24020_Peerless Master Cleaners_OAR_20200123

ECS Southeast,, LLP
Geotechnical Engineering Report
500 Hillsborough
Hillsborough Street, South West Street, and West Morgan Street
Raleigh, North Carolina
ECS Project Number 06:24158
January 23, 2020

GC'Setting the Standard or Service"
ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP 9 f
Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental • Facilities NC Registered NC Registered GeoloEGeolo rigistt Fs firm C..06
irm
f 1o7s
u
SC Registered Engm—ing Firm 3250
January 23, 2020
Mr. Marston Smith
Dalian Development, LLC
1212 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 550
Washington, D.C. 20005
ECS Project No. 06:24158
Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Report
500 Hillsborough 13-Story Building
Hillsborough Street, South West Street, and West Morgan Street
Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Smith:
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS) has completed the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering
analyses for the above -referenced project. Our services were performed in general accordance with
ECS Proposal No. 06:21475-R2, dated October 24, 2019. This report presents our understanding of the
geotechnical aspects of the project, the results of the field exploration conducted, and our
geotechnical design and construction recommendations for the project.
ECS appreciates the opportunity to be of service to you during this phase of the project. If you or any
members of the project team have any questions or comments after reviewing this report, please
contact us. We welcome the opportunity to assist with the project through its design and construction
phases.
Respectfully submitted,
ECS Southeast, LLP
Parishad Rahbari, PhD
Geotechnical Staff Project Manager
[e-mail]
\A R
oOQ ;O� E S S /oe%oss
SQL �` •p m
19331
Glt��=o ve®••
Tom Schipporeit, P.E. v�°�. �' : �C�,\aAay
Principal Engineer
[e-mail]
9001 Glenwood Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27617-7505 * T: 919.861.9910 • F: 919,861.9911 • ecslimited.com
ECS Capitol Services, PLLC • ECS Florida, LLC + ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLP 9 ECS Southwest, LLP

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report
ECS Project No. 06:24158
TABLE OF CONTENTS
January 23, 2020
Page 1—i
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.............................................................................................................1
1 PROJECT INFORMATION.....................................................................................................3
1.1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION.............................................................................................3
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION...........................................................................................................3
1.3 PAST SITE HISTORY............................................................................................................3
1.4 CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS..............................................................................................4
1.5 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION..............................................................................................4
2 FIELD EXPLORATION...........................................................................................................5
2.1 SOIL TEST BORINGS...........................................................................................................5
3 LABORATORY TESTING.......................................................................................................6
4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.................................................................................................7
4.1 REGIONAL/SITE GEOLOGY.................................................................................................7
4.2 SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION....................................................................................7
4.3 GROUNDWATER................................................................................................................8
5 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................9
5.1 BUILDING/STRUCTURE DESIGN.........................................................................................9
5.1.1 Deep Foundations.....................................................................................................9
5.1.2 Floor Slabs...............................................................................................................14
5.1.3 Building Retaining Walls.........................................................................................16
5.1.4 Seismic Design........................................................................................................17
5.2 SLOPES.............................................................................................................................17
6 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................19
6.1 SUBGRADE PREPARATION...............................................................................................19
6.1.1 Previous Site Development....................................................................................19
6.1.2 Demolition..............................................................................................................19
6.1.3 Stripping and Grubbing...........................................................................................19
6.1.4 Proofrolling.............................................................................................................19
6.2 EARTHWORK OPERATIONS..............................................................................................20
6.2.1 Existing Fill..............................................................................................................20
6.2.2 Expansive Soils........................................................................................................21
6.2.3 Excavation Considerations......................................................................................21
6.2.4 Structural Fill Materials..........................................................................................22
6.2.5 Compaction.............................................................................................................23
7 CLOSING..........................................................................................................................25

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report
ECS Project No. 06:24158
APPENDICES
Appendix A — Drawings
• Site Location Diagram
• Boring Location Diagram
Appendix B — Field Operations
• Generalized Subsurface Profiles
• Boring Logs B-1 through B-7
• Reference Notes for Boring Logs
Appendix C — Laboratory Testing
• Laboratory Test Results Summary
Appendix D — Supplemental Report Documents and Calculations
• Laterally Loaded Pile Calculation Results
• Slope Stability Calculation Results
January 23, 2020
Page 1—ii

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report January 23, 2020
ECS Project No. 06:24158 Page 1
:►3:1411111 W :Mll M1I I T_1 W
The following summarizes the main findings of the exploration, particularly those that may have a
cost impact on the planned development. Further, our principal recommendations are
summarized. Information gleaned from the executive summary should not be utilized in lieu of
reading the entire geotechnical report.
• The geotechnical exploration performed for the planned development included 7 soil test
borings drilled to depths between 48.5 and 78.5 feet.
• The generalized subsurface profile can be described as 0 to 13 feet of existing fill (in some
areas of the site) underlain by residual soils, which are underlain by partially weathered
rock. The partially weathered rock was encountered at depths of 38 to 53 feet in all borings.
Split -spoon refusal, indicative of competent rock, was encountered at depths of 48.5 to
78.5 feet in the borings.
• The residual soils classified as Silty SAND (SM), Clayey SAND (SC), Sandy SILT (ML), Sandy
Elastic SILT (MH), and Sandy Lean CLAY (CL). The silts and clays were firm to stiff, and sands
were loose to very dense.
• Some of the borings encountered existing fill to an approximate depth of 3 to 13 feet. The
existing fill classified as Clayey SAND (SC), Silty SAND (SM), and Sandy Fat CLAY (CH), with
variable amounts of organic debris, which included topsoil, and inert debris, which included
rock fragments, concrete, asphalt, and brick fragments. The amount of debris was
significant in many of the soil samples, indicating the potential for existing debris -laden fill
at the site.
Elastic SILT (MH) and Fat CLAY (CH) are potentially expansive soils per the current North
Carolina Building Code and local practice. Based on laboratory testing and our experience,
these soils have a medium potential for expansion (i.e., shrink -swell). We estimate that the
potential heave of floor slabs and pavements due to potential wetting of these soils will be
less than 1 inch. As such, no specific mitigation measures for footings, floor slabs, or
pavements due to potentially expansive soils are recommended.
Existing fill with excessive inert debris or organic debris should not be used to support
foundations, floor slabs, or pavements. The existing fill in the proposed building and
pavement areas should be evaluated at the time of construction to determine what
portions of it should be undercut and what portions of it may be left in place. Specific
details on addressing the existing fill are contained in the body of the report.
The existing railroad cut slope and retaining wall adjacent to and to the west of the western
site boundary have adequate global stability to allow for the construction of pavements or
a pile -supported building on the subject site, even if located up to the property line. This
conclusion is based on our observations, subsurface conditions on the subject site indicated
by our borings, assumed subsurface conditions under the slope and retaining wall, assumed
retaining wall reinforcement and backfill, and our slope stability analyses.

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report
ECS Project No. 06:24158
January 23, 2020
Page 2
• Based on the anticipated foundation loads and the soil conditions encountered in the
borings, we recommend the building be supported on reinforced concrete augered cast -
in -place (ACIP) piles.
• Based on the N-values measured in the borings, a Seismic Site Class D designation is
appropriate for seismic design of the proposed building.

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report
ECS Project No. 06:24158
1 PROJECT INFORMATION
The proposed project consists of a 13-story building.
1.1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION
This report is based on the following sources of project information:
January 23, 2020
Page 3
• Emails between Marston Smith with Dalian Development, LLC, Rick Slater with McAdams,
and Nathan Nallainathan with ECS on June 27 and 28, 2019.
• Preliminary site sketch provided by Dalian Development.
• Parcel Identification map provided by Dalian Development.
• Google Earth aerial photo dated between February 1993 and April 2018.
• Site and topographic information obtained from the Wake County GIS website.
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
ECS understands the subject site is located at joint intersections of Hillsborough Street, South West
Street, and West Morgan Street in Raleigh, North Carolina, and consists of the following 10
adjoining parcels:
1. 515 Hillsborough Street, Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 170 349 7166, 0.09 acres
2. 513 Hillsborough Street, PIN: 170 349 8135, 0.23 acres
3. 509 Hillsborough Street, PIN: 170 349 8193, 0.16 acres
4. 503 Hillsborough Street, PIN: 170 349 9156, 0.09 acres
5. 10 S West Street, PIN: 170 349 9059, 0.11 acres
6. 502 W Morgan Street, PIN: 170 349 9022, 0.21 acres
7. 510 W Morgan Street, PIN: 170 349 8946, 0.02 acres
8. 512 W Morgan Street, PIN: 170 349 8033, 0.06 acres
9. 512 W Morgan Street, PIN: 170 349 7096, 0.10 acres
10. 514 W Morgan Street, PIN: 170 349 7057, 0.08 acres
The site is at the approximate location shown on the Site Location Diagram in Appendix A.
1.3 PAST SITE HISTORY
Based on the historical imagery and parcels' information on the Wake County GIS website, the
buildings at 501, 509, and S13 Hillsborough Street (on northern portion of the site) and the one at
502 W Morgan Street (on the southern portion of the site) were built in 1954, 1935, 1941, and
1950, respectively, and have been in similar condition since then.
The historical imagery also shows that there were two buildings at 515 Hillsborough Street (on the
western portion) and at 512 W Morgan Street (on the southern portion) prior to 1981. Both
buildings were demolished and cleared between 1999 and 2002, and turned into landscape and
pavement areas.

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report
ECS Project No. 06:24158
1.4 CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS
January 23, 2020
Page 4
The property is currently developed with buildings, paved parking lots, paved driveways, and
landscaped areas with trees and grass. The existing ground surface slopes downward from
northwest to southeast, with elevations approximately between 350 and 340 feet.
There are an existing railroad cut slope and retaining wall adjacent to and to the west of the western
site boundary. The railroad on the adjacent right-of-way to the west is approximately 18 to 20 feet
lower than the subject site. The retaining wall is a steel crib wall approximately 9 feet, and has a
wooded slope above it approximately at 2HAV.
1.5 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The project involves the development of a 13 story building with 9 to 10 floors of residential over 3
to 4 levels of parking and commercial space. The upper residential floors will be of light -gauge steel
construction. We assume the lower 3 to 4 levels of parking will be reinforced concrete. Design
foundation loads have not been provided to us. We assume the maximum unfactored foundation
loads will be:
• Maximum Column Load = 2600 kips
• Maximum Wall Loads= 30 kips per foot
• Maximum Ground Floor Slab Load = 150 pounds per square foot (psf)
The structural engineer should verify these assumptions and notify ECS if the actual unfactored
foundation design loads exceed or are significantly less than these assumed values.
Design grades have not been provided to us. Based on existing site grades, the site plan provided
to us, and our experience with similar projects, we assume that fill depths will be less than 5 feet
and cut depths will be less than 5 feet for general site grading.

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report January 23, 2020
ECS Project No. 06:24158 Page 5
2 FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration was planned with the objective of characterizing the project site in general
geotechnical and geological terms and to evaluate subsequent field and laboratory data to assist in
the determination of geotechnical recommendations.
2.1 SOIL TEST BORINGS
Boring locations were identified in the field by ECS personnel using a hand-held Trimble Geo 7X GPS
unit, referencing existing site features, and using available drawings. The approximate as -drilled
boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Diagram in Appendix A. Ground surface
elevations noted on the borings logs in Appendix B were obtained using the Wake County GIS
website.
The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling 7 soil test borings within the proposed
construction area. Borings were generally advanced to depths ranging from 48.5 to 78.5 feet below
the current ground surface. Subsurface explorations were completed under the general supervision
of an ECS geotechnical engineer or geologist.
Standard penetration tests (SPTs) were conducted in the borings at regular intervals in general
accordance with ASTM D 1586. Small representative samples were obtained during these tests and
were used to classify the soils encountered. The standard penetration resistances obtained provide
a general indication of soil shear strength and compressibility.
An experienced geotechnical professional visually classified each soil sample from the test borings
on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
and ASTM D-2488 (Description and Identification of Soils-Visual/Manual Procedures). After
classification, the geotechnical professional grouped the various soil types into the major zones
noted on the boring logs in Appendix B. The group symbols for each soil type are indicated in
parentheses following the soil descriptions on the boring logs. The stratification lines designating
the interfaces between earth materials on the boring logs are approximate; in situ, the transitions
may be gradual.

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report January 23, 2020
ECS Project No. 06:24158 Page 6
t�W-A 161MAfeI3'jiMiIiMc
The laboratory testing performed by ECS for this project consisted of selected tests performed on
samples obtained during our field exploration operations. Classification and index property tests
were performed on representative soil samples obtained from the test borings in order to aid in
classifying soils according to the Unified Soil Classification System and to quantify and correlate
engineering properties. The laboratory test results are attached in Appendix C.

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report
ECS Project No. 06:24158
4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
4.1 REGIONAL/SITE GEOLOGY
January 23, 2020
Page 7
The site is located within the Piedmont physiographic province. The Piedmont is characterized by
residual overburden soils weathered in place from the underlying igneous, metamorphic, and
sedimentary rock.
The topography and relief of the Piedmont uplands have developed from differential weathering
of the metamorphic and igneous bedrock. Because of the continued chemical and physical
weathering, the bedrock in the Piedmont is now generally covered with a mantle of soil that has
weathered in place from the parent bedrock. These soils have variable thicknesses and are referred
to as residuum or residual soils. The residuum is typically finer grained and has higher clay content
near the surface because of the advanced weathering. Similarly, the soils typically become coarser
grained with increasing depth because of decreased weathering. As the degree of weathering
decreases, the residual soils generally retain the overall appearance, texture, gradation and
foliations of the parent rock.
The boundary between soil and rock in the Piedmont is not sharply defined. A transitional zone
termed "partially weathered rock" is normally found overlying the parent bedrock. Partially
weathered rock (PWR) is defined for engineering purposes as residual material with Standard
Penetration Resistances (N-values) exceeding 100 blows per foot. The transition between
hard/dense residual soils and partially weathered rock occurs at irregular depths due to variations
in degree of weathering. Also, it is not unusual to find lenses and boulders of hard rock and/or
zones of partially weathered rock within the soil mantel well above the general bedrock level.
According to the 1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina, the site is underlain by injected gneiss of
Cambrian/Late Proterozoic age (Czig). This formation is interlayered with biotite and hornblende
gneiss and schist.
4.2 SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION
The generalized subsurface conditions indicated by the borings are described below. For soil
stratification at a particular test location, the respective boring log found in Appendix B should be
reviewed.
The surficial materials and their thicknesses encountered in the borings varied throughout the site.
Boring B-1 was performed on the grassed area and encountered 1 inch of topsoil. Borings B-2
through B-4 were performed within existing asphalt pavement areas, which consisted of 2 to 4
inches of asphalt underlain by 0 to 6 inches of ABC stone. Borings B-5 and B-6 were performed
within a gravel parking area and encountered 8 to 12 inches of gravel and brick fragments. Boring
B-7 was performed within concrete pavement and encountered 6.5 inches of concrete underlain
by 4 inches of ABC stone.
Existing fill/possible fill consisting of Clayey SAND (SC), Silty SAND (SM), Sandy Lean CLAY (CL), and
Sandy Fat CLAY (CH) was encountered below the surficial material and extended to approximate
depths of 3 to 13 feet below existing grades at Borings B-1 through B-5, and B-7. The SPT N-values
within the fill soils ranged from 6 to 23 bpf. Inclusions consisting of rock fragments, brick, concrete,

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report January 23, 2020
ECS Project No. 06:24158 Page 8
and asphalt were observed in the recovered fill soils. It is important to note that some of the N-
values obtained in these samples were possibly influenced by these inclusions and are not an
accurate indicator of their density or consistency.
The natural soils encountered below the existing pavement section, fill and/or topsoil generally
consisted of Silty SAND (SM), Clayey SAND (SC), Sandy SILT (ML), Sandy Elastic SILT (MH), Sandy
Lean CLAY (CL), and Sandy Fat CLAY (CH). The SPT N-values within these soils ranged from 6 to 74
bpf, indicating silts and clays with a consistency varying between firm and stiff, and sands with a
relative density ranging from loose to very dense.
Partially Weathered Rock (PWR), which is classified as material with SPT blow counts greater than
50 blows per 6 inches of penetration, was encountered at all borings at depths ranging from
approximately 38 to 53 feet below existing grades. Spoon refusal was encountered at depths
ranging from 48.5 to 78.5 feet below existing grades in all borings. Spoon refusal indicates the
presence of material such as rock with sufficient hardness to permit no further advancement of the
drilling.
Please note that the soils samples obtained in Boring B-5 from a depth of approximately 13 to 48
feet emitted volatile organic vapor odors. ECS recently performed environmental sampling and
testing of the soil and groundwater at the site. The results of that sampling and testing should be
used prior to construction to further evaluate the potential impacts of contamination on the
proposed construction and long-term project risks to health and safety.
4.3 GROUNDWATER
Accurate groundwater depths could not be measured at the time of drilling due to the mud rotary
drilling method. However, the groundwater depths were observed by ECS environmental personnel
in temporary wells ranging from 21.8 to 30.2 feet below ground surface, and in existing monitoring
wells ranging from 22.25 to 27.3 feet below ground surface.
Fluctuations in the groundwater elevation should be expected depending on precipitation, run-off,
evapotranspiration, construction activities, nearby surface water sources, utility leaks, and other
factors not evident at the time of our evaluation.
Normally, seasonal high groundwater levels occur in late winter and spring and the seasonal low
levels occur in late summer and fall. Extended monitoring of the groundwater using wells would be
required to determine the fluctuation of the groundwater level over time.
Depending on time of construction, groundwater may be encountered at shallower depths and
locations not explored during this study. If encountered during construction, engineering personnel
from our office should be notified immediately.

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report
ECS Project No. 06:24158
5 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 BUILDING/STRUCTURE DESIGN
5.1.1 Deep Foundations
January 23, 2020
Page 9
As previously stated, we assume the maximum unfactored column load will be 2600 kips and the
maximum unfactored wall load will be 30 kips/foot for the proposed building. Because of the
magnitude of the anticipated structural loads associated with the building, the sensitivity of the
structure to total and differential settlement, and the extent of compressible existing fill and
residual soils, we recommend that the proposed building be supported by deep foundations. We
recommend that either conventional augered cast -in -place (ACIP) piles or drilled displacement
augered cast -in -place (DD ACIP) piles be used for this project.
Conventional ACIP piles will generate auger cuttings, which must be handled and possibly
segregated and tested for potential environmental contamination. DD ACIP piles do not generate
cuttings and achieve higher geotechnical design resistances (compression and tension) than
conventional ACIP piles, but are generally more expensive on a per foot basis.
ACIP Piles: If conventional ACIP piles are used, they should be designed using the estimated pile
bearing depths and allowable loads given in the following table:
ACIP Pile Recommendations
Estimated Pile
Individual Pile Geotechnical Design Resistance (kips)
Pile
Bearing Depth
Diameter
in.
( )
Below Existing
Ground Surface
(feet)
Allowable
Compression
Allowable
Tension
Lateral
(free
head)
Lateral
(fixed
head)
14
40 to 55
250
50
20
15
16
40 to 55
300
60
25
20
The piles should be terminated once refusal is achieved on or within the partially weathered rock,
which we anticipate will range from approximately 38 to 53 feet below current grades based on the
available boring data.
Conventional ACIP piles should be installed using a continuous flight hollow shaft auger with a
minimum inside diameter of 2.5 inches.
Lenses of very dense sands or partially weathered rock may make installation difficult, and could
result in difficult drilling. The foundation contractor should be prepared to apply full gravity
pressure on the auger for as much as 3 minutes with no more than 1 foot of auger penetration.
The contractor should utilize a rock bit in good working condition in order to penetrate layers of
very hard soils or partially weathered rock, and should utilize an auger motor of sufficient torque
capacity and deadweight to advance the bit. However, final determination of auger refusal should
be made by the geotechnical engineer during construction.

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report January 23, 2020
ECS Project No. 06:24158 Page 10
Once the auger head has reached refusal, grout should be installed using a positive displacement
pump. The actual grout design compressive strength will depend on the pile load and the North
Carolina Building Code, and should be determined by the structural engineer. The 2018 North
Carolina Building Code requires that compressive stresses in cast in -place piles not exceed 30% of
the concrete's/grout's 28-day compressive strength (unless a permanent steel casing is used).
The pump discharge capacity should be calibrated in order to estimate the quantity of grout
installed. The compressive strength of the grout should be confirmed by making and testing grout
cubes. Grout should be pumped with sufficient pressure to prevent suction as the augers are
withdrawn and avoid necking or collapse of the auger hole. We recommend that a pressure head
of at least 5 feet of grout be maintained above the injection point or water level, whichever is
higher. Auger hoisting equipment should be capable of removing the augers slowly, and turning at
a relatively constant rate. The grout should be discharged at the tip of the auger and at a constant
rate. To confirm that the grout is in good contact with the side walls of the auger hole and there
has been no hole collapse, we recommend that the injected grout volume per linear foot be no less
than 120 percent of the theoretical grout volume (volume of auger hole). This is not a bid or
payment value, simply the minimum value required for quality assurance.
Due to zones of loose sand, grout overtake could occur during production. Grout overtake occurs
when the actual grout volume required to install the piles (while maintaining sufficient grout head
so as to prevent "necking" of the pile along its length) significantly exceeds the theoretical volume
and minimum recommended grout factor. This overtake is typically observed in very loose or soft
soil layers, such as those potentially present at the site. Therefore, the auger cast pile contractor
should be prepared to modify and/or adjust the installation techniques during production pile
installation to achieve the required minimum grout head of 5 feet and minimum required grout
factor of 1.20.
These are the minimum values required to assure quality, not the anticipated average values for
the reaction, test, and production piles, which may be significantly higher. The contractor should
base his/her bid on the subsurface conditions indicated by the borings; the design pile type,
dimensions, and capacities; and his/her experience. Allowances are not typically included in
construction contracts for grout volumes above or below any baseline value. All volume
measurement shall be made in the presence of the geotechnical engineer's representative.
It will be very important that the foundation contractor utilize experienced personnel and the
proper equipment. If the contractor uses a side discharge bit, we recommend that the discharge
angle not exceed 30 degrees from the vertical.
We recommend that the owner select a foundation contractor who is experienced constructing
auger -cast grout piles in the Piedmont of North Carolina. Because no penetration resistance values
are recorded during the pile installation work, it will be important to monitor the installation
procedures, the grout head, and the grout factor (the actual grout volume of the pile divided by the
theoretical pile volume) during construction.
After mobilization and set-up of pile installation equipment, we recommend that the foundation
contractor advance 10 auger probes throughout the pile -supported structure footprints to evaluate
drilling and bearing conditions. The auger probes should be advance to refusal. The auger probe
holes should be backfilled with soil cuttings or sacrificial grout.

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report January 23, 2020
ECS Project No. 06:24158 Page 11
DD ACIP Piles: If DD ACIP piles are used, they should be designed using the estimated pile bearing
depths and allowable loads given in the following table:
DD ACIP Pile Recommendations
Estimated Pile
Individual Pile Geotechnical Design Resistance (kips)
Pile
Bearing Depth
Diameter
in.
( )
Below Existing
Ground Surface
(feet)
Allowable
Compression
Allowable
Tension
Lateral
(free
head)
Lateral
(fixed
head)
14
40 to 55
300
100
20
15
16
40 to 55
400
120
25
20
DD ACIP piles are constructed by drilling the full pile length in an uninterrupted process. The
displacement pile drill tool is a hollow stem auger with reversed flight augers and/or a solid bulb
section above the flights that displaces soil laterally during drilling instead of bringing cuttings to
the ground surface. Above the reversed flights and/or displacement tool is a continuous hollow
shaft having no auger flights. In this process the soils are locally densified around the pile.
Following drilling, concrete is pumped into the hollow stem as the displacement tool is extracted
from the ground, forming the pile. Reinforcing steel is inserted immediately after withdrawal of
the displacement tool.
It will be very important that the foundation contractor utilize experienced personnel and the proper
equipment. We recommend that the owner select a foundation contractor who is experienced
constructing DD ACIP piles in the Piedmont of North Carolina.
For installation of DD ACIP piles to a depth necessary to attain the design allowable axial
compressive design loads, the drill head gear box used for DD ACIP pile installation should have a
torque capable of penetrating through the upper strata and onto the partially weathered rock. The
auger flight and displacement tool should be attached to a rigid hollow pipe stem that is capable of
transferring the compressive forces and torque necessary for advance. The augers should be
advanced until drilling refusal is achieved using a rig outfitted with an auger tool capable of applying
a crowd pressure of 260 tsf (250 bars) as indicated by the rig's on -board electronic monitoring
device. Drilling refusal should be defined as an auger penetration rate of one foot per minute, or
less, with the full (260 tsf) crowd pressure applied.
Once the auger head has reached refusal, grout should be installed using a positive displacement
pump. The actual grout design compressive strength will depend on the pile load and the North
Carolina Building Code, and should be determined by the structural engineer. The 2018 North
Carolina Building Code requires that compressive stresses in cast in -place piles not exceed 30% of
the concrete's/grout's 28-day compressive strength (unless a permanent steel casing is used).
The pump discharge capacity should be monitored by the rig's on -board electronic monitoring
system in order to measure the quantity of grout installed. The grout pressure head should be
monitored by the rig's on -board electronic monitoring system in order to verify a minimum
recommended grout head of 5 feet is maintained throughout auger withdrawl and grouting. The
compressive strength of the grout should be confirmed by sampling and laboratory testing.

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report January 23, 2020
ECS Project No. 06:24158 Page 12
After drilling to refusal has been achieved, grout should be pumped with sufficient pressure to
prevent suction as the augers are withdrawn and avoid necking or collapse of the auger hole. We
recommend that a pressure head of at least 5 feet of grout be maintained above the injection point
or water level, whichever is higher. Auger hoisting equipment should be capable of removing the
augers slowly, and turning at a relatively constant rate. The grout should be discharged at the tip
of the auger and at a constant rate. To confirm that the grout is in good contact with the side walls
of the auger hole and there has been no necking or collapse of the hole, we recommend that the
injected grout volume per linear foot be no less than 120 percent of the theoretical grout volume
(volume of auger hole). This is not a bid or payment value, simply the minimum value required for
quality assurance.
Due to some zones of loose sand and soft clay, it is likely that grout overtake will occur during
production. Grout overtake occurs when the actual grout volume required to install the piles (while
maintaining sufficient grout head so as to prevent "necking" of the pile along its length) significantly
exceeds the theoretical volume and minimum recommended grout factor. This overtake is typically
observed in very loose to loose or soft soil layers, such as those observed at the site. Therefore,
the DD ACIP pile contractor should be prepared to modify and/or adjust his installation techniques
during production pile installation to achieve the required minimum grout head of 5 feet and
minimum required grout factor of 1.20.
These are the minimum values required to assure quality, not the anticipated average values for
the reaction, test, and production piles, which may be significantly higher. The Contractor should
base his bid on the subsurface conditions indicated by the borings; the design pile type, dimensions,
and capacities; and his experience. Allowances are not typically included in construction contracts
for grout volumes above or below any baseline value. All volume measurement shall be made in
the presence of the geotechnical engineer's representative.
After mobilization and set-up of pile installation equipment, we recommend that the foundation
contractor advance 10 auger probes throughout the pile -supported structure footprints to evaluate
drilling and bearing conditions. The auger probes should be advance to refusal. The auger probe
holes should be backfilled with soil cuttings or sacrificial grout.
General: Pile depth estimates are from the existing ground surface. Varying cut depths, fill depths,
and pile cap thicknesses will increase or decrease the actual pile lengths required to construct the
foundations.
A factor of safety was applied to the estimated ultimate loads to estimate the allowable
compression and tension design loads. A factor of safety of 2.0 was used for compression loads
and a factor of safety of 3.0 was used for tension loads. Finite difference soil -structure interaction
analyses were performed using the RSPile 2018 software to estimate the allowable lateral loads
which limit lateral pile head deflection to 1 inch for the free head condition and % inch for a fixed
head condition. The results are shown as graphs of deflection, and shear versus depth and are
attached in Appendix D. If the pile caps and structure cannot tolerate these lateral deflections,
then additional lateral load analyses are necessary to estimate and recommend a reduced
geotechnical lateral load pile resistance.

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report January 23, 2020
ECS Project No. 06:24158 Page 13
The ability of the pile sections to structurally resist the individual geotechnical pile resistance loads
should be evaluated by the project structural engineer.
We expect that settlement of the pile foundations will be relatively uniform for the individual pile
geotechnical compression load resistance, and will be limited to approximately 1/4 inch or less.
Pile Spacing: We recommend that the piles be spaced on -center no closer than three times the
pile diameter. The minimum spacing should be maintained to prevent the group compression load
resistance from being significantly less than the summation of individual pile compression
resistance. This spacing restriction also serves to limit surface heave and to reduce the possibility
of damaging previously installed piles.
An efficiency factor (to account for axial resistance reductions caused by group effects) of 1.0 can
be used for center -to -center pile spacings of three pile diameters or more (which is the minimum
recommended spacing). Section 1810.2.5 of the 2018 North Carolina Building Code states that the
analysis and design of piles shall include group effects on the axial behavior where the center -to -
center spacing of deep foundation elements is less than three times the least horizontal dimension
of an element.
Section 1810.3.3.1.6 of the 2018 North Carolina Building Code requires that, where the deep
foundation elements in a group are placed at a center -to -center spacing of at least 3 times the least
horizontal dimension of the largest single element, the allowable working uplift load for the group
is permitted to be calculated as the lesser of:
• The proposed individual uplift working load times the number of elements in the group.
• Two-thirds the effective weight of the group and the soil contained within a block defined
by the perimeter of the group and the length of the element.
Static Load Testing: We recommend that one instrumented sacrificial compression test pile be
installed at the site within 20 feet of Boring B-2. The rebar cage of the test pile should be
instrumented with at least three vibrating wire strain gages. Load testing should be conducted at
least 3 days after the test pile has been installed and if the grout has achieved at least 75% of the
design 28-day compressive strength. The full deflection of the test pile should be observed and
recorded. The vibrating wire strain gage measurements should be recorded at each load increment.
The load test should be performed in accordance with the standard testing procedures presented
in ASTM D-1143 and the requirements of the state building code. The test pile should be loaded to
300% of the design (i.e., allowable) compression load or until the pile plunges, whichever occurs
first.
If the allowable tension or lateral capacities govern the number of piles required to support the
proposed structure(s), then we recommend that the project include one tension pile load test in
accordance with ASTM D-3689 or one lateral pile load test in accordance with ASTM D-3966
performed on a sacrificial test pile. The previous recommendations for the compression test piles
and load testing are also applicable for the tension pile load test or lateral pile load test, including
loading the test pile to 300% of its design load or until continuous deflection under maximum
applicable load.

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report January 23, 2020
ECS Project No. 06:24158 Page 14
Pile Installation: We anticipate that buried debris and obstructions could be present at this site,
which may prevent the installation of augercast piles through existing fill. Obstructions should be
excavated and removed with a trackhoe excavator.
The installation of the piles should be in accordance with the local and state building code
requirements. In addition, the installation of all piles should be monitored by the geotechnical
engineer. The geotechnical engineer's representative should verify and record the aspects of the
installation for general conformance with the project drawings and specifications, including any
design information and installation procedures submitted by the foundation subcontractor.
5.1.2 Floor Slabs
We assume that the ground floor slab -on -grade will be at or above finish exterior grades around
the entire building footprint. For this case, the 2018 North Carolina Building Code does not require
damproofing or waterproofing of the slab. However, depending on floor coverings and building
use, a capillary break layer and vapor retarder should be installed to prevent excessive moisture
from coming in contact with the concrete floor slab from the soils below.
Subgrade: The on -site lower plasticity natural soils and new engineered fill are considered suitable
for support of the ground floor slab, although moisture control during earthwork operations,
including the use of disking or appropriate drying equipment, may be necessary. Existing debris -
laden fill should be undercut and replaced within the proposed building area.
Slabs At or Above Finish Exterior Grades: At the time of this report, a grading plan was not available
showing the lowest finished floor elevations. We assume the lowest level floor slab will bear on
new structural fill or natural soils. These materials are likely suitable for the support of a slab -on -
grade, however, there may be areas of soft or yielding soils that should be removed and replaced
with compacted structural fill in accordance with the recommendations included in this report. The
following graphic depicts our soil -supported slab recommendations:
Vapor Retarder or Vapor
Concrete Slab Barrier
000 0 0 00 0000
0 0 0 00 0 00 00
0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Granular Capillary Break
Firm, Stable, Compacted Subgrade
Floor Slab Section

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report
ECS Project No. 06:24158
1. Capillary Break Layer Thickness: 4 inches
January 23, 2020
Page 15
2. Capillary Break Layer Material: GRAVEL (GP, GW, GP-SM, GW-SM), SAND (SP, SW, SP-SM, SW-SM).
Material should have less than 12 percent fines, and can consist of No. 57 stone or ABC.
3. Capillary Break Material should be compacted to at least 98% maximum dry density per ASTM D698.
4. Undisturbed natural subgrade should proofroll as firm and stable. Upper 1 foot of structural fill
subgrade should be compacted to at least 98% maximum dry density per ASTM D698
5. Vapor Barrier or Vapor Retarder — Refer to ACI 302.1R96 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab
Construction and ASTM E 1643 Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used in
Contact with Earth or Granular Fill under Concrete Slabs for recommendations on this issue.
Additionally, any environmental vapor intrusions considerations should be taken into account by the
floor slab/vapor barrier/vapor retarder material selection and design.
Subgrade Modulus: Provided the placement of structural fill and capillary break layer per the
recommendations discussed herein, the slabs may be designed assuming a modulus of subgrade
reaction, ki of 100 pci (lbs/cu. inch). The modulus of subgrade reaction value is based on a 1 ft by
1 ft plate load test, and is applicable for point loads from vehicle wheels or point loads from
equipment and rack posts, legs, and columns. A lower value should be used for distributed loads
on floor slabs or equipment pads.
Slab Isolation: Ground -supported slabs should be isolated from the foundations and foundation -
supported elements of the structure so that differential movement between the foundations and
slab will not induce excessive shear and bending stresses in the floor slab. Where the structural
configuration prevents the use of a free-floating slab, the slab should be designed with suitable
reinforcement and load transfer devices to preclude overstressing of the slab. Maximum
differential settlement of soils supporting interior slabs is anticipated to be less than % inch in 40
feet.
Vapor Retarder/Barrier: Based on the results of our exploration, it appears unlikely that the floor
slabs will be subjected to hydrostatic pressure from groundwater. However, water vapor
transmission through the slabs is still a design consideration. Evaluating the need for and design of
a vapor retarder or vapor barrier for moisture control is outside our scope of services and should
be determined by the project architect/structural engineer based on the planned floor coverings
and the corresponding design constraints, as outlined in ACI 302.1R-04 Guide for Concrete Floor
and Slab Construction. Further, health and environmental considerations with respect to any
potentially harmful vapor transmission are also outside of our scope of services for this project.
Slab Subgrade Verification: During construction, a representative of ECS should be called on to
evaluate the condition of the prepared ground floor slab subgrade prior to placement of the
capillary break material. The subgrade soils may require scarification, moisture conditioning, and
re -compaction to restore stable conditions. Density testing of granular capillary break material
should be performed in accordance with the previous recommendations for structural fill if a well -
graded material (e.g., ABC) is used.

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report
ECS Project No. 06:24158
5.1.3 Building Retaining Walls
January 23, 2020
Page 16
If the proposed building includes basement, loading dock, or below -grade pit earth retaining walls,
they should be designed and constructed in accordance with the following recommendations.
Building retaining walls are often constructed from the "bottom -up" and therefore the type of soil
used to backfill the wall is chosen or specified by contract. The lateral earth pressures developed
behind retaining walls is a function of the backfill soil type within an approximate 45-degree angle
from the base of the wall upward.
Lateral Earth Pressures: Retaining walls should be designed to withstand the lateral earth pressures
exerted by the backfill. The pressure diagram is triangular. It is anticipated that retaining walls
associated with the building structure, such as for below -grade pit, loading dock walls, and
basement walls, will be rigid walls restrained from rotation by the floor slab. For rigid walls, the "At
Rest" (K.) soil condition should be used in the wall design and evaluation. For walls that are free to
deflect at their tops, the "Active" (Ka) soil condition should be used in the wall design and
evaluation. In the design of these retaining wall structures, the following soil parameters can be
utilized. The critical zone is defined as the area between the back of the retaining wall structure
and an imaginary line projected upward and rearward from the bottom back edge of the wall
footing at a 45-degree angle.
The structural engineer should select and soil type to be used for retaining wall backfill, use the
following recommended soil properties for that soil type, and provide notes indicating retaining
wall backfill materials and properties selected/specified on the design drawings.
Ketaining wail rsacKnii in the Lniicai cone
Soil Parameter
Retaining Wall Backfill
Silt (ML)
Silty Sand (SM)
Processed Fill
Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest (Ko)
0.56
0.53
0.50
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure (Ka)
0.39
0.36
0.33
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Retained Soil Moist Unit Weight (y)
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
115 pcf
120 pcf
120 pcf
Cohesion (C)
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
50 psf
0 psf
0 psf
of Internal Friction
Angle(�)
26'
28'
30°
We recommend that all permanent below grade walls be designed to also withstand lateral earth
pressures from surcharge loads due to adjacent pavements, buildings, structures, equipment, or
materials.
Building retaining walls should be supported by ACIP piles in order to limit differential settlement
between them and the rest of the structural elements to tolerable amounts.
Retaining Wall Backfill: All soils used as backfill within the critical zone behind retaining walls
should have the USCS classification/material type, minimum angle of internal friction angle, and
minimum cohesion as selected by the structural engineer. These minimum soil properties are for
material compacted to a minimum of 95% of its maximum dry density per ASTM D 698. Any soils
not meeting these criteria should not be placed as retaining wall backfill. The use of proper

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report January 23, 2020
ECS Project No. 06:24158 Page 17
retaining wall backfill material, placement, and compaction, should be observed and tested and by
ECS at the time of construction.
Foundation Drains: Retaining walls should be provided with a foundation drainage system to
relieve hydrostatic pressures which may develop in the wall backfill. This system should consist of
a 4-inch perforated, closed joint drain line located along the backside of the walls above the top of
the footing. The drain line should be surrounded by a minimum of 6 inches of AASHTO Size No. 57
Stone wrapped with an approved non -woven filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140-N or equivalent.
Wall Drains: All below -grade building retaining walls should be drained so that hydrostatic
pressures do not build up behind the walls. Wall drains can consist of a 12-inch wide zone of free
draining gravel, such as No. 57 Stone, employed directly behind the wall and separated from the
soils beyond with a non -woven filter fabric. Alternatively, the wall drain can consist of a suitable
geocomposite drainage board material. The wall drain should be hydraulically connected to the
foundation drain.
5.1.4 Seismic Design
The 2018 North Carolina Building Code requires site classification for seismic design based on the
upper 100 feet of a soil profile. Three methods are utilized in classifying sites, namely the shear
wave velocity (vs) method; the unconfined compressive strength (s") method; and the Standard
Penetration Resistance (N-value) method. The N-value method was used for this project.
The seismic site class definitions for the weighted average of shear wave velocity or SPT N-value in
the upper 100 feet of the soil profile are shown in the following table:
Seismic Site Classification
Site
Class
Soil Profile Name
Shear Wave Velocity, Vs,
(ft./s)
N value (bpf)
A
Hard Rock
Vs > 5,000 fps
N/A
B
Rock
2,500 < Vs <- 5,000 fps
N/A
C
Very dense soil and soft rock
1,200 < Vs <- 2,500 fps
>50
D
Stiff Soil Profile
600 <- Vs <- 1,200 fps
15 to 50
E
Soft Soil Profile
Vs < 600 fps
<15
The 2018 North Carolina Building requires that a Site Class be assigned for the seismic design of
new structures. The Site Class for the site was determined by calculating a weighted average SPT
N-value for the top 100 feet of the subsurface profile. Based on the conditions encountered in the
borings, we recommend that a Site Class "D", as defined in the NCSBC 2018, be used for the
proposed building.
5.2 SLOPES
Slope Design Parameters: We analyzed the existing railroad cut slope and retaining wall with
engineering properties obtained using Boring B-1 as indicated in the table below.

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report
ECS Project No. 06:24158
Shear Strength Parameters for Slope Stability Analyses
January 23, 2020
Page 18
Stratum
Material Description
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion
(psf)
Friction Angle
1
Existing Fill — Clayey Sand
120
300
28'
......._....................................
2
......... ......... .........
Existing Fill — Silty Sand
.................................................
115
......... .........
200
.........
28'
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
3
......._....................................
Loose Residual Silty Sand
............................................ .........
115
.................................................
200
......... .................................................
28'
4
Loose Residual Clayey Sand
110
100
26°
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
5
Loose Residual Silty Sand
115
200
28'
.......................
5
..............
Medium Dense/Dense Residual
.................................
125
...........
300
..................
300
Silty Sand
Slope Stability Analyses: Global slope stability analyses were performed using the commercially
produced two-dimensional computer slope stability program SLIDE 2018 by RocScience. A factor
of safety of 1.3 was considered to be the minimum adequate factor of safety for long term
conditions for slopes with site retaining walls and/or pavements at the top, and 1.5 for slopes with
the buildings at the top. The factors of safety were calculated based on potential circular failure
surfaces using the Spencer Method. Our analyses included the effects of traffic surcharge loading
of 250 psf from proposed pavement and/or a building with deep foundations at the top of the slope,
and resulted in a minimum factor of safety of 1.604.
The existing railroad cut slope and retaining wall adjacent to and to the west of the western site
boundary have adequate global stability to allow for the construction of pavements or a pile -
supported building on the subject site, even if located up to the property line. This conclusion is
based on our observations, subsurface conditions on the subject site indicated by our borings,
assumed subsurface conditions under the slope and retaining wall, assumed retaining wall
reinforcement and backfill, and our slope stability analyses.
Slope Drainage: If new construction occurs right up to the western property line approximately at
the top of the existing slope, appropriately sized ditches should run above and parallel to the crest
of all permanent slopes to divert surface runoff away from the slope faces. Slope drain pipes or
other stormwater inlets and pipes should be installed, if necessary, to prevent drainage from
flowing down the existing slope face.

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report January 23, 2020
ECS Project No. 06:24158 Page 19
6 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 SUBGRADE PREPARATION
6.1.1 Previous Site Development
When reviewing our recommendations, please note that there are existing buildings and
pavements on this site, and that previous grading activities have likely occurred on this site. Our
experience with previously graded sites indicates that unexpected conditions can exist that were
not encountered by the soil test borings. Unexpected conditions could include areas of soft or loose
fill, debris -laden fill, and other obstructions or conditions. These conditions should be addressed
by on -site engineering evaluation by ECS during construction.
6.1.2 Demolition
Site demolition should include the removal of existing asphalt, concrete pavement, concrete slabs,
concrete curb and gutter, underground utilities, underground stormwater structures and pipes,
buried structures, and foundations from the proposed construction areas. Any underground
utilities that may exist within the proposed building areas should be relocated, and any within
proposed pavement areas should be evaluated by the design team and relocated or filled with
grout, if necessary. The crushed stone on the ground surface in the existing pavement areas should
be left in place in areas to be filled, or can be excavated and re -used as compacted structural fill.
Excavations or cavities resulting from demolition should be backfilled with compacted structural
backfill.
The existing concrete pavements, slabs, and foundations at the site could be re -used as compacted
structural fill, provided the concrete is first crushed to less than 1-1/2 inch in maximum particle size
and is well -graded. Reinforcing steel should be removed from the crushed concrete. Properly
crushed concrete may also be used as a subgrade stabilization material in building and pavement
areas and as backfill where foundation undercut is required to remove unsuitable materials. It may
also be used as new aggregate base course (ABC) in private pavement areas, provided it meets the
NCDOT standard specifications for ABC gradation.
6.1.3 Stripping and Grubbing
The subgrade preparation should consist of stripping all vegetation, rootmat, topsoil, existing fill,
and any other soft or unsuitable materials from the proposed construction areas. One of the
borings generally encountered 1 inch of topsoil. Deeper topsoil or organic laden soils are likely
present in wet, low-lying, and poorly drained areas. The topsoil encountered in the borings was not
analyzed for its suitability for reuse in landscaping areas. ECS should be called on to verify that
topsoil and unsuitable surficial materials have been completely removed prior to the placement of
structural fill or construction of structures and pavements.
6.1.4 Proofrolling
After removing all unsuitable surface materials, cutting to the proposed grade, and prior to the
placement of any structural fill or other construction materials, the exposed subgrade should be

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report January 23, 2020
ECS Project No. 06:24158 Page 20
examined by the geotechnical engineer or authorized representative. The exposed subgrade
should be thoroughly proofrolled with previously approved construction equipment having a
minimum axle load of 10 tons (e.g. fully loaded tandem -axle dump truck). The areas subject to
proofrolling should be traversed by the equipment in two perpendicular (orthogonal) directions
with overlapping passes of the vehicle under the observation of the geotechnical engineer or
authorized representative. This procedure is intended to assist in identifying any localized yielding
materials.
In the event that unstable or "pumping" subgrade is identified by the proofrolling, those areas
should be marked for repair prior to the placement of any subsequent structural fill or other
construction materials. Methods of repair of unstable subgrade, such as undercutting or moisture
conditioning or chemical stabilization, should be discussed with the geotechnical engineer to
determine the appropriate procedure with regard to the existing conditions causing the instability.
Test pits and/or hand auger borings may be excavated to explore the shallow subsurface materials
in the area of the instability to help in determining the cause of the observed unstable materials
and to assist in the evaluation of the appropriate remedial action to stabilize the subgrade.
The borings did not encounter near -surface very loose or very soft to soft soils. However,
undercutting may be required in other localized areas between or away from the borings. Undercut
excavations should be backfilled with properly placed and compacted structural fill. Use of
geotextiles and select granular fill may be recommended by ECS during construction to reduce the
required undercut depths and/or aid in stabilization of subgrades.
6.2 EARTHWORK OPERATIONS
6.2.1 Existing Fill
Based on the relative strength and stiffness of the existing fill/possible fill soils indicated by the SPT
N-values from the soil test borings, in addition to the organics and construction debris encountered
in most borings, it appears that some of the existing fill was placed in an uncontrolled manner
without consistent compaction and removal of organics and debris. As we have not been provided
fill placement construction field testing reports, we interpret the existing fill to also be
undocumented.
Uncontrolled and/or undocumented fill poses risks associated with under -compacted soil,
undetected deleterious inclusions within the fill, and/or deleterious materials at the virgin ground
fill interface that are covered by the fill. ECS does not recommend supporting building foundations
and pavements on under -compacted existing fill or existing fill with excessive organics or excessive
inert debris. Therefore, we recommend that these conditions be addressed by on -site engineering
evaluation by ECS during construction, including proofrolling and test pits. Under -compacted fill
and fill with excessive organics/debris indicated by Borings B-1 through B-5, and B-7, and potentially
in other localized areas, should be over -excavated and replaced with compacted structural fill.
Undercutting and replacement of existing fill should be anticipated for this project and could be
addressed contractually through allowances and unit prices.

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report
ECS Project No. 06:24158
6.2.2 Expansive Soils
January 23, 2020
Page 21
Potentially expansive soils classified as Fat CLAY (CH) and Elastic SILT (MH) were encountered to
depths of 3 to 6 feet in some of the borings. Based on the laboratory test results and our local
experience, these soils are expected to have a medium potential for expansion as defined by ASTM
D 4829, Standard Test for Expansion Index of Soils. We estimate that the potential heave of floor
slabs and pavements due to potential wetting of these soils will be less than 1 inch. As such, no
specific mitigation measures for footings, floor slabs, or pavements due to potentially expansive
soils are recommended.
Please note that the high plasticity soils are very moisture sensitive and can be relatively weak and
compressible. Their moisture contents will require careful control and must be within +/- 3% of
the soil's standard Proctor maximum dry density to provide stability and to reduce the potential for
settlement upon future potential wetting.
6.2.3 Excavation Considerations
Environmental Considerations: ECS recently performed environmental sampling and testing of the
soil and groundwater at the site. The results of that sampling and testing should be used prior to
construction to further evaluate the potential impacts of contamination on the proposed
construction and long-term project risks to health and safety. Any contaminated soils excavated
during the construction of the project should be handled on -site as required by environmental
regulations or should be disposed of off -site in a permitted facility. Temporary stockpiling and
testing of excavated soil may be required to determine contaminant type, concentrations, and
disposal options. Any contaminated groundwater removed by construction dewatering should be
disposed of off -site, perhaps in a wastewater treatment facility. Temporary containerization and
testing of pumped groundwater may be required to determine the contaminant types,
concentrations, and disposal/treatment options.
Excavation Safety: All excavations and slopes should be made and maintained in accordance with
OSHA excavation safety standards. The contractor is solely responsible for designing and
constructing stable, temporary excavations and slopes and should shore, slope, or bench the sides
of the excavations and slopes as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and
bottom. The contractor's responsible person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the
soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures. In no case should
slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth,
exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.
ECS is providing this information solely as a service to our client. ECS is not assuming responsibility
for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and
should not be inferred.
Construction Dewatering: Based on the borings, our experience with groundwater fluctuations on
similar sites, and assumed design grades, most of the temporary excavations are unlikely to
encounter groundwater. The contractor should be prepared to remove any precipitation or
groundwater that may seep into temporary construction excavations using open pumping. Open
pumping utilizes submersible sump pumps in pits or trenches dug below the bottom of the
excavation and backfilled with No. 57 stone.

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report January 23, 2020
ECS Project No. 06:24158 Page 22
Excavatibility: Based on the assumed design grades, we anticipate that the existing fill and natural
soils can be removed with conventional earth excavation equipment such as track -mounted
backhoes, loaders, or bulldozers.
As noted in the Regional/Site Geology section of this report, the weathering process in the
Piedmont can be erratic and significant variations of the depths of the more dense materials can
occur in relatively short distances. In some cases, isolated boulders or thin rock seams may be
present in the soil matrix.
6.2.4 Structural Fill Materials
Product Submittals: At least one week prior to placement of structural fill, representative bulk
samples (about 50 pounds) of on -site and/or off -site borrow should be submitted to ECS for
laboratory testing, which will include Atterberg limits, natural moisture content, grain -size
distribution, and moisture -density relationships for compaction. Import materials should be tested
prior to being hauled to the site to determine if they meet project specifications.
Satisfactory Structural Fill Materials: Materials satisfactory for use as structural fill should consist
of inorganic soils classified as CL, ML, SM, SC, SW, SP, GW, GM and GC, or a combination of these
group symbols, per ASTM D 2487. The materials should be free of organic matter and debris. The
fill should exhibit a maximum dry density of at least 90 pounds per cubic foot, as determined by a
Standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D 698).
To facilitate compaction and subsequent excavation, any rock fragments within the structural fill
materials should be properly blended with soil to avoid the formation of voids within the fill. Rock
fragments should be limited to 3 inches in the upper 5 feet of finish subgrade elevations.
Unsatisfactory Materials: Unsatisfactory fill materials include materials which do not satisfy the
requirements for satisfactory materials, such as topsoil, organic materials, debris, and debris -laden
fill.
On -Site Borrow Suitability: The on -site soils meeting the classifications for recommended
satisfactory structural fill, plus meeting the restrictions on separation distances, organic content,
and debris, may be used as structural fill. We anticipate that some of the soils encountered in the
borings within the anticipated excavation depths will be satisfactory for use as compacted
structural fill.
Based on the borings and experience with other previously developed urban sites, we anticipate
that the some of the existing fill will be unsatisfactory for use as compacted structural backfill due
to larger pieces of debris or organic content (topsoil). Screening of the excavated material to
remove excessively large and organic debris could be performed to increase the potential volume
of re -usable onsite soils. Additionally, the on -site Fat CLAY (CH) and Elastic Silt (MH) should not be
reused as engineered fill.

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report
ECS Project No. 06:24158
6.2.5 Compaction
January 23, 2020
Page 23
Fill Compaction: Structural fill should be placed in maximum 8-inch loose lifts. In confined areas
such as utility trenches, portable compaction equipment and thin lifts of 4 inches to 6 inches may
be required to achieve specified degrees of compaction.
Structural fill should be moisture conditioned as necessary to within -3 and +3 % of the soil's
optimum moisture content. Moisture conditioning options include spraying and mixing in water to
excessively dry soils, scarifying and drying of excessively wet soils, and adding lime to excessively
wet soils.
Structural fill should be compacted with suitable equipment to a dry density of at least 95% of the
Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698) more than 12 inches below the finish
subgrade elevation and to a least 98% in the upper 12 inches.
Fill Testing: ECS should be retained to observe and test the placement and compaction of structural
fill. Field density testing of fills should be performed at the frequencies shown in the following
table, but not less than 1 test per lift.
Frequency of Compaction Tests in Fill Areas
Location
Frequency of Tests
Building Areas
1 test per 2,500 sq. ft. per lift
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Utility Trenches (in pavement or
1 test per 100 linear feet per lift
building areas)
........ ......... ......... .................. ........................
.....................................................................
Retaining Wall Backfill
1 test per 100 linear feet of wall
per lift
Fill Placement Considerations: Proper drainage should be maintained during the earthwork phases
of construction to prevent ponding of water which will degrade the subgrade soils. Exposed soil
subgrades should be protected at the end of each working day by sloping to drain and sealing with
a smooth -drum roller to limit infiltration of precipitation and surface water. Where fill materials
will be placed to widen existing embankment fills, or placed up against sloping ground, the soil
subgrade should be scarified and the new fill benched or keyed into the existing material. Fill
material should be placed in horizontal lifts.
Moisture Conditioning: The on -site soils are moisture sensitive and can be difficult to work.
Problems include softening of exposed subgrade soils, excessive rutting or deflection under
construction traffic, and the inability to adequately dry and compact wet soil.
Drying and compaction of wet soils is typically difficult during typically cooler, wetter months of the
year (typically November through March). During the cooler and wetter periods of the year, delays
and additional costs should be anticipated. At these times, reduction of soil moisture may need to
be accomplished by a combination of mechanical manipulation and the use of chemical additives,
such as lime or cement, in order to lower moisture contents to levels appropriate for compaction.
Alternatively, removal and replacement with drier, off -site materials may be necessary.

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report
ECS Project No. 06:24158
January 23, 2020
Page 24
Subgrade Protection: Measures should also be taken to limit site disturbance, especially from
rubber -tired heavy construction equipment, and to control and remove surface water from
development areas, including structural and pavement areas. It would be advisable to designate
and cover haul roads and construction staging areas to limit the areas of disturbance and to prevent
construction traffic from excessively degrading subgrade soils. Haul roads and construction staging
areas should be covered with ABC to protect those subgrades.

500 Hillsborough — Geotechnical Report January 23, 2020
ECS Project No. 06:24158 Page 25
7 CLOSING
ECS has prepared this report of findings, evaluations, and recommendations to guide geotechnical
related design and construction aspects of the project.
The description of the proposed project is based on information provided to ECS. If any of this
information is inaccurate, either due to our interpretation of the documents provided or site or
design changes that may occur later, ECS should be contacted immediately in order that we can
review the report in light of the changes and provide additional or alternate recommendations as
may be required to reflect the proposed construction.
We recommend that ECS be allowed to review the project's plans and specifications pertaining to
our work so that we may ascertain consistency of those plans/specifications with the intent of the
geotechnical report.
Field observations, monitoring, and quality assurance testing during earthwork and foundation
installation are an extension of and integral to the geotechnical design recommendation. We
recommend that the owner retain these quality assurance services and that ECS be allowed to
continue our involvement throughout these critical phases of construction to provide general
consultation as issues arise. ECS is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or
recommendations of others based on the data in this report.

APPENDIX A — Drawings
Site Location Diagram
Boring Location Diagram

V
iC arckron XIC
oKa k vJ -
.. �1If1

ice L
N
yy W E
F�
i�
Sv R do _ 11
r•
r I I
0 50 100
Feet
�� r
f:
NGINEER
Boring Location Diagram PR/TMS
500 HILLSBOROUGH S1CALE
'=50'
PROJECT NO.
06:24158
SHEET
HILLSBOROUGH ST, S WEST ST, W MORGAN ST, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2 OF 2
DATE
DALIAN DEVELOPMENT, LLC
11/15/2019

APPENDIX B — Field Operations
Generalized Subsurface Diagrams
Boring Logs B-1 through B-7
Reference Notes for Boring Logs

50IL CLA55IFICATION LEGEN❑
SURFACE MATERIALS
ROCK TYPES
SYMBOL LEGEND
5T -
SHELBY TUBE
RC - ROCK CORE
PM - PRESSURE METER NOTE: NUMBERS IMMEDIATELY TO THE LEFT
OF THE BORINS PROFILE ARE SPT-N VALUES.
CJ WATER LEVEL - DURING ORILLI46/5AMPLING
rt GW - WELL GRAMO GRAVEL
GC - CLAYEY GRAVEL
®
CL - LOW PLASTICITY CLAY
SP - POORLY &RA DIED SAND
OH - HI6H PLASTICITY ORGANIC SILTS AND CLAYS WR - WEATHERED ROCK •emu'
TOP50IL CONCRETE
IGNEOUS
WATER LEVEL - SEASONAL, HISH WATER
GM - SILTY GRAVEL
13 SW - WELL GRADED SAND
®
MH - HIGH PLASTICITY SILT
fir;• SC - CLAYEY SAND
® OL - LOW PLASTICITY ORGANIC SILTS AND CLAY � MR - PARTIALLY
WEATHERED ROCK ■-PO5SI8iE FILL
-�
�''�'j
■ ASPHALT I VOID
U
444T11
❑ METAMORPHIC
WATER LEVEL - AFTER CASING REMOVAL
-
f WATER LEVEL - AFTER 24 HOURS
GP - POORLY GRADED GRAVEL
ML - LOW PLASTICITY SILT
®
SM - SILTY SAND
CH - HIGH PL.A57ICITY CLAY
PT -PEAT
■•PROB A BILE FILL
GRAVEL
SEDIMENTARY
PLASTIC WATER % PASSING 0200 SIEVE LIQUID
OMIT% CONTENT% EBB%] LIMVr%
w
360
360
B1-
i
B-3
B
18 SC Fill
B-2
I
B-4
15
B-6
18
I
SC
C
6 H
I
20 SM Fill
I
B-7
340
7
SM Fill
14
Possible
9 FillML
23
SM Fill
11
13
ML
8
CL
Sao
10
Fill
9
7
ML
7
9
Possible
7
11
MH
ML
12
g
ML
7
7
Fill
7
€
SM 7
7
7
7
6
ML
9
7
6
7
10Ti
7
18
320
320
6
SM
15
7
8
SM
SC 6
SM
12
SM
11
9
11
17
8
11
SM
7
74
13
SM
37
21
13
N
SIM
35
22
18
fll
N
LL
11
95/9
19
26
9
300
300
p
30
50/4
WR
50/5
31
95/9= WR
82/
50/1
54
50/3
WR
50/0
41
0
3
}
11
50/3 WR
50/0
SPOON REFUSAL
50/5
3
�
67/9
50/0
-
50/5
50/4
SPOON REFUSAL
@ 48.5'
—n
em
N
WR
SPOON REFUSAL
@ 53.5'
50/5
l0
=
UJ
50 2
@ 53.5' 50/5
5010
l0
—*
280
5014
280
50/1
SPOON
REFUSAL
50/1
WR
-
@ 63.5' 50/5
50/0
50/0
SPOON REFUSAL
SPOON REFUSAL
50/2
@ 73.5'
@ 68.5'
50/3
260
DUIIJ
260
SPOON REFUSAL
@ 78.5'
240
240
NOTES:
ECr. eS
500 Hillsborough
Dalian Development, LLC
1 SEE INDIVIDUAL BORING LOG AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
2 PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE IN
BLOWS PER FOOT (ASTM D1586).
1
500 Hillsborough St.
Raleigh, Wake Count
PROJECT NO.: 06:2415
DATE: 11/20/2 19 1 VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=20' 1 VERTICAL SCALE:
1"=20'

CLIENT
Job#:
BORING#
SHEET
Dalian Development, LLC
:06:24158
B-1
1 OF 3
C
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
500 Hillsborough
NO
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT2
500 Hillsborou h St. Raleigh, Wake Count
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD°% - — - REM
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
-
C
LIMIT°% CONTENT% LIMIT"%
u n
z
a
o
Z
BOTTOM OF CASING 10 LOSS OF CIRCULATION M
w '�
LL
J O
O
SURFACE ELEVATION 347
a
w
w
w
w
W >
® STANDARD PENETRATION
o
BLOWSfFT
CO
CO
U))
it
w
m
To soil Thickness 1.00"
(SC FILL) FILL, CLAYEY SAND, contains slight
7
S-1
SS
18
18
roots, concrete and brick, reddish brown, moist,
6
18 20.0
medium dense
345
12
8
S-2
SS
18
18
_
8
18
5
10
7
(SM FILL) FILL, SILTY SAND, contains
S-3
SS
18
18
concrete and brick, orangish brown, moist,
340
a
)16 ;
medium dense to loose
2
S-4
SS
18
18
3
7
10
f
4
gill-
335
(SM) SILTY SAND, contains significant mica,
S-5
SS
18
18
tan, moist, loose
2
3
7
15
4
330
2
S-6
SS
18
18
3
7
20
4
325
2
S-7
SS
18
18
3
7
25
4
320
(SC) CLAYEY SAND, white, wet, loose
2
S-8
SS
18
18
3
6
30
3
ON NEXT PAGE.
CONTINUED
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL WS ❑ WD ❑
BORING STARTED 11 /05/19
CAVE IN DEPTH
WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 11 /05/19
HAMMER TYPE
WL
RIG CME 55 FOREMAN ,Joey/Stefanie
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary

CLIENT
Job #:
BORING #
SHEET
Dalian Development, LLC
:06:24158
I B-1
2 OF 3
C
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
500 Hillsborough
NO
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT2
500 Hillsboroucah St. Ralei h Wake Count
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD°% - — - REC°%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
Z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
w
=
z
J LL
LIMIT°% CONTENT% LIMIT"%
v n
z
a
o
c
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION ��
w
w
w
w
w
J p
F
a
0
SURFACE ELEVATION 347
W >
®STANDARD PENETRATION
o
Uj
BLOWSfFT
co
U)
ai
I
w
m
(SC) CLAYEY SAND, white, wet, loose
Z. 315
(SM) SILTY SAND, contains significant mica,
S-9
SS
18
18
tan, wet, loose to medium dense
a
;
35
5
310
,
2
S-10
SS
18
18
2
7
40
5
305
3
S-11
SS
18
18
5
11
45
6
300
6
S-12
SS
18
18
12
3
50
18
295
(WR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
S-13
SS
17
17
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, tan, wet
13
32
82/11
55
50/5
290
15
S-14
SS
15
15
17
67/
50/3
60
CONTINUED
ON NEXT PAGE.
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL Ws❑ WD❑
BORING STARTED 11/05/19
CAVE IN DEPTH
T WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 11 /05/19
HAMMER TYPE
WL
RIG CME 55 FOREMAN Joey/Stefanie
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary

CLIENT
Dalian Development, LLC
Job #:
:06:24158
I BORING #
B-1
SHEET
3 OF 3
c
NO
PROJECT NAME
500 Hillsborough
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
SITE LOCATION
500 Hillsborou h St. Raleigh, Wake Count
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT2
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
ROD°% - — - REC°%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT°% CONTENT% LIMIT"%
v n
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
LL
a
o
z
w
can
w
a
w
U)
Z
=
o
w
ai
z
c
w
0
0
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING 10 LOSS OF CIRCULATION ��
J LL
w
J p
W >
w
m
®STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWSfFT
SURFACE ELEVATION 347
65
70
75
80
85
90
(WR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, tan, wet
285
280
275
270
265
260
50/2
50/1
so/o
50/2
50/1
15
SS
2
2
1
S-17
SS
0
0
SPOON REFUSAL @ 73.50'
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL WS❑ WD❑
BORING STARTED 11/05/19
CAVE IN DEPTH
WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 11 /05/19
HAMMER TYPE
WL
RIG CME 55 FOREMAN Joey/Stefanie
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary

CLIENT
Job#:
BORING#
SHEET
Dalian Development, LLC
:06:24158
B-2
1 OF 2
C
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
500 Hillsborough
NO
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT2
500 Hillsborou h St. Raleigh, Wake Count
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD°% - — - REM
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
-
C
LIMIT°% CONTENT% LIMIT"%
u n
z
a
o
Z
BOTTOM OF CASING 10 LOSS OF CIRCULATION M
w '�
LL
J O
O
SURFACE ELEVATION 342
a
w
w
w
w
W >
® STANDARD PENETRATION
o
BLOWSfFT
CO
CO
U))
it
w
m
As halt Thickness 2.00"
(SC POSSIBLE FILL) POSSIBLE FILL,
5
17.4
S-1
SS
18
18
CLAYEY SAND, brown, moist, loose
5
340
5
r21
(MH) SANDY ELASTIC SILT, contains slight
S-2
SS
18
18
mica, reddish brown, moist, stiff
3
6
14
5
8
2
(ML) SANDY SILT, contains mica, reddish
S-3
SS
18
18
brown, moist, stiff
335
4
1 ;
6
3
S-4
SS
18
18
4
11
10
7
330
,
(SM) SILTY SAND, orangish brown, tan and
S-5
SS
18
18
white, moist to wet, loose to very dense
2
3
7
15
4
325
3
S-6
SS
18
18
4
1
20
6
320
1
S-7
SS
18
18
3
6
25
3
315
4
S-8
SS
18
18
4
11
30
ON NEXT PAGE.
CONTINUED
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL WS ❑ WD ❑
BORING STARTED 11 /07/19
CAVE IN DEPTH
WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 11 /07/19
HAMMER TYPE
WL
RIG CME 55 FOREMAN ,Joey/Stefanie
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary

CLIENT
Job#:
BORING#
SHEET
Dalian Development, LLC
:06:24158
B-2
2 OF 2
C
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
500 Hillsborough
NO
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT2
500 Hillsborou h St. Raleigh, Wake Count
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD°% - — - REM
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
-
CO
LIMIT°% CONTENT% LIMIT"%
u n
Z
a
o
Z
BOTTOM OF CASING 10 LOSS OF CIRCULATION M
w '�
LL
J O
SURFACE ELEVATION 342
a
w
w
w
w
0
w >
�
® STANDARD PENETRATION
o
r
w
m
BLOWSfFT
CO
CO
U))
(SM) SILTY SAND, orangish brown, tan and
white, moist to wet, loose to very dense
310
18
74
S-9
SS
18
18
29
35
45
305
(WR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
S-10
SS
15
15
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, contains mica,
32
45
95/
tan, wet
50/3
40
300
50/4
50/4
S-11
SS
4
4
45
295
50/1
50/1
12
SS
1
1
50
290
50/0
S-13
SS
0
0
SPOON REFUSAL @ 53.50'
55
285
60
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL WS ❑ WD ❑
BORING STARTED 11 /07/19
CAVE IN DEPTH
WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 11/07/19
HAMMER TYPE
WL
RIG CME 55 FOREMAN ,Joey/Stefanie
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary

CLIENT
Job #:
BORING #
SHEET
Dalian Development, LLC
:06:24158 I
B-3
1 OF 3
C
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
500 Hillsborough
NO
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT2
500 Hillsborou h St. Raleigh, Wake Count
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD°% - — - REC°%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
Z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
w
=
z
J LL
LIMIT°% CONTENT% LIMIT"%
v n
z
a
o
c
BOTTOM OF CASING 10 LOSS OF CIRCULATION ��
w
LL
w
w
w
w
J p
a
0
SURFACE ELEVATION 345
W >
®STANDARD PENETRATION
o
can
U)
ai
W
w
m
BLOWSfFT
As halt Thickness 3.00"
7_443
5
(CH POSSIBLE FILL) POSSIBLE FILL, SANDY
S-1
SS
18
18
FAT CLAY WITH GRAVEL, contains rock
3
6 23.8-*
fragments, reddish brown, moist, firm
u
„�y
3
(ML) SANDY SILT, contains slight mica, reddish
S-2
SS
18
18
and orangish brown, moist, stiff
3
5
11
5
340
6
3
S-3
SS
18
18
4
5
2
S-4
SS
18
18
4
10
335
5
,
(SM) SILTY SAND, contains significant mica,
S-5
SS
18
18
tan and dark gray, moist to wet, loose to dense
3
5
12'
15
330
7
2
S-6
SS
18
18
4
20
325
5
3
S-7
SS
18
18
5
13
25
320
8
5
S-8
SS
18
18
7
45
30
315
8
ON NEXT PAGE.
CONTINUED
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL WS❑ WD❑
BORING STARTED 11/07/19
CAVE IN DEPTH
T WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 11 /07/19
HAMMER TYPE
T WL
RIG CME 55 FOREMAN Joey/Stefanie
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary

CLIENT
Job#:
BORING#
SHEET
Dalian Development, LLC
:06:24158
B-3
2 OF 3
C
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
500 Hillsborough
NO
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT2
500 Hillsborou h St. Raleigh, Wake Count
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD°% - — - REM
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
-
Cf)
LIMIT°% CONTENT% LIMIT"%
u n
z
a
o
Z
w '�
BOTTOM OF CASING 10 LOSS OF CIRCULATION M J O
LL
O
SURFACE ELEVATION 345 W >
a
w
w
w
w
® STANDARD PENETRATION
o
CO
CO
r
w
m
BLOWSfFT
U))
(SM) SILTY SAND, contains significant mica,
tan and dark gray, moist to wet, loose to dense
3
S-9
SS
18
18
6
17
35
310
11
8
S-10
SS
18
18
10
35
40
305
25
10
S-11
Ss
18
18
18
4
45
300
22
(WR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
S-12
SS
5
5
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, black and white,
50/5
50/5
wet
50
295
40 50/3
50/3
S-13
SS
9
9
55
290
50/5
50/5
S-14
SS
5
5
60
285
CONTINUED
ON NEXT PAGE.
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL WS ❑ WD ❑
BORING STARTED 11 /07/19
CAVE IN DEPTH
WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 11 /07/19
HAMMER TYPE
WL
RIG CME 55 FOREMAN ,Joey/Stefanie
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary

CLIENT
Job#:
BORING#
SHEET
Dalian Development, LLC
:06:24158
B-3
3 OF 3
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
500 Hillsborough
+�
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT2
500 Hillsborou h St. Raleigh, Wake Count
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD°% — — — REM
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
—
z
CO
LIMIT°% CONTENT% LIMIT°%
n
Z
a
o
BOTTOM OF CASING 10 LOSS OF CIRCULATION ooi
w LL
LL
J O
SURFACE ELEVATION 345
a
w
w
w
w
0
w >
STANDARD PENETRATION
o
r
BLOWSfFT
CO
CO
U))
w
m
(WR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, black and white,
wet
50f0
S-15
SS
0
0
SPOON REFUSAL @ 63.50'
65
280
70
275
75
270
80
265
85
260
90
255
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL WS ❑ WD ❑
BORING STARTED 11 /07/19
CAVE IN DEPTH
WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 11/07/19
HAMMER TYPE
WL
RIG CME 55 FOREMAN ,Joey/Stefanie
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary

CLIENT
Job #:
BORING #
SHEET
Dalian Development, LLC
:06:24158 I
B-4
1 OF 3
C
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
500 Hillsborough
NO
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT2
500 Hillsborou h St. Raleigh, Wake Count
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD°% - — - REC°%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
Z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
w
=
z
J LL
LIMIT°% CONTENT% LIMIT"%
v n
z
a
o
c
BOTTOM OF CASING 10 LOSS OF CIRCULATION ��
w
LL
w
w
w
w
J p
a
0
SURFACE ELEVATION 341
W >
®STANDARD PENETRATION
o
W
BLOWSfFT
can
U)
ai
w
m
As halt Thickness 4.00"
ABC Stone Thickness 6.00"
340
6
(SM FILL) FILL, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL,
S-1
SS
18
18
14
23
contains rock fragments and concrete, tan,
9
moist, medium dense
40
S-2
SS
18
18
x11
23
5
12
335
3
9.
(ML) SANDY SILT, contains mica, orangish
S-3
SS
18
18
brown, moist, firm to stiff
4
3
S-4
SS
18
18
4
8
10
4
330
,
(SM) SILTY SAND, contains significant mica,
S-5
SS
18
18
tan, moist to wet, loose to very dense
2
3
7
15
4
325
2
S-6
SS
18
18
3
7
20
4
320
2
S-7
SS
18
18
3
7
25
4
315
2
S-8
Ss
18
18
3
8
30
6
ON NEXT PAGE.
CONTINUED
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL WS❑ WD❑
BORING STARTED 11/08/19
CAVE IN DEPTH
T WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 11 /08/19
HAMMER TYPE
WL
RIG CME 55 FOREMAN Joey/Stefanie
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary

CLIENT
Job#:
BORING#
SHEET
Dalian Development, LLC
:06:24158
B-4
2 OF 3
C
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
500 Hillsborough
NO
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT2
500 Hillsborou h St. Raleigh, Wake Count
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD°% - — - REM
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
-
Cf)
LIMIT°% CONTENT% LIMIT"%
u n
z
a
o
Z
w '�
BOTTOM OF CASING 10 LOSS OF CIRCULATION M J O
LL
O
SURFACE ELEVATION 341 W >
a
w
w
w
w
® STANDARD PENETRATION
o
r
BLOWSfFT
CO
CO
U))
w
m
(SM) SILTY SAND, contains significant mica,
310
tan, moist to wet, loose to very dense
4
S-9
SS
18
18
6
1
35
305
4
S-10
SS
18
18
8
19
40
11
300
10
S-11
Ss
18
18
13
31
45
18
295
18
S-12
SS
18
18
21
54
50
33
290
(WR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
S-13
SS
10
10
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, tan and white, wet
50/4
5014
55
285
50/5
50/5
S-14
SS
5
5
60
280
ON NEXT PAGE.
CONTINUED
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL WS ❑ WD ❑
BORING STARTED 11 /08/19
CAVE IN DEPTH
WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 11 /08/19
HAMMER TYPE
WL
RIG CME 55 FOREMAN ,Joey/Stefanie
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary

CLIENT
Job#:
BORING#
SHEET
Dalian Development, LLC
:06:24158
B-4
3 OF 3
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
500 Hillsborough
+�
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT2
500 Hillsborou h St. Raleigh, Wake Count
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD°% — — — REM
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT°% CONTENT% LIMIT°%
n
LL
Z
a
z
—
o
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING 10 LOSS OF CIRCULATION ooi
cf) p
w LL
J O
SURFACE ELEVATION 341
a
o
w
<
cf)(WR)
w
<cf)
w
<
w
0
�
w >
w
m
STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWSfFT
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, tan and white, wet
50/1
50/1
15
SS
1
1
65
275
So/o
S-16
SS
0
0
SPOON REFUSAL @ 68.50'
70
270
75
265
80
260
85
255
90
250
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL WS ❑ WD ❑
BORING STARTED 11 /08/19
CAVE IN DEPTH
WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 11/08/19
HAMMER TYPE
WL
RIG CME 55 FOREMAN ,Joey/Stefanie
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary

CLIENT
Job #:
BORING #
SHEET
Dalian Development, LLC
:06:24158 I
B-5
1 OF 2
C
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
500 Hillsborough
NO
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT2
500 Hillsborou h St. Raleigh, Wake Count
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD°% - — - REC°%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
Z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
w
=
z
J LL
LIMIT°% CONTENT% LIMIT"%
v n
z
a
o
c
BOTTOM OF CASING 10 LOSS OF CIRCULATION ��
w
LL
w
w
w
w
J p
a
0
SURFACE ELEVATION 344
W >
®STANDARD PENETRATION
o
0
BLOWSfFT
can
U)
ai
w
m
Gravel and Brick Thickness [12.00"]
moo
e
(SM FILL) FILL, SILTY SAND, contains asphalt
13
S-1
SS
18
18
and brick, tan, moist, medium dense
12
8
2 ,
(CH) FAT CLAY WITH SAND, contains slight
S-2
SS
18
18
mica, red and orange, moist, stiff
340
3
5
11 .36 &81
5
6
36.5
3
(ML) SANDY SILT, contains mica, reddish and
S-3
SS
18
18
orangish brown, moist, stiff to firm
6
11 ;
335
2
3
7
S-4
SS
18
18
10
4
(SM) SILTY SAND, with volatile organic vapor
S-5
SS
18
18
odor, contains mica, tan and white, moist to wet,
330
2
3
7 '
loose to dense
4
15
;
325
2
3
7
S-6
SS
18
18
20
4
320
3
5
12,
S-7
SS
18
18
25
315
3
6
12
S-8
SS
18
18
30
6
ON NEXT PAGE.
CONTINUED
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL WS❑ WD❑
BORING STARTED 11/06/19
CAVE IN DEPTH
T WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 11 /06/19
HAMMER TYPE
T WL
RIG CME 55 FOREMAN Joey/Stefanie
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary

CLIENT
Job #:
BORING #
SHEET
Dalian Development, LLC
:06:24158
I B-5
2 OF 2
C
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
500 Hillsborough
NO
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT2
500 Hillsborou h St. Raleigh, Wake Count
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD°% — — — REC°%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
Z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
w
=
z
J LL
LIMIT°% CONTENT% LIMIT"%
v n
z
a
o
c
BOTTOM OF CASING 10 LOSS OF CIRCULATION 1o0i
w
LL
w
w
w
w
J p
a
0
SURFACE ELEVATION 344
W >
®STANDARD PENETRATION
o
0
BLOWSfFT
can
U)
ai
w
m
(SM) SILTY SAND, with volatile organic vapor
odor, contains mica, tan and white, moist to wet,
loose to dense
310
11
14
37 ,
S-9
SS
18
18
35
23
305
6
10
22.
S-10
SS
18
18
40
12
300
10
13
2
S-11
SS
18
18
45
16
5013
(WR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
12
SS
3
3
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, tan, black and
295
50/3
white, wet
50
;
290
50/0
S-13
SS
0
0
SPOON REFUSAL @ 53.50'
55
285
60
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL Ws❑ WD❑
BORING STARTED 11/06/19
CAVE IN DEPTH
T WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 11 /06/19
HAMMER TYPE
T WL
RIG CME 55 FOREMAN Joey/Stefanie
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary

CLIENT
Job #:
BORING #
SHEET
Dalian Development, LLC
:06:24158 I
B-6
1 OF 2
C
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
500 Hillsborough
NO
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT2
500 Hillsborou h St. Raleigh, Wake Count
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD°% - — - REC°%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
Z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
w
=
z
J LL
LIMIT°% CONTENT% LIMIT"%
v n
z
a
o
c
BOTTOM OF CASING 10 LOSS OF CIRCULATION ��
w
LL
w
w
w
w
J p
a
0
SURFACE ELEVATION 342
W >
®STANDARD PENETRATION
o
0
BLOWSfFT
can
U)
ai
w
m
Gravel and Brick Thickness 8.00"
eo
(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, reddish brown,
4
S-1
SS
18
18
moist, Stiff
340
6
1'4 23.9♦
s
(ML) SANDY SILT, contains slight mica, reddish
S-2
SS
18
18
and orangish brown, moist, stiff to firm
3
6
13
5
7
2
S-3
SS
18
18
335
3
7
4
(SM) SILTY SAND, light brown, tan, black and
S-4
SS
18
18
white, moist to wet, loose to medium dense
3
7
10
4
330
S-5
SS
18
18
3
7
15
4
325
5
S-6
SS
18
18
7
18
20
320
2
S-7
SS
18
18
3
8
25
5
315
3
S-8
SS
18
18
4
11
30
7
ON NEXT PAGE.
CONTINUED
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL WS❑ WD❑
BORING STARTED 11/06/19
CAVE IN DEPTH
T WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 11 /06/19
HAMMER TYPE
T WL
RIG CME 55 FOREMAN Joey/Stefanie
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary

CLIENT
Job #:
BORING #
SHEET
Dalian Development, LLC
:06:24158
I B-6
2 OF 2
C
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
500 Hillsborough
NO
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT2
500 Hillsborou h St. Raleigh, Wake Count
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD°% - — - REC°%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
Z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
w
=
z
J LL
LIMIT°% CONTENT% LIMIT"%
v n
z
a
o
c
BOTTOM OF CASING 10 LOSS OF CIRCULATION ��
w
LL
w
w
w
w
J p
a
0
SURFACE ELEVATION 342
W >
®STANDARD PENETRATION
o
0
BLOWSfFT
can
U)
ai
w
m
(SM) SILTY SAND, light brown, tan, black and
white, moist to wet, loose to medium dense
310
7
S-9
SS
18
18
10
21
35
11
305
8
S-10
SS
18
18
9
, 26
40
17
300
(WR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
S-11
SS
15
15
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, contains mica, tan
27
45
95/
and gray, wet
50/3
45
295
50/0
S-12
SS
0
0
SPOON REFUSAL @ 48.50'
50
290
55
285
60
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL Ws❑ WD❑
BORING STARTED 11/06/19
CAVE IN DEPTH
T WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 11 /06/19
HAMMER TYPE
T WL
RIG CME 55 FOREMAN Joey/Stefanie
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary

CLIENT
Job#:
BORING#
SHEET
Dalian Development, LLC
:06:24158
B-7
1 OF 3
C
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
500 Hillsborough
NO
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT2
500 Hillsborou h St. Raleigh, Wake Count
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD°% - — - REM
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
-
C
LIMIT°% CONTENT% LIMIT"%
u n
z
a
o
Z
BOTTOM OF CASING 10 LOSS OF CIRCULATION M
w '�
LL
J O
O
SURFACE ELEVATION 339
a
w
w
w
w
W >
® STANDARD PENETRATION
o
r
BLOWSfFT
CO
CO
U))
w
m
Concrete Thickness 6.50"
3
ABC Stone Thickness 4.00"
(CL POSSIBLE FILL) POSSIBLE FILL, SANDY
S-1
SS
18
18
q
8 20� 41
LEAN CLAY, brown, moist, firm
q
19'.4
(ML) SANDY SILT, contains slight mica, reddish
S-2
SS
18
18
and orangish brown, moist, stiff to firm
335
a
;
5
5
2
S-3
SS
18
18
3
7
Hill
q
;
(SM) SILTY SAND, contains significant mica,
S-4
SS
18
18
brown, tan, black and white, moist to wet, loose
330
2
6
to dense
3
10
325
2
2
6
S-5
SS
18
18
15
4
320
2
2
7
S-6
SS
18
18
20
5
315
3
q
11
S-7
SS
18
18
25
310
5
6
13
S-8
SS
18
18
30
ON NEXT PAGE.
CONTINUED
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL WS ❑ WD ❑
BORING STARTED 11 /08/19
CAVE IN DEPTH
WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 11 /08/19
HAMMER TYPE
WL
RIG CME 55 FOREMAN ,Joey/Stefanie
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary

CLIENT
Job#:
BORING#
SHEET
Dalian Development, LLC
:06:24158
B-7
2 OF 3
C
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
500 Hillsborough
NO
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT2
500 Hillsborou h St. Raleigh, Wake Count
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD°% - — - REM
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
-
Cf)
LIMIT°% CONTENT% LIMIT"%
u n
z
a
o
Z
BOTTOM OF CASING 10 LOSS OF CIRCULATION M
w '�
LL
J O
O
SURFACE ELEVATION 339
a
w
w
w
w
W >
® STANDARD PENETRATION
o
CO
CO
r
w
m
BLOWSfFT
U))
(SM) SILTY SAND, contains significant mica,
brown, tan, black and white, moist to wet, loose
to dense
305
5
8
18
S-9
SS
18
18
35
10
300
5
6
15
S-10
SS
18
18
40
9
295
10
18
41
S-11
Ss
18
18
45
23
(WR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
S-12
SS
11
11
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, tan and white, wet
290
22
50/5
50/5
50
285
35
50/5
50/5
S-13
SS
11
11
55
280
40
50/50/4
S-14
SS
10
10
60
CONTINUED
ON NEXT PAGE.
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL WS ❑ WD ❑
BORING STARTED 11 /08/19
CAVE IN DEPTH
WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 11 /08/19
HAMMER TYPE
WL
RIG CME 55 FOREMAN ,Joey/Stefanie
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary

CLIENT
Job#:
BORING#
SHEET
Dalian Development, LLC
:06:24158
B-7
3 OF 3
c
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
500 Hillsborough
NO
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT2
500 Hillsborou h St. Raleigh, Wake Count
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD°% - — - REM
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
-
cf) p
LIMIT°% CONTENT% LIMIT"%
u n
Z
a
o
Z
BOTTOM OF CASING 10 LOSS OF CIRCULATION M
w '�
LL
J O
SURFACE ELEVATION 339
a
w
w
w
w
0
w >
®STANDARD PENETRATION
o
BLOWSfFT
�
�
U))
it
w
m
(WR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, tan and white, wet
275
50/5
50/5
S-15
SS
5
5
65
50/2
50/2
16
SS
2
2
270
70
50/3
50/3
17
SS
3
3
265
75
260
50/0
S-18
SS
0
0
SPOON REFUSAL @ 78.50'
1 ;
80
255
85
250
90
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
�7 WL WS ❑ WD ❑
BORING STARTED 11 /08/19
CAVE IN DEPTH
WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 11/08/19
HAMMER TYPE
WL
RIG CME 55 FOREMAN ,Joey/Stefanie
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary

EN
REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS
MATERIALt'2
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
GRAVEL
`7 o'
TOPSOIL
VOID
BRICK
p D
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
FILL
MAN -PLACED SOILS
GW
WELL -GRADED GRAVEL
gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines
GP
POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL
gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines
GM
SILTY GRAVEL
gravel -sand -silt mixtures
GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL
V-3
gravel -sand -clay mixtures
SW
WELL -GRADED SAND
gravelly sand, little or no fines
SP
POORLY -GRADED SAND
•
gravelly sand, little or no fines
SM
SILTY SAND
sand -silt mixtures
?
SC
CLAYEY SAND
'
sand -clay mixtures
ML
SILT
non -plastic to medium plasticity
MH
ELASTIC SILT
I I
high plasticity
�
CL
LEAN CLAY
M°
low to medium plasticity
CH
FAT CLAY
high plasticity
OL
ORGANIC SILT or CLAY
non -plastic to low plasticity
OH
ORGANIC SILT or CLAY
high plasticity
PT
PEAT
highly organic soils
DRILLING SAMPLING SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS
SS
Split Spoon Sampler
PM
Pressuremeter Test
ST
Shelby Tube Sampler
RD
Rock Bit Drilling
WS
Wash Sample
RC
Rock Core, NX, BX, AX
BS
Bulk Sample of Cuttings
REC
Rock Sample Recovery %
PA
Power Auger (no sample)
RQD
Rock Quality Designation %
HSA
Hollow Stem Auger
PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION
DESIGNATION
PARTICLE SIZES
Boulders
12 inches (300 mm) or larger
Cobbles
3 inches to 12 inches (75 mm to 300 mm)
Gravel: Coarse
3/4 inch to 3 inches (19 mm to 75 mm)
Fine
4.75 mm to 19 mm (No. 4 sieve to 3/4 inch)
Sand: Coarse
2.00 mm to 4.75 mm (No. 10 to No. 4 sieve)
Medium
0.425 mm to 2.00 mm (No. 40 to No. 10 sieve)
Fine
0.074 mm to 0.425 mm (No. 200 to No. 40 sieve)
Silt & Clay ("Fines")
<0.074 mm (smaller than a No. 200 sieve)
COHESIVE SILTS & CLAYS
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
SPT5
CONSISTENCY
STRENGTH, Qp4
(BPF)
(COHESIVE)
<0.25
<3
Very Soft
0.25 - <0.50
3-4
Soft
0.50 - <1.00
5-8
Firm
1.00 - <2.00
9 - 15
Stiff
2.00 - <4.00
16 - 30
Very Stiff
4.00 - 8.00
31 - 50
Hard
>8.00
>50
Very Hard
GRAVELS, SANDS & NON -COHESIVE SILTS
SPT5
DENSITY
<5
Very Loose
5-10
Loose
11 - 30
Medium Dense
31 - 50
Dense
>50
Very Dense
RELATIVE
AMOUNT
COARSE
GRAINED
(%)a
FINE
GRAINED
(%)a
Trace
<5
<5
Dual Symbol
10
10
(ex: SIN-SM)
With
15-20
15-25
Adjective
>25
>30
(ex: "Silty')
WATER LEVELS
WL
Water Level (WS)(WD)
(WS) While Sampling
(WD) While Drilling
SHW
Seasonal High WT
ACR
After Casing Removal
v
SWT
Stabilized Water Table
DCI
Dry Cave -In
WCI
Wet Cave -In
Classifications and symbols per ASTM D 2488-09 (Visual -Manual Procedure) unless noted otherwise.
2To be consistent with general practice, "POORLY GRADED" has been removed from GP, GP -GM, GP -GC, SP, SP-SM, SP-SC soil types on the boring logs.
3Non-ASTM designations are included in soil descriptions and symbols along with ASTM symbol (Ex: (SM-FILL)].
4Typically estimated via pocket penetrometer or Torvane shear test and expressed in tons per square foot (tsf).
5Standard Penetration Test (SPT) refers to the number of hammer blows (blow count) of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch OD split spoon sampler
required to drive the sampler 12 inches (ASTM D 1586). "N-value" is another term for 'blow count" and is expressed in blows per foot (bpf).
6The water levels are those levels actually measured in the borehole at the times indicated by the symbol. The measurements are relatively reliable
when augering, without adding fluids, in granular soils. In clay and cohesive silts, the determination of water levels may require several days for the
water level to stabilize. In such cases, additional methods of measurement are generally employed.
Minor deviation from ASTM D 2488-09 Note 16.
8Percentages are estimated to the nearest 5% per ASTM D 2488-09.
Reference Notes for Boring Logs (03-22-2017) © 2017 ECS Corporate Services, LLC- All Rights Reserved

APPENDIX C — Laboratory Testing
Laboratory Test Results Summary

Laboratory Testing Summary
Page 1 of 1
Atterberg Limits3
Percent
Moisture - Density (Corr.)5
Boring
Sample
Depth
MC1
Soil
Passing
CBR
Other
Maximum
Optimum
Number
Number
(feet)
N
Type2
LL
PL
PI
No.200
Density
Moisture
Value6
Sieve4
(pcf)
N
B-1
1.00 - 2.50
20.0
S-1
B-2
S-1
1.00 - 2.50
17.4
SC
45
21
24
49.0
B-3
S-1
1.00 - 2.50
23.8
B-5
S-2
3.50 - 5.00
36.5
CH
81
36
45
81.5
B-7
S-1
1.00 - 2.50
19.4
CL
41
20
21
53.4
Notes: 1. ASTM D 2216, 2. ASTM D 2487, 3. ASTM D 4318, 4. ASTM D 1140, 5. See test reports for test method, 6. See test reports for test method
Definitions: MC: Moisture Content, Soil Type: USCS (Unified Soil Classification System), LL: Liquid Limit, PL: Plastic Limit, PI: Plasticity Index, CBR: California Bearing Ratio, OC: Organic Content (ASTM D 2974)
Project No.
ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP
Project Name: 500 Hillsborough
9001 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27617
Client: Dalian Development, LLC
Phone: [phone]Fax: [phone]
Printed On: Tuesday, November 19, 2019

APPENDIX D — Supplemental Report Documents and Calculations
Laterally Loaded Pile Calculation Results
Slope Stability Calculation Results

Displacement X (in)
0 0.2 0.4
-3
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
41
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
-3
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
Rotation Y (rad)
0 0.002 0.004 0.006
Beam Shear Force Y' (lbs)
-5000 0 5000 10000 15000
-3-
0-
3
6
9
■1
12
.1
15
■1
18
.1
21
■1
.1
24 ■1
Q) 27
-
0
30-
33-
36-
39
42-
45-
48-
51-

Displacement X (in) Rotation Y (rad) Beam Shear Force Y' (lbs)
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0 10000 20000
-3 -3 -3
0 0 0
3 3 3
6 6 6
9- 9- 9
�1
12 12 12
15 15 15
18 18 18
21 21 � 21
24 24 24
27 a) 27 Q) 27
0 0
30 30 30
33 33 33
36 36 36
_1
I_1
39 39 39
42 42 42
AMMI
45 45 45
_1
48 48 48
_1
51 51 51

-3
Displacement X (in)
0 0.2 0.4
-3
0
Rotation Y (rad)
0.002 0.004 0.006
-3
Beam Shear Force Y' (lbs)
0 10000 20000
0
0
0
3
3
3
6
6
6
9
9
9
I
12
12
12
I
I
15
15
15
I
18
18
18
21
21
21
I
4.
4— 24
..
24
..
24
I
-1
I
Q) 27
aa) 27
Q) 27
30
30
30
33
33
33
36
I
36
36
39
39
39
42
42
42
45
45
45
48
48
�
48
51
�
51
�
51

Displacement X (in)
0 0.3 0.6 0.9
-3
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
41
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
-3
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
Rotation Y (rad)
0 0.003 0.006 0.009
Beam Shear Force Y' (lbs)
-10000 0 10000 20000
-3-
0-
3-
6-
9-
I
12
I
15
I
18
I
21
41
� I
24 I
Q) 27
-
0
30-
33-
36-
39-
42-
45-
48-
51-

0
co-
0
CO—
fM
1.604
250.00 Ibs/ft2
0
M
W
0
CO
0
M
0
001—
0 20
40 60 80
100 120
140
160
180
Project
500 Hillsborough
Ana/ysisDescription
Slope Stability
o c I e n
Drawn By
scale Company
I
PR
1:224
ECS
Date 11/20/2019
File Name
Slidel.slmd
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.029
Unit Weight
Cohesion
Phi
Material Name
Color
(Ibs/ft3)
(psf)
(deg)
New Fill
�
120
0
28
SC Fill
�
120
300
28
SM FILL
�
115
200
28
SM loose
�
115
200
28
SC
�
110
100
26
SM loose Submerged
�
115
200
28
SM mdense
�
125
300
30
Wall block
�
150