sample #: Bulk
Sample Date:
6/3/2019
Location:
NI Offset: NI
Depth:
1-6'
Sample Description: Brown Red Silty Coarse to Fine Sand (SM) w/Mica
Maximum Dry Density 121.5 PCF. Optimum Moisture Content 12.1%
ASTM D 1557 - - Method A
Soil Properties
Moisture -Density Relations of Soil
and Soil Aggregate Mixtures
Natural
130.0
i
Moisture 13.1 %
Content
--- ---
--
---
---
Specific ND
Gravity of Soil
125.0 --- ---
2.65
--
---
Liquid Limit 40
Plastic Limit 30
Plastic Index 10
U120.0 ---
a
% Passing
3/4" 100.0%
_
___
#4 86.9%
Q 115.0 --- --- —�—
Q
#70 83.5%
#20 80.4%
#40 75.9%
---
1
#60 70.3%
#700 62.8%
--
---
110.0 --- ---
#200 45.6%
Oversize Fraction
105.0
Bulk Gravity 2.609
% Moisture 2.2%
0.0 5.0 10.0
15.0 20.0 25.0
% Oversize 9.7%
Moisture
Content (%)
MDD 124.6
Opt. MC 11.1 %
Moisture -Density Curve Displayed: Fine Fraction 0 Corrected for Oversize Fraction (ASTM D 4718) ❑
Sieve Size used to separate the Oversize Fraction: #4 Sieve 0 3/8 inch Sieve ❑ 3/4 inch Sieve ❑
Mechanical Rammer 0 Manual Rammer ❑ Moist Preparation ❑ Dry Preparation I]
References/Comments/Deviations: ND: Not Determined NI: No Information Provided
ASTM D 1557: Laboraton
Faction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort
Jordan Titus, P.E. /g-(Z,(,- Project Engineer 7/5/2019
Technical Responsibility Signature Position Date
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.
S&ME,Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road 1441-19-013 B-2,B-1 Bulk (1-6) Proctor .xlsx
Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of I

Laboratory Report Version 4.2
Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate
(Gravimetric Procedure) ASTM C 127 ❑x AASHTO T 85 ❑
Project #: 1441-19-013 Report Date:
Project Name: AVL Parking Lots Test Date(s)
Client Name: AVCON
Client Address: 13801 Reese Boulevard, Huntersville, NC 28078
Sample No. 13-2, B 1 Combined Sample from: NI
Source: NI Sampled by: Driller Sample Date: 6/3/19
Sample Description: Brown Red Silty Coarse to Fine Sand (SM) w/Mica
Percent of Soil Passing the 94 Sieve: Material Excluded:
Y2 separate total samples are tested. P1 and P2 become I and 2, and for the % enter 50 for each.
6/29/19
6/18-22/19
Test Grading:
IPl
1
IP2
Pl
P2
Mass % of each size fraction not including finer material
%
B
Mass of saturated -surface -dry test sample in air
grams
2856.7
C
Mass of test sample in water
grams
1785.4
t
Temperature of Water ASTM23.0 + 2 o C
23.0 + 1.7°C
23.6
Tare # or Pan #
#
Duke
x
Tare Weight
gums
335.9
y
Dry Mass of Sample + Tare Mass
grams
3131.0
A
Mass of Oven Dried Specimen
A = y - x
2795.1
Sd
Oven Dry (OD ): Bulk Specific Gravity
A/(B-C)
2.609
Sd
Relative Density (Specific Gravity) OD
Average
2.609
pw;
Density of Water at 23 °C
lbs./cu.ft.
62.27
Density (OD) (lbs./cu.ft.)
Sd x Pw;t
162.5
Ss
SSD: Bulk Specific Gravity (SSD)
B/(B-C)
2.667
Ss
Relative Density (Specific Gravity) SSD
Average
2.667
Density (SSD) (lbs./cu.ft.)
SS x Pw;t
166.1
Sa
Apparent Specific Gravity
A/(A-C)
2.768
Sa
Apparent Relative Density (Apparent Sp Gr)
Average
2.768
Apparent Density (lbs./cu.ft.)
Sa x Pw;t
172.4
A
Percent Absorption
100 x [(B-A)/A]
2.2%
A
Percent Absorption
Average
2.2%
Balance: S&ME ID#. 22182
Soaking Time ASTM C127: 24 +4 hrs.
Aggregate not initially dried
Class: GP2/G2 Readability. 0_1 g.
❑x AASHTO T85: 15 hrs. minimum ❑
❑ Aggregate in moist condition not soaked ❑
References: ASTM C127: Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate
ASTM C702: Practice for Reducing Samples of Aggregate to Testing Size ASTM D75: Practice for Sampling Aggregates
ASTM C 136: Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates NI = No information provided. ND = Not determined.
Technician Name: Karen Warner NICET #147806
s 't certifwation #
Technical Responsibility: Jordan Titus, P.E. Project Engineer
S-gnnhu-e Position
S&ME, INC. 9751 Southern Pine 13lvd.,1Qq:1r1 1NB-2RMI3uIk (1-6) Specific Gravilty .xlsx.xis

-a
11=
Field Testing Procedures
Soil Test Borings
All borings and sampling were conducted in accordance with ASTM D-1586 test method. Initially, the borings
were advanced by either mechanically augering or wash boring through the overburden soils. When necessary, a
heavy drilling fluid is used below the water table to stabilize the sides and bottom of the borehole. At regular
intervals, soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4-inch I.D., 2-inch O.D., split -barrel or split -spoon sampler.
The sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings and then driven an additional foot with
blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the
final foot is designated as the "Standard Penetration Resistance" or N-value. The penetration resistance, when
properly evaluated, can be correlated to consistency, relative density, strength and compressibility of the sampled
soils.
Water Level Readings
Water level readings are normally taken in conjunction with borings and are recorded on the Boring Logs
following termination of drilling (designated by - ) and at a period of 24 hours following termination of drilling
(designated by i ). These readings indicate the approximate location of the hydrostatic water table at the time of
our field exploration. The groundwater table may be dependent upon the amount of precipitation at the site
during a particular period of time. Fluctuations in the water table should also be expected with variations in
surface run-off, evaporation, construction activity and other factors.
Occasionally the boreholes sides will cave, preventing the water level readings from being obtained or trapping
drilling water above the cave-in zone. In these instances, the hole cave-in depth (designated by HC) is measured
and recorded on the Boring Logs. Water level readings taken during the field operations do not provide
information on the long-term fluctuations of the water table. When this information is required, piezometers are
installed to prevent the boreholes from caving.

Important Information About Your
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Variations in subsurface conditions can be a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns and claims.
The following information is provided to assist you in understanding and managing the risk of these variations.
Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
Opinions
Geotechnical engineers cannot specify material
properties as other design engineers do.
Geotechnical material properties have a far broader
range on a given site than any manufactured
construction material, and some geotechnical
material properties may change over time because
of exposure to air and water, or human activity.
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions at
the time of exploration and only at the points where
subsurface tests are performed or samples
obtained. Geotechnical engineers review field and
laboratory data and then apply their judgment to
render professional opinions about site subsurface
conditions. Their recommendations rely upon these
professional opinions. Variations in the vertical and
lateral extent of subsurface materials may be
encountered during construction that significantly
impact construction schedules, methods and
material volumes. While higher levels of subsurface
exploration can mitigate the risk of encountering
unanticipated subsurface conditions, no level of
subsurface exploration can eliminate this risk.
Scope of Geotechnical Services
Professional geotechnical engineering judgment is
required to develop a geotechnical exploration
scope to obtain information necessary to support
design and construction. A number of unique
project factors are considered in developing the
scope of geotechnical services, such as the
exploration objective; the location, type, size and
weight of the proposed structure; proposed site
grades and improvements; the construction
schedule and sequence; and the site geology.
Geotechnical engineers apply their experience with
construction methods, subsurface conditions and
exploration methods to develop the exploration
scope. The scope of each exploration is unique
based on available project and site information.
Incomplete project information or constraints on the
scope of exploration increases the risk of variations
in subsurface conditions not being identified and
addressed in the geotechnical report.
Services Are Performed for Specific
Projects
Because the scope of each geotechnical
exploration is unique, each geotechnical report is
unique. Subsurface conditions are explored and
recommendations are made for a specific project.
Subsurface information and recommendations may
not be adequate for other uses. Changes in a
proposed structure location, foundation loads,
grades, schedule, etc. may require additional
geotechnical exploration, analyses, and
consultation. The geotechnical engineer should be
consulted to determine if additional services are
required in response to changes in proposed
construction, location, loads, grades, schedule, etc.
Geo-Environmental Issues
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to
perform a geo-environ mental study differ
significantly from those used for a geotechnical
exploration. Indications of environmental
contamination may be encountered incidental to
performance of a geotechnical exploration but go
unrecognized. Determination of the presence, type
or extent of environmental contamination is beyond
the scope of a geotechnical exploration.
Geotechnical Recommendations Are Not
Final
Recommendations are developed based on the
geotechnical engineer's understanding of the
proposed construction and professional opinion of
site subsurface conditions. Observations and tests
must be performed during construction to confirm
subsurface conditions exposed by construction
excavations are consistent with those assumed in
development of recommendations. It is advisable
to retain the geotechnical engineer that performed
the exploration and developed the geotechnical
recommendations to conduct tests and
observations during construction. This may reduce
the risk that variations in subsurface conditions will
not be addressed as recommended in the
geotechnical report.
Portion obtained with permission from `Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report", ASFE, 2004
© S&ME, Inc. 2010