SW6191005_Geotech Report_20191107

r fC►�
REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
AND GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
PROPOSED SOTF DFAC EXPANSION
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
BUILDING & EARTH PROJECT NO: RD180323
PREPARED FOR:
Stantec
JUNE 29, 2018
BUILDING & EARTH
Geatechnical, Environrrrm=l, and Materials Engineers
1� 5

610 Spring Branch Rd
Dunn, North Carolina 28334
Ph: [phone]
www.Bu i Id i nclAnd Earth.com
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
June 29, 2018
Sta ntec
801 Jones Franklin Rd, Suite'300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Attention: Mr. Dan Saltsman, P.E.
Subject: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation
SOTF DFAC Expansion
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Building & Earth Project No: RD180323
Dear Mr. Saltsman:
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc. has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and
geotechnical engineering evaluation for the SOTF DFAC Expansion located in Fort Bragg, North
Carolina.
The purpose of this exploration and evaluation was to determine general subsurface conditions
at the site and to address applicable geotechnical aspects of the proposed construction and site
development. The recommendations in this report are based on a physical reconnaissance of the
site and observation and classification of samples obtained from eight (8) soil test borings, two
(2) hand auger borings, and four (4) infiltration tests conducted at the site. Confirmation of the
anticipated subsurface conditions during construction is an essential part of geotechnical services.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide consultation services for the proposed project. If you
have any questions regarding the information in this report or need any additional information,
please call us.
Respectfully Submitted,
BUILDING & EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Engineering Firm F-1081
-7 � ` � r�
Kevin Edmondson, P.E. (AL)
Staff Engineer
C. Mark Nolen, P.E.
Senior Vice President
����Li 111� 1►111,
����,�� •0 A �a fir.
�-
• Q SEAL r
031353
r ■
■
r �
i
RK NOL�i�'`�
�l41it1111\0
G_ Zq_ 1.9
L -&I k,
Gloria R. Raynor, P.E. (AL)
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL
Tuscaloosa, AL • Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC
Jacksonville, NC • Springdale, AR • Little Rock, AR • Tulsa, OK • Oklahoma City, OK • Durant, OK

Table of Content:,
1.0 PROJECT & SITE DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................................................1
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES............................................................................................................................................... 3
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION...................................................................................................4
3.1 GEOLOGY.................................................................................................................................................................. 5
3.2 EXISTING SURFACE CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................................5
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.....................................................................................................................................5
3.3.1 EXISTING FILL MATERIAL.................................................................................................................................6
3.3.2 COASTAL PLAINS SOILS..................................................................................................................................6
3.3.3 AUGER REFUSAL...............................................................................................................................................7
3.3.4 GROUNDWATER...............................................................................................................................................7
4.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................................................7
4.1 INITIAL SITE PREPARATION.....................................................................................................................................8
4.2 SUBGRADE EVALUATION.........................................................................................................................................8
4.3 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS...................................................................................................................................9
4.4 EVALUATION/UNDERCUTTING OF POORLY COMPACTED EXISTING FILL..........................................................9
4.5 STRUCTURAL FILL..................................................................................................................................................
10
4.6 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS..........................................................................................................................
11
4.7 SHWT AND INFILTRATION TESTING...................................................................................................................
11
4.8 UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL...................................................................................................................................
12
4.9 LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATION.............................................................................................
12
4.10 WET WEATHER CONSTRUCTION......................................................................................................................
12
5.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................13
6.0 FLOOR SLABS..........................................................................................................................................................15
7.0 PAVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................................................................15
7.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT.............................................................................................................................................
16
7.2 RIGID PAVEMENT..................................................................................................................................................
16
8.0 SUBGRADE REHABILITATION............................................................................................................................17
9.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING.......................................................................................................................17
10.0 CLOSING AND LIMITATIONS..........................................................................................................................18
APPENDIX..............................................................................................................................................................................
Page I i

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOTF DFAC Expansion, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180323, June 29, 2018
1.0 PROJECT & SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Information relative to the
proposed site and the proposed development is listed in Table 1 below. Historical images
of the site from Google Earth are presented on the following page.
Unknown
Size (Ac.)
Existing Development
Existing DFAC
Vegetation
Grass landscaping
General Site
Slopes
Yes — Building Area: Gently sloping downward from north
to south; Parking Area: Gently sloping downward from
south to north
Yes (loading dock wall)
Fair
Retaining Walls
Drainage
Cuts & Fills
Fills on the order of approx. 0.5 to 6 feet
1 (Extension of existing building)
12,000
2
No. of Bldgs
Square Ft.
Stories
Proposed Construction
Steel and masonry
Buildings Column Loads
Up to 75 kips
Wall Loads
Up to 3 kips per linear foot
Preferred Foundation
Conventional shallow foundations
Preferred Slab
Concrete slab -on -grade
Traffic
Not Provided
Pavements Standard Duty Yes, Flexible
Heavy Duty Yes, Rigid and Flexible
Table 1: Project and Site Description
Reference: DFAC Civil Plans, undated, prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; DFAC Structural Plans,
undated, prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Notes:
1. If actual loading conditions exceed our anticipated loads, Building & Earth Sciences should
be allowed to review the proposed structural design and its effects on our recommendations
for foundation design.
Page 11

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOTF DFAC Expansion, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180323, June 29, 2018
2. Since grading information has not been finalized, assumptions have been made regarding
grades for the purpose of this report based on the limited information provided. Therefore, it
will be essential for Building & Earth to review the topographic and proposed grading plans,
when they become available, and be contracted to provide supplemental recommendations
prior to starting construction.
Figure 1: Google Earth Image dated November 2013
Figure 2: Google Earth Image dated February 1993
Page 12

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOTF DFAC Expansion, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180323, June 29, 2018
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The authorized subsurface exploration was performed on June 6, 7, and 14, 2018 in
conformance with our proposal RD20165, dated March 21, 2018. Occasionally some
modification of the scope outlined in our proposal is required to provide for proper
evaluation of the encountered subsurface conditions. Due to the presence of soft soils at
the site, borings B-03 and B-06 were extended to 30 feet below the surface and to auger
refusal, respectively. Borings P-02 and P-04 were drilled using a hand auger due to access
restrictions.
The purpose of the geotechnical exploration was to determine general subsurface
conditions at specific boring locations and to gather data on which to base a geotechnical
evaluation with respect to the proposed construction. The subsurface exploration for this
project consisted of eight (8) soil test borings, two (2) hand auger borings, and four (4)
infiltration tests. The site was drilled using a Geoprobe 7822 DT drill rig equipped with an
automatic hammer. At the hand auger borings (P-02 and P-04) a Dynamic Cone
Penetration (DCP) testing was performed to evaluate the consistency of the subgrade
soils.
The soil boring locations were determined in the field by a representative of our staff by
estimating right angles and measuring distances from existing site features. As such, the
boring locations shown on the Boring Location Plan attached to this report should be
considered approximate.
The soil samples recovered during our site investigation were visually classified and
specific samples were selected by the project engineer for laboratory analysis. The
laboratory analysis consisted of:
Natural Moisture Content
Atterberg Limits
D2216 1 6
D4318 1 6
Material Finer Than No. 200 Sieve by Washing I D1140 1 6
Modified Proctor Compaction Test I D1557 1
Table 2: Scope of Laboratory Tests
The results of the laboratory analysis are presented on the enclosed Boring Logs and in
tabular form in the Appendix of this report. Descriptions of the laboratory tests that were
performed are also included in the Appendix.
Page 13

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOTF DFAC Expansion, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180323, June 29, 2018
The information gathered from the exploration was evaluated to determine a suitable
foundation type for the proposed structure. The information was also evaluated to help
determine if any special subgrade preparation procedures will be required during the
earthwork phase of the project.
The results of the work are presented within this report that addresses:
Summary of existing surface conditions.
A description of the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations.
Site preparation considerations including material types to be expected during
mass grading as well as recommendations regarding the handling and treatment
of unsuitable soils, if encountered.
Compaction requirements and recommended criteria to establish suitable surfaces
for structural backfill.
Boring logs detailing the materials encountered with soil classifications,
penetration values, and groundwater levels (if measured).
Presentation of laboratory test results.
Recommendations for support of the new structure.
Presentation of the estimated total and differential settlement.
Supporting geotechnical calculations.
Plans and maps showing the locations of the project and our onsite work.
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION
The following discussion is intended to create a general understanding of the site from a
geotechnical engineering perspective. It is not intended to be a discussion of every
potential geotechnical issue that may arise, nor to provide every possible interpretation
of the conditions identified. The following conditions and subsequent recommendations
are based on the assumption that significant changes in subsurface conditions do not
occur between boreholes. However, anomalous conditions can occur due to variations in
existing fill that may be present at the site, or the geologic conditions at the site, and it
will be necessary to evaluate the assumed conditions during site grading and foundation
installation.
Page 14

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOTF DFAC Expansion, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180323, June 29, 2018
3.1 GEOLOGY
Based on published geologic literature, the subject site is underlain by the Middendorf
Formation of the Cretaceous Age. The Middendorf Formation consists of sand, sandstone,
and mudstone, and is gray to pale gray with an orange cast, mottled in color. Soil types
in the Middendorf Formation in the area of the subject site include the Blaney Loamy
Sand, Bragg Sandy Loam, and Candor Sand.
3.1 EXISTING SURMLE CONDITIONS
At the time of our field exploration, the subject site was within the existing SOTF
compound at Fort Bragg. Our field work was conducted in the landscaped areas adjacent
to the existing DFAC and near the existing helicopter pad to the west. Scattered trees and
asphalt drives were also present at the subject site. Approximately 3 to 8 inches of topsoil
were encountered throughout the site. The average topsoil thickness was approximately
5 inches. No testing has been performed to verify that soils meet the requirements of
"topsoil". The topsoil depths reported on the boring logs should only be construed as an
estimate and actual conditions during construction will vary. The topsoil and root zone
may be thicker in unexplored areas of the site, which can affect the quantities of topsoil
removed during site grading.
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONI
A generalized stratification summary has been prepared using data from the soil test
borings and is presented in the table below. The stratification depicts the general soil
conditions and strata types encountered during our field investigation.
1 3-8in.
2 1.7 — 5.4 ft.
3 9-27.6ft.
Topsoil
Existing Fill Material: Clayey -Silty Sand
(SC-SM), Silty Sand (SM) (B-01 through 13-
06, only)
Coastal Plains: Clayey -Silty Sand (SC-SM),
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM),
Clayey Sand (SC) and Silty Sand (SM)
Table 3: Stratification Summary
Typically Medium Dense
Typically Loose to Medium
Dense
Subsurface soil profiles have also been prepared based on the data obtained at the
specific boring locations. The subsurface soil profiles are presented in the Appendix. For
specific details on the information obtained from individual soil borings, please refer to
the Boring Logs included in the Appendix.
Page 15

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOTF DFAC Expansion, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180323, June 29, 2018
The elevations of the borings indicated in this report were estimated based on the
Sediment and Erosion Control Plan (Sheet CG101), dated June 1, 2018, provided by
Stantec.
3.3.1 EXISTING FILL MATERIAL
Existing fill material was encountered in all borings within the building addition footprint
as well as the planned dumpster corral. The fill material extended to sandy coastal plains
soils at depths ranging from approximately 2.4 to 6 feet below the existing grades.
The fill material consisted of Clayey -Silty Sand (SC-SM) and Silty Sand (SM). Standard
Penetration Tests (SPT) N-values within the fill layer ranged from 3 to 19, with most values
being greater than 8. The fill material was generally brown, red, or reddish brown in color
with moisture contents ranging from approximately 5 to 24 percent. Atterberg limits tests
performed on selected samples of the fill material exhibited Liquid Limits (LL) of 20 and
22 and Plasticity Indexes (PI) of 2 and 6 with approximately 12 to 21 percent fines.
Atterberg limits tests performed on the fill material sampled from boring B-04 indicated
the material was non -plastic (NP).
Material identified as "Possible fill" was encountered in boring B-06 below the fill and
extended to auger refusal depth (14 feet below the existing surface elevation). Auger
refusal at this boring location was most likely caused by a utility line (concrete pipe).
Based on our conversation with onsite personnel, we understand that underground
utilities lines including old fuel tanks may be present in the vicinity of B-06.
COASTAL PLAINS SOILS
Coastal plains soils were encountered at all boring locations beneath the surface topsoil
layer or the fill material (where encountered). The coastal plains soils consisted primarily
of an alternating mixture of Clayey -Silty Sand (SC-SM), Clayey Sand (SC), and Silty Sand
(SM). Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM) was encountered in borings B-01 and B-02 at
approximately 23.5 and 22 feet below the existing surface elevation, respectively.
SPT N-values within the coastal plains soils typically ranged from 6 to 29. Weight of
hammer (WH) was recorded in borings B-01, B-03 and B-06 at depths ranging from about
8.5 to 18.5 feet below the existing surface elevation. Atterberg limits tests performed on
selected samples of the coastal plains soils exhibited Liquid Limits (LL) ranging from 19 to
32 and Plasticity Indexes (PI) ranging from 3 to 14 with approximately 9 to 28 percent
passing the #200 sieve. Atterberg limits tests performed on a selected sample from boring
P-01 indicated the material was non -plastic (NP).
Page 16

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOTF DFAC Expansion, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180323, June 29, 2018
3.3 3 AUGER REFUSAL
Auger refusal is the drilling depth at which the borehole can no longer be advanced using
soil drilling procedures. Auger refusal can occur on hard soil, boulders, buried debris or
bedrock. Coring is required to sample the material below auger refusal. Auger refusal
was encountered in boring B-06 at a depth of approximately 14 feet below present grade;
however, auger refusal was most likely caused by a utility line (concrete pipe). Based on
our conversation with onsite personnel, we understand that underground utilities lines
including old fuel tanks may be present in the vicinity of B-06.
.5..i.4 GROUNDWATER
At the time of drilling, groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings. Water
levels reported are accurate only for the time and date that the borings were drilled. Long
term monitoring of the boreholes was not included as part of our subsurface exploration.
The borings were backfilled the same day that they were drilled.
4.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
A Sediment and Erosion Control Plan provided by Stantec, dated June 1, 2018, displays
existing grades and was available at the time of this report. An Enlarged Site Plan, also
dated June 1, 2018 and provided by Stantec, shows a proposed finished floor elevation of
304.8 for the proposed building addition. Based on the provided plans, we anticipate fills
on the order of approximately 0.5 to 6 feet will be required to reach finished grades in the
building area. Grading information was not provided for the parking addition or the
dumpster corral addition. However, we have assumed that minimum cuts and fills (less
than 1 foot) will be required to reach the planned subgrades in these areas. When the
grading plan is finalized, Building & Earth should be contracted to review the plan
and its effects on our recommendations.
Based on our evaluation of the subsurface soil information, and the anticipated
foundation loads, it appears construction with a conventional shallow foundation system
is feasible. The site development recommendations outlined below are intended for
development of the site to support construction with a conventional shallow foundation
system. If a different type of foundation system is preferred, Building & Earth should
be allowed to review the site development recommendations to verify that they are
appropriate for the preferred foundation system.
The primary geotechnical concerns for this project are:
The presence and consistency of the existing fill layer.
Page 17

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOTF DFAC Expansion, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180323, June 29, 2018
The presence of loose sands throughout the site. Very loose to loose sands were
typically encountered below 13 feet; however, these soils were encountered at
shallower depths in the vicinity of boring B-03.
Moisture sensitive silty sands (SM) and clayey sand (SC) encountered throughout
the site.
Recommendations addressing the site conditions are presented in the following sections.
4.1 INITIAL SITE PREPARATION
All trees, roots, topsoil and deleterious materials should be removed from the proposed
construction areas. Approximately 3 to 8 inches of topsoil were observed in the borings.
We anticipate undercutting up to 1.5 feet will be required in the vicinity of boring B-03 to
remove the existing poorly compacted fill. Based on the conditions encountered in B-03,
and in order to reduce the settlement potential, undercutting will be required at the
interior columns near B-03. A geotechnical engineer should observe stripping, grubbing
and undercutting operations to evaluate that all unsuitable materials are removed from
locations for proposed construction.
Because of past and current use of the site, buried structures could be encountered such
as foundations, utility lines, septic tanks, etc. If encountered, they should be removed and
backfilled in accordance with requirements outlined in the Structural Fill section of this
report.
Materials disturbed during clearing operations should be stabilized in place or, if
necessary, undercut to undisturbed materials and backfilled with properly compacted,
approved structural fill.
During site preparation activities, the contractor should identify borrow source materials
that will be used as structural fill and provide samples to the testing laboratory so that
conformance to the Structural Fill requirements outlined below and appropriate moisture -
density relationship curves can be determined.
..1 SUBGRADE tVALUATION
We recommend that the project geotechnical engineer or a qualified representative
evaluate the subgrade after the site is prepared. Some unsuitable or unstable areas may
be present in unexplored areas of the site. All areas that will require fill or that will support
structures should be carefully proofrolled with a heavy (40,000 # minimum), rubber -tired
vehicle at the following times.
Page 18

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOTF DFAC Expansion, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180323, June 29, 2018
After an area has been stripped, and undercut if required, prior to the placement
of any fill.
After grading an area to the finished subgrade elevation in a building or pavement
area.
After areas have been exposed to any precipitation, and/or have been exposed for
more than 48 hours.
Some instability may exist during construction, depending on climatic and other factors
immediately preceding and during construction. If any soft or otherwise unsuitable soils
are identified during the proofrolling process, they must be undercut or stabilized prior
to fill placement, pavement construction, or floor slab construction. All unsuitable material
identified during the construction shall be removed and replaced in accordance with the
Structural Fill section of this report.
4.3 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS
Moisture sensitive silty sands (SM) and clayey sands (SC) were encountered across most
of the site during the subsurface exploration. These soils will degrade if allowed to
become saturated. Therefore, not allowing water to pond by maintaining positive
drainage and temporary dewatering methods (if required) is important to help avoid
degradation and softening of the soils.
The contractor should anticipate some difficulty during the earthwork phase of this
project if moisture levels are moderate to high during construction. Increased moisture
levels will soften the subgrade and the soils may become unstable under the influence of
construction traffic. Accordingly, construction during wet weather conditions should be
avoided, as this could result in soft and unstable soil conditions that would require ground
modification, such as in place stabilization or undercutting.
4 EVALUATION/UNDERCUTTING OF POORLY COMPACTED EXISTING FILL
Previously placed fill material was encountered in borings B-01 through B-06 and
extended to depths ranging from about 2.5 feet to 6 feet below the existing surface
elevation. The quality of the fill, it's origin, and testing performed during placement is
unknown; however, based on limited data collected during this evaluation, it appears the
fill generally received moderate to good compactive efforts during placement. However,
based on the N-values, the fill was poorly compacted in B-03. The poorly compacted fill
should be undercut to a stable, suitable subgrade in the vicinity of B-03.
Page 19

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOTF DFAC Expansion, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180323, June 29, 2018
It should be understood that the extent of soft zones could not be reasonably deduced
from the widely -spaced borings located across the site. Depth and extent of undercutting
will be based on actual conditions encountered during construction.
Some unsuitable or unstable areas may be present in unexplored areas of the site.
Although the risks cannot be eliminated, they can be reduced by a thorough evaluation
of the existing fill materials following completion of initial site preparation and any
undercut needs already identified at the test locations. Evaluation of the existing fill
should include, but is not necessarily limited to, test pit excavations, proofroll
observations, and dynamic cone penetration testing. Unsuitable fill materials identified
during the evaluation must be removed and replaced with approved structural fill
material.
Undercut soils should be replaced with structural fill. Clean, non -organic, non -saturated
soils taken from the undercut area can be re -used as structural fill. The placement
procedure, compaction and composition of the structural fill must meet the requirements
of the Structural Fill section of this report.
4.5 STRUCTURAL FILL
Requirements for structural fill on this project are as follows:
Sand and GW, GP, GM,
Gravel SW, SP, SM or
combinations
Clay 7- CL, SC, GC
Maximum 2" particle size
LL<50, PI<25, yd>100 pcf
CH I N/A
ML, MH I N/A
On -site I SC-SM, SP-SM,
As listed above
soils SC, SM
Notes:
All locations and depths with proper
drainage.
All locations and depths.
Not suitable for structural fill.
Not suitable for structural fill.
As listed above.
Table 4: Structural Fill Requirements
1. LL indicates the soil Liquid Limit; PI indicates the soil Plasticity Index; yd indicates the maximum dry
density as defined by the density standard outlined in the table below.
2. Laboratory testing of the soils proposed for fill must be performed in order to verify their
conformance with the above recommendations.
3. Any fill to be placed at the site should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer.
Page 110

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOTF DFAC Expansion, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180323, June 29, 2018
Placement requirements for structural fill are as follows:
Maximum 8 inch loose lifts when compacted with large heavy compaction
Lift Thickness equipment. Maximum 6 inch loose lifts when compacted with lightweight
compaction equipment (thinner lifts may be required in confined locations).
Density Minimum of 98 percent of maximum dry density as defined by ASTM D1557 at
all locations and depths
± 2 percent of optimum moisture as defined by ASTM D1557 for cohesive soils.
For cohesionless soils with greater than 12 percent passing the US Standard No.
Moisture 200 sieve, ± 3 percent of optimum moisture as defined above. Moisture
requirement is waived for cohesionless soils with less than 12 % passing the No.
200 sieve.
One test per 2,500 SF in building areas and one test per 5,000 SF in pavement
Density Testing areas with minimum of 3 tests per lift. One test per 200 feet of trench backfill
Frequency with minimum of 2 tests per lift.
Table 5: Structural Fill Placement Requirements
4.6 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS
All excavations performed at the site should follow OSHA guidelines for temporary
excavations. Excavated soils should be stockpiled according to OSHA regulations to limit
the potential cave-in of soils.
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings at the time of drilling. It should
be noted that fluctuations in the water level could occur due to seasonal variations in
rainfall. The contractor must be prepared to remove groundwater seepage from
excavations if encountered during construction. Excavations extending below
groundwater levels will require dewatering systems (such as well points, sump pumps or
trench drains). The contractor should evaluate the most economical and practical
dewatering method.
' _7 SHWT AND INFILTRATION TESTING
In order to measure the depth to the Season High Water Table (SHWT), Mr. Mike Eaker, a
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist with Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates,
Inc., under contract to Building & Earth Sciences, performed the field measurements and
provided a letter summarizing his work. Mr. Eaker's report details the procedures used in
his field evaluation, the results of his soil observations, the depth to SHWT, and the depth
to observed water at each test location. Mr. Eaker's report is included in the Appendix.
Page 111

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOTF DFAC Expansion, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180323, June 29, 2018
Once the SHWT was measured, infiltration testing was performed as shown on the
provided plans from Stantec. The results of the testing are included in the Appendix of
this report.
The flow of the near -surface soils has been approximated using the concepts presented
in Bernoulli's Equation for steady state flow and Darcy's Law for fluid flow through a
porous media. Additionally, our Ksat values were calculated using the Glover solution,
which is dependent on the geometry of the borehole and the hydraulic head. To develop
our results, Building & Earth has measured the saturated flow rate (Ksat) for the soils at the
site using accepted test methods and equipment in general accordance with ASTM D5126
14.1.61 (Standard Guide for Comparison of Field Methods for Determining Hydraulic
Conductivity in the Vadose Zone). Ultimately, the drainage of the basins will be a function
of the saturated flow rate of the soils, the surface area of the basin geometry, and the
pressure differential (hydraulic head) induced by the storm water levels in the pond.
In order to determine the appropriate Ksat for the soils in the basin, a small diameter bore
hole was advanced to a pre -determined depth of interest. At this depth, a constant head
(pressure) was established and maintained. Once our measurements approached a
stabilized flow rate, our test was terminated.
4.8 UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL
All utility trenches must be backfilled and compacted in the manner specified above for
structural fill. It may be necessary to reduce the lift thickness to 4 to 6 inches to achieve
compaction using hand -operated equipment.
9 LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATION
The potential for soil moisture fluctuations within building areas and pavement subgrades
should be reduced to lessen the potential of subgrade movement. Site grading should
include positive drainage away from buildings and pavements. Excessive irrigation of
landscaping poses a risk of saturating and softening soils below shallow footings and
pavements, which could result in settlement of footings and premature failure of
pavements.
4.10 WET WEATHER CONSTRUCTION
Excessive movement of construction equipment across the site during wet weather may
result in ruts, which will collect rainwater, prolonging the time required to dry the
subgrade soils.
Page 112

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOTF DFAC Expansion, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180323, June 29, 2018
During rainy periods, additional effort will be required to properly prepare the site and
establish/maintain an acceptable subgrade. The difficulty will increase in areas where clay
or silty soils are exposed at the subgrade elevation. Likewise, rainwater may become
perched on the higher consistency soils encountered below the surficial layers, which
could require additional dewatering efforts not needed during dry conditions.
Grading contractors typically postpone grading operations during wet weather to wait for
conditions that are more favorable. Contractors can typically disk or aerate the upper
soils to promote drying during intermittent periods of favorable weather. When deadlines
restrict postponement of grading operations, additional measures such as undercutting
and replacing saturated soils or stabilization can be utilized to facilitate placement of
additional fill material.
5.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Structural loading conditions were provided by Stantec and were displayed on the
Foundation Plan dated June 15, 2018. Based on the provided plan, the individual column
loads will be less than 75 kips and wall loads will be less than 3 kips per linear foot. If
changes concerning structural loading are made, our office should be contacted,
such that our recommendations can be reviewed.
Very loose to loose sands were encountered at and below anticipated footing depth
across the site, but are of greatest concern in the vicinity of boring B-03 where the very
loose sands were encountered at depths of about 8.5 feet below present grades. Based
on the conditions encountered in B-03, we recommend the interior columns located in
this vicinity (column 3.6 and S.9 and column 3.6 and S.2) be undercut 4 feet below the
proposed bottom of footing and backfilled with Structural Fill. To further reduce the
potential settlement effects of the very loose sands, the interior footings should bear no
more than 18 inches below final grade.
All other footings should be evaluated during construction. Undercutting may be required
at those locations based on actual conditions encountered. The undercutting should
extend laterally a distance equal to the depth of undercutting plus the width of the
footing.
After our site preparation and grading recommendations are implemented (Section 4)
and the footings have been evaluated and undercut as discussed above, the proposed
structure can be supported on conventional shallow foundations designed using an
allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,500 psf.
Page 113

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOTF DFAC Expansion, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180323, June 29, 2018
Even though computed footing dimensions may be less, column footings should be at
least 24 inches wide and strip footings should be at least 18 inches wide. These
dimensions facilitate hand cleaning of footing subgrades disturbed by the excavation
process and the placement of reinforcing steel. They also reduce the potential for
localized punching shear failure. All exterior footings should bear at least 24 inches
below the adjacent exterior grade. All interior footings should bear no more than 18
inches below the planned subgrade elevation.
Total and differential settlement of footings designed and constructed as recommended
above should be 1 inch or less. It is noted that because the presence of loose sands, the
depth to the bottom of footing will highly influence the amount of settlement; the deeper
the footings, the higher the settlement. Therefore, under no circumstances should the
bottom of interior footings be located more than 18 inches below the finished subgrade.
The following items should be considered during the preparation of construction
documents and foundation installation:
The geotechnical engineer of record should observe the exposed foundation
bearing surfaces prior to concrete placement to verify that the conditions
anticipated during the subsurface exploration are encountered.
All bearing surfaces must be free of soft or loose soil prior to placing concrete.
Concrete should be placed the same day the excavations are completed and
bearing materials verified by the engineer. If the excavations are left open for an
extended period, or if the bearing surfaces are disturbed after the initial
observation, then the bearing surfaces should be reevaluated prior to concrete
placement.
- Water should not be allowed to pond in foundation excavations prior to concrete
placement or above the concrete after the foundation is completed.
Wherever possible, the foundation concrete should be placed "neat", using the
sides of the excavations as forms. Where this is not possible, the excavations
created by forming the foundations must be backfilled with suitable structural fill
and properly compacted.
- The building pad should be sloped to drain away from the building foundations.
Roof drains should be routed away from the foundation soils.
Page 114

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOTF DFAC Expansion, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180323, June 29, 2018
6.0 FLOOR SLABS
Site development recommendations presented in this report should be followed to
provide for subgrade conditions suitable for support of grade supported slabs. Floor slabs
will be supported on newly placed structural fill.
Floor slabs for the proposed building should be supported on a minimum four (4) inches
thick compacted layer of free -draining, granular material, such as AASHTO No. 610 or 57
stone. The purpose of this layer is to serve as a leveling course and act as a capillary break
for moisture migration through the subgrade soil.
Depending on the proposed floor covering, consideration should be given to the use of
a polyethylene vapor barrier. The slabs should be appropriately reinforced (if required) to
support the proposed loads.
With addition of the granular material, an effective modulus of subgrade reaction of 130
pci can be used in the design of grade supported building floor slabs.
7.0 PAVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
We anticipate that flexible, asphalt pavement will be used in the parking addition. We
prepared the following pavement design based on an assumed California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) value of 5.5. A CBR test is currently ongoing. The following pavement sections can
be adjusted based on the CBR test results.
Flexible and rigid pavement recommendations were evaluated using Pavement
Transportation Computer Assisted Structural Engineering (PCASE) software available at
https://transportation.wes.army.mil/pcase/. Since no traffic information was provided, we
have assumed the following loading conditions using a 25-year design life:
1) Light Duty Asphalt Pavement: We assumed this pavement section will be used by
200 POV passes per day, 100 M1097 HMMWV (two 5-kip axles) per day, and two
medium tactical vehicles (one 22-kip tandem axle and one 8-kip single axle) per
day
2) Heavy Duty Asphalt Pavement: We assumed this pavement section will be used by
500 M1097 HMMWV (two 5-kip axles) passes per day, two 18-kip tractor -trailer
per week, four medium tactical vehicles (2 axle, 6 tire) per day, one fire apparatus
(one 23-kip tandem axle and one 54-kip single axle) per week, and two front
loading refuse trucks (3 axle) per week.
Page 115

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOTF DFAC Expansion, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180323, June 29, 2018
3) Heavy Duty Concrete: We assumed this pavement section will be used by 200
M1097 HMMWV (two 5-kip axles) passes per day, two 18-kip tractor -trailer per
week, two medium tactical vehicles (2 axle, 6 tire) per day, one fire apparatus (one
23-kip tandem axle and one 54-kip single axle) per week, and two front loading
refuse trucks (3 axle) per week.
It is the owner's responsibility to evaluate whether or not the traffic loading
conditions assumed above are in line with those expected. If the owner would like
Building & Earth to assess other likely traffic volumes, we will gladly review other options.
All subgrade, base and pavement construction operations should meet minimum
requirements of the North Carolina Department of Transportation Standard Specifications
for Roads and Structures, latest edition. The applicable sections of the specifications are
identified as follows:
Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
710
Bituminous Asphalt Wearing Layer
610
Bituminous Asphalt Binder Layer
610
Mineral Aggregate Base Materials
520
Soil
500
Table 6: NCDOT Specification Sections
1.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
The following flexible pavement sections are based on the traffic conditions discussed
a bove:
Table 7: Asphalt Pavement Recommendations
7.2 RIGID PAVEMENT
For evaluation purposes we assumed an effective modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 130
pci. We have assumed concrete elastic modulus (Ec) of 3.6 X 106 psi, and a concrete
modulus of rupture (S'c) of 650 psi.
Page 116

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOTF DFAC Expansion, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180323, June 29, 2018
The following rigid pavement section is suitable for the the traffic conditions discussed
a bove:
--1 6.0 Portland Cement Concrete, f'c=4000 psi
-- 6.0 Aggregate Base
Table 8: Concrete Pavement Recommendations
The concrete should be protected against moisture loss, rapid temperature fluctuations,
and construction traffic for several days after placement. All pavements should be sloped
for positive drainage. We recommended that the pavements be reinforced to hold any
cracks that might develop tightly together and restrain their growth.
All pavement components must be placed and compacted in accordance with the
applicable sections of the North Carolina Department of Transportation Standard
Specifications for Roads and Structures, latest edition.
"-n SUBGRADE REHABILITATION
The subgrade soils often become disturbed during the period between initial site grading
and construction of surface improvements. The amount and depth of disturbance will vary
with soil type, weather conditions, construction traffic, and drainage.
The engineer should evaluate the subgrade soil during final grading and prior to stone
placement to verify that the subgrade is suitable to receive pavement base or floor slabs.
The final evaluation may include proofrolling or density tests.
Subgrade rehabilitation can become a point of controversy when different contractors are
responsible for mass and final grading. The construction documents should specifically
state which contractor will be responsible for maintaining and rehabilitating the subgrade.
Rehabilitation may include wetting, mixing, and re -compacting soils that have dried
excessively or drying soils that have become wet.
.i.0 CUNS I KUL I ION MUNI I UKING
Field verification of site conditions is an essential part of the services provided by the
geotechnical consultant. In order to confirm our recommendations, it will be necessary
for Building & Earth personnel to make periodic visits to the site during site grading.
Typical construction monitoring services are listed below.
Page 117

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOTF DFAC Expansion, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180323, June 29, 2018
Periodic observation and consultation by a member of our engineering staff during
site development.
Continuous monitoring during structural fill placement.
Field density tests during structural fill placement.
Observation and verification of the bearing surfaces exposed after foundation
excavation.
Molding and testing of concrete cylinders.
■ Continuous monitoring during pavement installation.
10.0 CLOSING AND LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared for Stantec, for specific application to the SOTF DFAC Expansion
located in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The information in this report is not transferable.
This report should not be used for a different development on the same property without
first being evaluated by the engineer.
The recommendations in this report were based on the information obtained from our
field exploration and laboratory analysis. The data collected is representative of the
locations tested. Variations are likely to occur at other locations throughout the site.
Engineering judgment was applied in regards to conditions between borings. It will be
necessary to confirm the anticipated subsurface conditions during construction.
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted standards of
geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty is expressed or implied. In the
event that changes are made, or anticipated to be made, to the nature, design, or location
of the project as outlined in this report, Building & Earth must be informed of the changes
and given the opportunity to either verify or modify the conclusions of this report in
writing, or the recommendations of this report will no longer be valid.
The scope of services for this project did not include any environmental assessment of
the site or identification of pollutants or hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner
is concerned about environmental issues Building & Earth would be happy to provide an
additional scope of services to address those concerns.
This report is intended for use during design and preparation of specifications and may
not address all conditions at the site during construction. Contractors reviewing this
information should acknowledge that this document is for design information only.
Page 118

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOTF DFAC Expansion, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180323, June 29, 2018
An article published by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA), titled Important
Information About Your Geotechnical Report, has been included in the Appendix. We
encourage all individuals to become familiar with the article to help manage risk.
Page 119

Appendix Table of Contents
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGIES........................................................................................... 1
DRILLING PROCEDURES —STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D1586)...........................1
HAND AUGER BORINGS AND DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TESTING................................1
BULKSAMPLING............................................................................................................................................2
BORING LOG DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................................3
DEPTH AND ELEVATION.............................................................................................................................3
SAMPLETYPE...................................................................................................................................................3
SAMPLENUMBER..........................................................................................................................................3
BLOWS PER INCREMENT, REC%, RQD%...............................................................................................3
SOILDATA........................................................................................................................................................ 3
SOIL DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................................................4
GRAPHIC...........................................................................................................................................................4
REMARKS..........................................................................................................................................................4
SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................... 5
KEYTO LOGS......................................................................................................................................................................... 7
KEYTO HATCHES................................................................................................................................................................9
BORING LOCATION PLAN.............................................................................................................................................10
SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILES........................................................................................................................................11
BORINGLOGS.....................................................................................................................................................................12
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES..............................................................................................................................13
DESCRIPTION OF SOILS (VISUAL -MANUAL PROCEDURE) (ASTM D2488)............................13
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D2216).............................................................................13
ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D4318).......................................................................................................13
MATERIAL FINER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE BY WASHING (ASTM D1140)....................................13
MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (ASTM D1557)..........................................................13
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS..................................................................................................................14
Table A-1: General Soil Classification Test Results.....................................................................14
SHWT AND INFILTRATION TESTING DATA.............................................................................................................15
CALCULATIONS..................................................................................................................................................................16
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS GEOTECHNICAL-ENGINEERING REPORT ............................17

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGIES
The subsurface exploration, which is the basis of the recommendations of this report, has
been performed in accordance with industry standards. Detailed methodologies employed
in the investigation are presented in the following sections.
DRILLING PROCEDURES — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D7586)
At each boring location, soil samples were obtained at standard sampling intervals with a
split -spoon sampler. The borehole was first advanced to the sample depth by augering and
the sampling tools were placed in the open hole. The sampler was then driven 18 inches
into the ground with a 140-pound automatic hammer free -falling 30 inches. The number
of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment was recorded. The initial
increment is considered the "seating" blows, where the sampler penetrates loose or
disturbed soil in the bottom of the borehole.
The blows required to penetrate the final two (2) increments are added together and are
referred to as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-value. The N-value, when properly
evaluated, gives an indication of the soil's strength and ability to support structural loads.
Many factors can affect the SPT N-value, so this result cannot be used exclusively to evaluate
soil conditions.
The SPT testing was performed using a drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer.
Automatic hammers mechanically control the height of the hammer drop, and doing so,
deliver higher energy efficiency (90 to 99 % efficiency) than manual hammers (60 %
efficiency) which are dropped using a manually operated rope and cathead system. Because
historic data correlations were developed based on use of a manual hammer, it is necessary
to adjust the N-values obtained using an automatic hammer to make these correlations
valid. Therefore, an energy correction factor of 1.3 was applied to the recorded field N-values
from the automatic hammer for the purpose of our evaluation. The N-values discussed or
mentioned in this report and shown on the boring logs are recorded field values.
Samples retrieved from the boring locations were labeled and stored in plastic bags at the
jobsite before being transported to our laboratory for analysis. The project engineer
prepared Boring Logs summarizing the subsurface conditions at the boring locations.
HAND AUGER BORINGS AND DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TESTING
Hand auger borings were drilled with a 3-inch diameter auger to advance the hole below
the existing grade. A Building & Earth representative collected samples of the subsurface
soils at regular depth intervals and at depths where a change in lithology occurred.
Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP) testing was performed in the hand auger borings to
evaluate the consistency of the subgrade soils. The DCP apparatus consists of a steel,
cylindrical shaft with a conical tip at the end. The conical tip measures 1.5-inches in
diameter, with a 450 tip angle. A 15-pound sliding ring weight is mounted to the

shaft. When dropped from a height of 20 inches, the ring weight strikes a steel anvil, driving
the point into the soil. After seating the point into the soil 2 inches, the weight is dropped
until the shaft travels an interval of 1.75 inches. The number of blows necessary to drive the
tip each 1.75-inch increment is recorded. Given the material type and certain soil properties,
this number can then be correlated to the Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D1586) N-
values. The DCP test results are shown under the "Remarks" column on the boring logs.
BULK SAMPLING
Bulk sample are obtained for the evaluation of the compaction characteristics of the site soils
and for determination of the California Bearing Ratio (CBR). The bulk samples are obtained
from manual excavations, backhoe test pits, or from auger cutting. Similar soils are normally
combined to provide samples of adequate size for compaction or CBR testing.
Page I A-2

BORING LOG DESCRIPTION
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc. used the gINT software program to prepare the attached boring
logs. The gINT program provides the flexibility to custom design the boring logs to include
the pertinent information from the subsurface exploration and results of our laboratory
analysis. The soil and laboratory information included on our logs is summarized below:
DEPTH AND ELEVATION
The depth below the ground surface and the corresponding elevation are shown in the first
two columns.
The method used to collect the sample is shown. The typical sampling methods include Split
Spoon Sampling, Shelby Tube Sampling, Grab Samples, and Rock Core. A key is provided at
the bottom of the log showing the graphic symbol for each sample type.
SAMPLE NUMBER
Each sample collected is numbered sequentially.
BLOWS PER INCREMENT, REC%, RQD%
When Standard Split Spoon sampling is used, the blows required to drive the sampler each 6-
inch increment are recorded and shown in column 5. When rock core is obtained the recovery
ration (REC%) and Rock Quality Designation (RQD%) is recorded.
SOIL DATA
Column 6 is a graphic representation of four different soil parameters. Each of the parameters
use the same graph, however, the values of the graph subdivisions vary with each parameter.
Each parameter presented on column 6 is summarized below:
N-value- The Standard Penetration Test N-value, obtained by adding the number of
blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches, is recorded . The graph labels
range from 0 to 50.
• Qu —Unconfined Compressive Strength estimate from the Pocket Penetrometer test in
tons per square foot (tsf). The graph labels range from 0 to 5 tsf.
Atterberg Limits — The Atterberg Limits are plotted with the plastic limit to the left, and
liquid limit to the right, connected by a horizontal line. The difference in the plastic and
liquid limits is referred to as the Plasticity Index. The Atterberg Limits test results are
also included in the Remarks column on the far right of the boring log. The Atterberg
Limits graph labels range from 0 to 100%.
— The Natural Moisture Content of the soil sample as determined in our
laboratory.
Page I A-3

W011611P ATO 11i000A
The soil description prepared in accordance with ASTM D2488, Visual Description of Soil
Samples. The Munsel Color chart is used to determine the soil color. Strata changes are
indicated by a solid line, with the depth of the change indicated on the left side of the line and
the elevation of the change indicated on the right side of the line. If subtle changes within a
soil type occur, a broken line is used. The Boring Termination or Auger Refusal depth is shown
as a solid line at the bottom of the boring.
The graphic representation of the soil type is shown. The graphic used for each soil type is
related to the Unified Soil Classification chart. A chart showing the graphic associated with
each soil classification is included.
KtMARKs
Remarks regarding borehole observations, and additional information regarding the
laboratory results and groundwater observations.

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

BUILDING & EARTH
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Building & Earth Sciences classifies soil in general
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) presented in ASTM D2487. Table 1
and Figure 1 exemplify the general guidance of
the USCS. Soil consistencies and relative densities
are presented in general accordance with
Terzaghi, Peck, & Mesri's (1996) method, as
shown on Table 2, when quantitative field and/or
laboratory data is available. Table 2 includes
Consistency and Relative Density correlations
with N-values obtained using either a manual
hammer (60 percent efficiency) or automatic
hammer (90 percent efficiency). The Blows Per
Increment and SPT N-values displayed on the
boring logs are the unaltered values measured in
the field. When field and/or laboratory data is not
available, we may classify soil in general
accordance with the Visual Manual Procedure
presented in ASTM D2488.
II —
Non -cohesive: Coarse -Grained Soil
I _
SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY
60
�e
501.1117 J�
CH OH
a
X 40
v
30 P
CL or OL
M 20
a
10 MH or OH M 4 CL
4 MLorOL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit (LL)
SPT Penetration
(blows/foot) Relative
Density
Automatic Manual
Hammer* Hammer
0-3 0-4 Very Loose
3-8 4-10 Loose
8-23 10-30 Medium Dense
SPT Penetration
(blows/foot)
Automatic
Hammer*
< 2
2-3
3-6
6 - 12
Manual
Hammer
< 2
2-4
4-8
8 - 15
23 - 38
30-50
Dense
12 -23
15 - 30
> 38
> 50
Very Dense
> 23
> 30
* - Modified based on 80% hammer efficiency
Cohesive: Fine -Grained Soil
Estimated Range of
Consistency Unconfined Compressive
Strength (tsf)
Very Soft
< 0.25
Soft
0.25 — 0.50
Medium Stiff
0.50 — 1.00
Stiff
1.00 — 2.00
Very Stiff
2.00 — 4.00
> 4.00
Hard
F.

BUILDING & EARTH
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Standard
Penetration Test
ASTM D1586 or
AASHTO T-206
Shelby Tube
Sampler
ASTM D1587
Rock Core Sample
ASTM D2113
Auger Cuttings
Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer
(Sower DCP)
ASTM STP-399
ONo Sample
Recovery
Groundwater at
Time of Drilling
Groundwater as
Indicated
KEY TO LOGS
Soil
Particle Size
U.S. Standard
Boulders
Larger than 300 mm
300 mm to 75 mm
75 mm to 4.75 mm
N.A.
Cobbles
N.A.
Gravel
3-inch to #4 sieve
Coarse
75 mm to 19 mm
3-inch to 3/4-inch sieve
Fine
19 mm to 4.75 mm
3/4-inch to #4 sieve
Sand
4.75 mm to 0.075 mm
#4 to #200 Sieve
Coarse
4.75 mm to 2 mm
#4 to #10 Sieve
Medium
2 mm to 0.425 mm
#10 to #40 Sieve
Fine
0.425 mm to 0.075 mm
#40 to #200 Sieve
Fines
Less than 0.075 mm
Passing #200 Sieve
Silt
Less than 5 pm N.A.
Less than 2 pm N.A.
TableStandard
Clay
Standard Penetration Test Resistance A measure of a soil's plasticity characteristics in
Atterberg general accordance with ASTM D4318. The soil
N Value calculated using ASTM D1586 or AASHTO T- Limits
206. Calculated as sum of original, field Plasticity Index (PI) is representative of this
�� characteristic and is bracketed by the Liquid Limit (LQ
recorded values. PL ILL
and the Plastic Limit (PL).
Ru Unconfined compressive strength, typically p g typ y 36 Moisture percent natural moisture content in general
Aestimated from a pocket penetrometer. Results
are presented in tons per square foot (tsf). accordance with ASTM D2216.
Hollow Stem Auger Flights on the outside of the shaft advance soil cuttings to the surface. The
hollow stem allows sampling through the middle of the auger flights.
Mud Rotary / A cutting head advances the boring and discharges a drilling fluid to
Wash Bore support the borehole and circulate cuttings to the surface.
Solid Flight Auger Flights on the outside bring soil cuttings to the surface. Solid stem requires
removal from borehole during sampling.
Hand Auger Cylindrical bucket (typically 3-inch diameter and 8 inches long) attached to a
metal rod and turned by human force.
MV
Descriptor
Meaning
Trace
Likely less than 5%
Few
5 to 10%
Little
15 to 25%
Some
30 to 45%
Mostly
50 to 100%
Table
Page I A-7

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

BUILDING
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
KEY TO HATCHES
HatchDescription Description
Hi Description
• �' '• r' GW - Well -graded gravels, gravel — sand
Asphalt
Clay Gravel
mixtures, little or no fines
with
GP - Poorly -graded gravels, gravel —sand G
°Q°
Aggregate Base
na
Sand with Gravel
O� �D mixtures, little or no fines
GM - Siltygrovels, gravel— sand — silt ,� a,T,�.:\;_.;r '1,',� •. Topsoil
°
°
Silt with Gravel
oLlz5c d mixtures
o
c b
GC - Clayey gravels, gravel — sand — clay
..
■. ' ��.
mixtures
.ti a
�:'i'.•? i a"
Concrete.
Gravel with Sand
SW - Well -graded sands, gravelly sands,
Coal
Gravel with Clay
little or no fines
a ►
SP - Poorly -graded sands, gravelly sands,
r +
CL-ML -Silty Clay
Gravel with Silt
little or no fines
SM - Silty sands, sand — silt mixtures
Sandy Clay
Clayey Chert
Limestone
Chalk
SC - Clayey sands, sand — clay mixtures
ML - Inorganic silts and very find sands,
Low and High
x x x x x x
x x x x x x
rock flour, silty or clayey fine
Siltstone
Clay
x x x x x x
sands or clayey silt with slight plasticityPlasticity
x x x x x x
CL - Inorganic clays of low to medium
plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy
Low Plasticity Silt and
Till
Cla y
clays, silt clays, lean clays
=
OL - Organic silts and organic silty clays
High Plasticity Silt
`? =
Sandy Clay with
=
of low plasticity
and Clay
Cobbles and Boulders
Fill
Sandstone with Shale
MH - Inorganic silts, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sand, or silty soils
CH - Inorganic clays of high plasticity
as ' a '
Weathered Rock
-# 4� -0
Coral
�r Ys Yt
OH - Organic clays of medium to high
Sandstone
Boulders and Cobbles
plasticity, organic silts
...... ............
L \+, +, \+,/ PT- Peat humus, swamp soils with high Shale
0 . 0.
Soil and Weathered
organic contents
o
Rock
Table 1: Key to Hatches Used for Boring Logs and Soil Profiles
Page I A-9

BORING LOCATION PLAN
Page I A-10

CONNECT TO
EXISTING PARKING LOT
fte 3.E1&-SF
R106RETENTI
V 65—SPACE
;KING LOT
NEW SIDEWALK
S.&FT WIDE
LNEW TRASH aulu
ENCLOSURE (7 u
CONCRETE PAD)
NEW 13UILOING
FOOTPRINT
'-i3O�-SP
BID -RETENTION
Building Boring Location -. Storm Basin Boring
+ Pavement Boring Location
50 100 O
0giiiiiiMTTTI
Approximate Scale (feet) N
Boring
Location Ma
BUILDING
BES Project #:
RD180323
Address:
SOTF Compound
Drawing Source:
PN 89057 RFP Drawing
City:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Client:
Stantec, Inc.
Figure 1
Project:
SOTF DFAC Expansion

SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILES
Page I A-11

NW
SE
A
At
A�
y
�A3
A5
310
310
•
F.F.E. = 304.8
305
305
Site Map Scale 1 inch equals 80 feet
N B-01
N B-03
Explanation
19
3
>00
BT=Boring Termination
300
N B-05
300
16
I
7
AR=Auger Refusal
9
PPqu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
ZZ
14
6
from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
H
295
9
7
11
295
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
w
w
10
2
5
7
, a Topsoil Fill
7
1
2so
11
2so
�USCS
Clayey
2
0
2277
Sand
Sand Sand with Siltd
285
26
285
USCS Clayey IMUSCS Silty
Sand Sand
0
12
E Water Level Reading
at time of drilling.
280
g
280
1 Water Level Reading
after drilling.
0 22
11
4
BT=25.0
275
6
275
Horizontal Scale (feet)
Vertical Exaggeration: 2.5x
9
BT=25.0
Building & Earth
Sciences, Inc.
BT=30.0
610 Spring Branch Road
270
270
Dunn, NC 28334
Building Profile A -A'
Subsurface Profile
SOTF DFAC Expansion
265
265
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
JOB NUMBER
PLATE NUMBER
DATE
RD180323
Plate A-1
6/22/18

e
NE
SW
B
B'
i
i o3
i
310
310
i
I
'lob'
�I
F.F.E. = 304.8
305
B-02
305
N
Site Map Scale 1 inch equals 70 feet
12
N B-03
Explanation
15
3
B-04
BT=Boring Termination
300
N
300
12
7
10
AR=Auger Refusal
PPqu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
ZZ
17
6
12
a
from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
H
295
20
7
295
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
w
w
17
2
9
9
, a TopsoilFill
1
19
290
6
29
290
USCS Silty Poorly -graded
[1USCS
Sand Sand with Silt
285
1
29
285
USCS Clayey USCS Clayey
Sand Sand
12
Water Level Reading
at time of drilling.
zao
15
10
280
1 Water Level Reading
after drilling.
BT=25.0
0 18
4
275
8
275
Horizontal Scale (feet)
b
BT=25.0
Vertical Exaggeration: 2.5x
Building & Earth
9
'
Sciences, Inc.
BT=30.0
610 Spring Branch Road
270
270
Dunn, NC 28334
Building Profile B-B'
Subsurface Profile
SOTF DFAC Expansion
265
265
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
JOB NUMBER
PLATE NUMBER
DATE
RD180323
Plate B-1
6/22/18

NW
SE
\�o
C
Cf
\
\
\
\
\
310
310
\Q o3
305
305
Site Map Scale 1 inch equals 50 feet
P-03
Explanation
N
s
BT=Boring Termination
300
N P-01
300
10
AR=Auger Refusal
11
PPqu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
ZZ
5
from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
9
H
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
2g5
8
2g5
w
$
10
Topsoil USCS Silty
9
BT=10.0
Sand
2go
9
290
BT=10.0
28s
285
E Water Level Reading
at time of drilling.
280
280
1 Water Level Reading
after drilling.
0 14
275
275
Horizontal Scale (feet)
Vertical Exaggeration: 1.5x
Building & Earth
Sciences, Inc.
610 Spring Branch Road
270
270
Dunn, NC 28334
West Parking C-C'
Subsurface Profile
SOTF DFAC Expansion
265
265
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 g0
JOB NUMBER
PLATE NUMBER
DATE
RD180323
Plate C-1
6/22/18

NW SE
D Df
\
e
\
\
310
310
\ 0
•
305
305
Site Map Scale 1 inch equals 45 feet
Explanation
N P-04
P-02
N
HABT=Handauger Boring Termination
300
300
AR=Auger Refusal
PPqu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
ZZ
from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
H
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
2s5
2s5
Lu
Lu
Topsoil USCS Silty
,� a
Sand
HABT=10.0
zso
HABT=10.0
2so
2as
285
E Water Level Reading
at time of drilling.
280
280
1 Water Level Reading
after drilling.
0 12
275
275
Horizontal Scale (feet)
Vertical Exaggeration: 1.5x
Building & Earth
Sciences, Inc.
610 Spring Branch Road
270
270
Dunn, NC 28334
East Parking D-D'
Subsurface Profile
SOTF DFAC Expansion
265
265
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 B0
JOB NUMBER
PLATE NUMBER
DATE
RD180323
Plate D-1
6/22/18

BORING LOGS
Page I A-12

LOG OF BORING
610 Spring Branch Road
Designation: B-01
Office: [phone]unn05 836 6300
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOTF DFAC Expansion Project Location: Fort Bragg, North Caroli
Project Number: RD180323 Date Drilled: 6/6/18
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Weather Conditions: Clear, 80's
Equipment Used: GeoProbe 7822DT Surface Elevation: 302
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: A. Baker & A. Bice
Boring Location: NW Building Corner Logged By: K. Miller
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I AtterQber LimI
g
w
Q
W
20 40 60 80
0 %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
0.6 TOPSOIL = 7 inches 301.4
Sample # 1:
1
5-8-11-12
MI
CLAYEY -SILTY SAND (SC-SM): medium
Liquid Limit (LL) = 20
dense, red, fine to medium grained, moist
Plastic Limit (PL) = 18
0
Plasticity Index (PI) = 2
-X
2
4-7-9-8
% Pass #200 Sieve = 20.7
5
3
5-6-8-8
trace gravel fragments
6.0 (FILL) 296.0
: me rum
dense, red, fine to medium grained, moist
9
4
3-4-5-6
Possible fill
-X
5
4-5-5-6
10—
loose
-
-
X
6
4-4-3-3
9
very loose, few gravel fragments, wet
7
1-1-1
15—
-X
8
-X
Spoon wet
8
WH-0-0 El
WH = Weight of Hammer
20—
Groundwater not encountered
8
-
at time of drilling
Boring backfilled on 6/6/18
23.5 278.5
-
Consistency/Relative Density
24.5 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT 277.5
-X
9
4-5-6
based on correction factor for
25 (SP-SM): medium dense, light brown, fine to 277 0
automatic hammer
25
medium grained, moist
LAYmedium ense, rg t
brown, moist
(COASTAL PLAINS)
7
onng I erminated at 2D teet
SAMPLE TYPE Z Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
E GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
0 Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL 0 Columbus, GA■ Savannah, GAP Raleigh, NO Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARE Shreveport, LAN Louisville, KY■ Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
610 Spring Branch Road
Designation: B-02
Office: [phone]unn05 836 6300
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOTF DFAC Expansion Project Location: Fort Bragg, North Caroli
Project Number: RD180323 Date Drilled: 6/6/18
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Weather Conditions: Clear, 80's
Equipment Used: GeoProbe 7822DT Surface Elevation: 304
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: A. Baker & A. Bice
Boring Location: NE Building Corner Logged By: K. Miller
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I AtterQber LimI
g
w
Q
W
20 40 60 80
0 %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL = 4 inches
1
4-6-6-10
: me mm
dense, red, fine to medium grained, moist
2
6-7-8-8
0
5
X3
4-5-7-9
5.6 (FILL) 298.4
SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense, light
-
-
X
4
9-9-8-8
brown, fine to medium grained, moist
reddish brown, trace wood fragment
9
5
6-8-12-12
10
-X
6
8-9-8-7
loose
9
7
2-3-3
15
very loose, wet
8
X
g
1-1-0
20—
Groundwater not encountered
22.0 282 0
at time of drilling
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT
Boring backfilled on 6/6/18
(SP-SM): medium dense, red and light brown,
Consistency/Relative Density
fine to medium grained, moist
based on correction factor for
8
9
5-7-8
25.0 (COASTAL PLAINS) 279.0
automatic hammer
25
Boring Terminated at 25 feet
SAMPLE TYPE Z Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
E GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
0 Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL 0 Columbus, GA■ Savannah, GAP Raleigh, NO Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARE Shreveport, LAN Louisville, KY■ Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-03
610 Spring Branch Road
Office: [phone]unn05 836 6300
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOTF DFAC Expansion Project Location: Fort Bragg, North Caroli
Project Number: RD180323 Date Drilled: 6/6/18
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Weather Conditions: Clear, 80's
Equipment Used: GeoProbe 7822DT Surface Elevation: 302
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: A. Baker & A. Bice
Boring Location: Center of Building Logged By: K. Miller
Q
W
W
pW
w
❑ N-Value ❑
10 20 30 40
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I AtterQber LimI
g
20 40 60 80
0 %Moisture •
20 40 60 80
X
1
1-1-2-3
0.7 TOPSOIL = 8 inches 301.3
SILTY SAND (SM): loose, brown and
5
0
-X
2
3
3-3-4-5
2-2-4-4
2.4 reddish brown, fine to medium grained, moist 299.6
(FILL)
Sample #2:
Liquid Limit (LL) = 19
Plastic Limit (PL) = 16
Plasticity Index (PI) = 3
% Pass #200 Sieve = 19.1
Spoon wet
: oose,
reddish brown, fine to medium grained, moist
wet
6.0 296.0
X
SILTY SAND (SM): loose, red, fine to
7.7 medium grained, wet 294.3
9
4
3-3-4-4
-X
CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SC-SM): very
10
5
1-1-1-1
loose, red and light brown, fine to medium
grained, wet
6
1-0-1-0
9
13.0 289.0
SILTY SAND (SM): very loose, light brown,
fine to medium grained, wet
X
7
WH-0-0 El
WH = Weight of Hammer
15—
8
18.8 283.2
CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium dense, red
8
3-8-4
20
and light brown, fine to medium grained,
moist
8
9
1-2-2
loose
Groundwater not encountered
25
at time of drilling
Boring backfilled on 6/6/18
Consistency/Relative Density
7
based on correction factor for
automatic hammer
30
-X
10
3-4-5
medium dense
30.0 (COASTAL PLAINS) 272.0
Boring Terminated at 30 feet
SAiffUE TYPE Z Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
E GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
0 Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL 0 Columbus, GA■ Savannah, GAP Raleigh, NO Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARE Shreveport, LAN Louisville, KY■ Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
610 Spring Branch Road
Designation: B-04
Office: [phone]unn05 836 6300
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOTF DFAC Expansion Project Location: Fort Bragg, North Caroli
Project Number: RD180323 Date Drilled: 6/6/18
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Weather Conditions: Clear, 80's
Equipment Used: GeoProbe 7822DT Surface Elevation: 299.5
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: A. Baker & A. Bice
Boring Location: SW Building Corner Logged By: K. Miller
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I AtterQber LimI
g
w
Q
W
20 40 60 80
0 %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL = 3 inches
Sample # 1:
: medium ense, ig t
1
4-4-6-8
•
Non -plastic
brown, fine to medium grained, moist
% Pass #200 Sieve = 11.8
light reddish brown
2
5-6-6-6
4.0 (FILL) 295.5
SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense, light
9
5—
3
3-4-5-5
reddish brown, fine to medium grained, moist
L
4
3-4-5-7
8.5 291.0
CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SC-SM): medium
X
5
7-7-12-13
90
dense, reddish brown, fine to medium
10
_X
grained, moist
6
11-16-13-12
dense
7
9-12-17
15
8 5-X
-X
medium dense
8
4-4-6
20
80
Groundwater not encountered
at time of drilling
Boring backfilled on 6/6/18
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor for
7
9
2-4-4
COASTAL PLAINS
25.0 ( ) 274.5
automatic hammer
25
Boring Terminated at 25 feet
SAMPLE TYPE Z Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
E GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
0 Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL 0 Columbus, GA■ Savannah, GAP Raleigh, NO Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARE Shreveport, LAN Louisville, KY■ Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
610 Spring Branch Road
Designation: B-05
Office: [phone]unn05 836 6300
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOTF DFAC Expansion Project Location: Fort Bragg, North Caroli
Project Number: RD180323 Date Drilled: 6/6/18
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Weather Conditions: Clear, 80's
Equipment Used: GeoProbe 7822DT Surface Elevation: 299
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: A. Baker & A. Bice
Boring Location: SE Building Corner Logged By: K. Miller
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I AtterQber LimI
g
w
Q
W
20 40 60 80
0 %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
0.6 TOPSOIL = 7 inches 298.4
SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense, light
1
3-4-5-5
-X
reddish brown, fine to medium grained, moist
2
6-6-5-4
9
4.4 (FILL) 294.6
SILTY SAND (SM): loose, light reddish
5
3
2-2-3-4
brown, fine to medium grained, moist
4
3-3-4-4
medium dense
9
5
3-5-6-10
10
10.2 288.8
Sample #6:
6
8-10-12-12
0I 1
CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium dense, light
Liquid Limit LL — 32
reddish brown, fine to medium grained, moist
Plastic Limit (PL) = 18
Plasticity Index (PI) = 14
% Pass #200 Sieve = 28.4
dense
8
7
7-11-15
15
medium dense
8
g
3-4-5
20
Groundwater not encountered
at time of drilling
Boring backfilled on 6/6/18
Consistency/Relative Density
loose, wet
based on correction factor for
7
9
1-3-3
25.0 (COASTAL PLAINS) 274.0
automatic hammer
25
Boring Terminated at 25 feet
SAMPLE TYPE Z Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
E GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
0 Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL 0 Columbus, GA■ Savannah, GAP Raleigh, NO Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARE Shreveport, LAN Louisville, KY■ Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
610 Spring Branch Road
Designation: B-06
Office: [phone]unn05 836 6300
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOTF DFAC Expansion Project Location: Fort Bragg, North Caroli
Project Number: RD180323 Date Drilled: 6/7/18
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Weather Conditions: Clear, 80's
Equipment Used: GeoProbe 7822DT Surface Elevation: 294
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: A. Baker & A. Bice
Boring Location: Dumpster Corral Logged By: K. Miller
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
as
SOIL D■ SCMPTION
P.
REMARKS
I AtterQber Limits I
g
per.,
w
Q
W
20 40 60 80
0 %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
0.6 TOPSOIL = 7 inches 293.4
Sample # 1:
1
9-8-7-9
CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SC-SM): medium
Liquid Limit (LL) = 22
dense, red, fine to medium grained, moist
Plastic Limit (PL) = 16
Plasticity Index (PI) = 6
2
5-6-5-5
% Pass #200 Sieve = 21.4
5
9
3
6-7-5-3
FILL
5.0 (FILL) 289.0
Auger hit wires at
approximately 4 feet
CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium dense, gray,
fine to medium grained, wet
4
2-3-3-3
loose
Petroleum odor
-X
WH = Weight of Hammer
8
5
WH-0-0-0 E
very loose
10
14.0 (POSSIBLE FILL) 280.0
Auger refused most likely on
Auger Refusal at 14 feet
8
6
0-50/1"
��
a utility line
15
7
20
Groundwater not encountered
at time of drilling
Boring backfilled on 6/6/18
Consistency/Relative Density
7
based on correction factor for
automatic hammer
25
SAMPLE TYPE Z Split Spoon ❑] No Recovery
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
E GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
0 Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL 0 Columbus, GA■ Savannah, GAP Raleigh, NO Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARE Shreveport, LAN Louisville, KY■ Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
610 Spring Branch Road
Designation: P-01
Office: [phone]unn05 836 6300
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOTF DFAC Expansion Project Location: Fort Bragg, North Caroli
Project Number: RD180323 Date Drilled: 6/7/18
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Weather Conditions: Clear, 80's
Equipment Used: GeoProbe 7822DT Surface Elevation: 299
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: A. Baker & A. Bice
Boring Location: NW Parking Logged By: K. Miller
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I AtterQber LimI
g
w
Q
W
20 40 60 80
0 %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL = 3 inches
Sample # 1:
: me mm en se, ig t
_X
1
3-5-6-6
•
Non -plastic
brown, fine to medium grained, moist
% Pass #200 Sieve = 9.2
2
3-4-5-5
9
5
3
4-4-4-5
4
4-4-5-5
9
5
3-4-5-6
10
10.0 (COASTAL PLAINS) 289.0
Boring Terminated at 10 feet
8
15
8
20
Groundwater not encountered
at time of drilling
Boring backfilled on 6/6/18
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor for
automatic hammer
25
SAMPLE TYPE Z Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
E GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
0 Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL 0 Columbus, GA■ Savannah, GAP Raleigh, NO Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARE Shreveport, LAN Louisville, KY■ Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-02
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
BUILDING & EARTH
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOTF DFAC Expansion Project Location: Fort Bragg, North Carolirl
Project Number: RD180323 Date Drilled: 6/6/18
Drilling Method: Hand Auger Weather Conditions: Clear, 80's
Equipment Used: DCP Surface Elevation: 300
Hammer Type: Drill Crew: A. Baker & A. Bice
Boring Location: NE Parking Logged By: K. Miller
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
as
SOIL D■ SCMPTION
P.
REMARKS
I AtterQber Limits I
g
per.,
P
Q
W
20 40 60 80
0 %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
JUU
TOPSOIL = 4 inches
1
11
oose, rg t rown, me
to medium grained, dry
2
8
moist
5
9
3
8
4
10
10
5
9
COASTAL PLAINS
10.0 i ) 290.0
Hand Auger Terminated at 10 feet
9
15
8
20
g
Groundwater not encountered
at time of drilling
Boring backfilled on 6/6/18
25
SAMPLE TYPE ® Grab Sample
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
E GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
0 Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL 0 Columbus, GA■ Savannah, GAP Raleigh, NO Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARE Shreveport, LAN Louisville, KY■ Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
610 Spring Branch Road
Designation: P-03
Office: [phone]unn05 836 6300
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOTF DFAC Expansion Project Location: Fort Bragg, North Caroli
Project Number: RD180323 Date Drilled: 6/7/18
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Weather Conditions: Clear, 80's
Equipment Used: GeoProbe 7822DT Surface Elevation: 302
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: A. Baker & A. Bice
Boring Location: SW Parking Logged By: K. Miller
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I AtterQber LimI
g
w
Q
W
20 40 60 80
0 %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL = 4 inches .
1
3-4-5-6
: me mm ense, rg t
brown, fine to medium grained, moist
300-
X
2
4-5-5-5
loose
5
3
2-2-3-4
9
4
4-4-4-6
medium dense
-
-X
5
4-5-5-4
10
10.0 (COASTAL PLAINS) 292.0
Boring Terminated at 10 feet
9
15
8
20
Groundwater not encountered
8
at time of drilling
Boring backfilled on 6/6/18
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor for
automatic hammer
25
7
SAMPLE TYPE Z Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
E GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
0 Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL 0 Columbus, GA■ Savannah, GAP Raleigh, NO Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARE Shreveport, LAN Louisville, KY■ Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-04
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
BUILDING & EARTH
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOTF DFAC Expansion Project Location: Fort Bragg, North Carolirl
Project Number: RD180323 Date Drilled: 6/6/18
Drilling Method: Hand Auger Weather Conditions: Clear, 80's
Equipment Used: DCP Surface Elevation: 301
Hammer Type: Drill Crew: A. Baker & A. Bice
Boring Location: SE Parking Logged By: K. Miller
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I AtterQber Lim I
g
20 40 60 80
Q
W
P
W
0 %Moisture •
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL = 5 inches
0
1
9
oose, rg t rown, me
to medium grained, dry
2
8
trace clay, moist
5
3
8
-295-
4
9
TY
10
5
10
COASTAL PLAINS
10.0 () 291.0
Hand Auger Terminated at 10 feet
9
15
8
20
8
25
7
SAMPLE TYPE ® Grab Sample
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
E GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
0 Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL 0 Columbus, GA■ Savannah, GAP Raleigh, NO Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARE Shreveport, LAN Louisville, KY■ Niceville, FL

LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES
A brief description of the laboratorytests performed is provided in the following sections.
DESCRIPTION OF SOILS (VISUAL -MANUAL PROCEDURE) (ASTM D2488)
The soil samples were visually examined by our engineer and soil descriptions were
provided. Representative samples were then selected and tested in accordance with the
aforementioned laboratory -testing program to determine soil classifications and
engineering properties. This data was used to correlate our visual descriptions with the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D2276)
Natural moisture contents (M%) were determined on selected samples. The natural moisture
content is the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the weight of water in a given amount of
soil to the weight of solid particles.
ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D4378)
The Atterberg Limits test was performed to evaluate the soil's plasticity characteristics. The soil
Plasticity Index (PI) is representative of this characteristic and is bracketed by the Liquid Limit
(LL) and the Plastic Limit (PL). The Liquid Limit is the moisture content at which the soil will
flow as a heavy viscous fluid. The Plastic Limit is the moisture content at which the soil is
between "plastic" and the semi -solid stage. The Plasticity Index (PI = LL - PL) is a frequently
used indicator for a soil's potential for volume change. Typically, a soil's potential for volume
change increases with higher plasticity indices.
MATERIAL FINER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE BY WASHING (ASTM D7 740)
Grain -size tests were performed to determine the partial soil particle size distribution. The
amount of material finer than the openings on the No. 200 sieve (0.075 mm) was determined
by washing soil over the No. 200 sieve. The results of wash #200 tests are presented on the
boring logs included in this report and in the table of laboratory test results.
MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (ASTM D7557)
Modified Proctor compaction tests were performed to determine the maximum dry density
and optimum moisture content for the soil, for use as a comparative basis during fill placement.
The Modified Proctor test consists of the compaction of soil with known moisture content into
a steel mold of fixed height and diameter. The soil is compacted in the mold in five lifts of
equal volume using a 10 lb. manual hammer with an 18-inch free fall, to produce a consistent
compactive effort. The test procedure is repeated on samples at several different moisture
contents until a curve showing the relationship between moisture content and dry density of
the soil is established. From this curve, the maximum dry density (peak density value) and
optimum moisture content (moisture content correlating to the maximum dry density) are
obtained.

The results of the laboratory testing are presented in the following table.
Sample Depth
Boring Location
(ft)
-
I LL
I PL
% Passing
PI
#200 Sieve
Moisture
Content (%)
B-03
. 04
mmm
�.
.�0-2
Table A-1: General Soil Classification Test Results
*NP = Non -Plastic
Soils with a Liquid Limit (LL) greater than 50 and Plasticity Index (PI) greater than 25 usually
exhibit significant volume change with varying moisture content and are considered to be
highly plastic. Soils with a LOI value greater than 3 percent are usually not suitable for
supporting building and pavement sections.

COMPACTION TEST REPORT
135
7.9%
132.6 c
132.5
130
U
Q
T
C
N
T
127.5
ZAV for
125
Sp.G. _
2.65
122.5
3 4.5 6 7.5 9 10.5 12
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-12 Method A Modified
Elev/
Depth
Classification
Nat.
Moist.
Sp.G.
LL
PI
% >
#4
% <
No.200
USCS
AASHTO
SM
A-2-4(0)
17
1
0.2
16.5
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 132.6 pcf
Optimum moisture = 7.9 %
Brown silty sand
Project No. RD180323 Client: Stantec, Inc.
Project: PN89057 SOTF DPAC Addition (Geo) Fort Bragg, NC
OSample Number: 18-3012-01
Remarks:
Figure
Checked By: John Dailly

100
90
80
70
iY
W 60
Z
LL
Z 50
W
U
IY
W 40
0_
30
20
10
Particle Size Distribution Report
_ o00
M N \` � 3k 3k 3k 3k 3k 3k 3k 3k
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
% +3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt
0.0 0.0 0.2 8.6 38.6 36.1 16.5
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC."
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
.75
100.0
.375
99.9
#4
99.8
#10
91.2
#20
76.2
#40
52.6
#100
21.5
#200
16.5
(no specification provided)
Sample Number: 18-3012-01
Material Description
Brown silty sand
Atterberg Limits
P L= 16 LL= 17 Pl= 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Coefficients
D90= 1.8159
D85= 1.2866
D60= 0.5182
D50= 0.3959
D30= 0.2187
D15=
Dip=
Cu=
Cc=
Classification
USCS= SM
AASHTO=
A-2-4(0)
Remarks
Date: 06-27-18
Client: Stantec, Inc.
BUILDING & EARTH Project: PN89057 SOTF DPAC Addition (Geo) Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180323 Figure
Checked By: John Dailly

SHWT AND INFILTRATION TESTING DATA
Page I A-15

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
June 6, 2018
Mr. Kurt Miller, PE
Building and Earth Sciences, LLP
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Re: Seasonal high water table (SHWT) evaluation for potential stormwater
retention/treatment areas, SOTF Facilities, off Lamont Road, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Miller,
An evaluation of soil properties on portions of the aforementioned property has been
conducted at your request. The purpose of the investigation was to determine soil water
table depths for use in stormwater retention/treatment design.
Soils at the test sites (borings S1, S2, S3 & S4) are most similar to the Lakeland soil
series (see attached boring logs). All four borings were advanced to a depth of 10.0 feet
below the existing soil surface. Seasonal high water table SHWT as determined b
evidence of colors of chrome 2 or less was not encountered within 10.0 feet of the
existing ground surface. The attached map shows the approximate location of the
sample points (as requested by the design engineer).
I trust this is the information you require at this time.
Sincerely,
zee"114�
Mike Eaker
President
�G NEL D.
SOiUSITE EVALUATION % SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS * LAND USEJSU BDIV I SION PLANNING • WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING • SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
Soil Horin.g Log (Boringl), SOTF Facilities, Lamont Road, Fort Bragg, NC
This map unit consists of excessively drained soils that formed in sandy deposits on
uplands. Slope ranged from 0 to l percent.
A - 0 to 2 inches; very dark brown (1 OYR 2/2) sand; single grained; loose: many_ fuse
roots; clear smooth boundary.
C 1 - 2 to 50 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) loamy sand; about 10 percent uncoated
sand grains, weak granular structure; very friable; gradual wavy boundary.
C2 - 50 to 70 inches; strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) sand; single grained; loose; clear smooth
boundary.
C3 - 70 to 100 inches; brownish yellow (IOYR 6/6) coarse sand; about 30 percent
uncoated sand grains; single grained; loose; very friable; clear smooth boundary.
C4 — 100 to 120 inches; strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) sandy loam; massive structure; very
friable.
SHWT greater than 120 inches
S01t1SITE EVALUATION a SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS + LAND USLISUBDIVISION PLANNING a WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING • SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS. EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Sall & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9521
Fayetteville, NC 28911
Pho ne/Fax [phone]
Email mike@ southeasternsoiLcom
Soil Boring Log (Boring 2), SOTF Facilities, Lamont Road, Fort Bragg, NC -
This map unit consists of excessively drained soils that formed in sandy deposits on
uplands. Slope ranged from 0 to 1 percent.
A - 0 to 2 inches: very dark brown (1 OYR 2/2) sand; single grained; loose; many fine
roots; clear smooth boundary.
C1 - 4 to 26 inches; light yellowish brown (IOYR 6/4) loamy sand; about 10 percent
uncoated sand grains, weak granular structure; very friable; gradual wavy boundary.
C2 - 26 to 55 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sandy loam; weak fine granular
structure; very friable; clear smooth boundary.
C3 - 55 to 62 inches; yellowish red (5YR 5/8) sandy clay loam; weak fine subangular
blocky structure; firm; gradual diffuse boundary.
C4 — 62 to 78 inches; yellowish red (5YR 5/8) sandy clay loam; many medium prominent
yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) mottles; weak fine subangular blocky structure; firm;
gradual diffuse boundary.
C5 -- 78 to 120 inches; red (2.5YR 4/8) sandy clay loam; weak tine subangular blocky to
massive structure; firm.
SHWT greater than 120 inches
SOIUSITE EVALUATION ■ SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS v LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING • WETLANDS
G90UNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING a SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental .Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
Soil Boring Log (Boring 3), SOTF Facilities, Lamont Road, Fort Bragg, NC
This map unit consists of excessively drained soils that formed in sandy deposits on
uplands. Slope ranged from 0 to 1 percent.
A - 0 to 2 inches; very dark brown (IOYR 2/2) sand; single grained; loose; many fine
roots; clear smooth boundary.
C 1 - 2 to 30 inches; light yellowish brown (1 OYR 6/4) to yellowish red (5YR 5/8) loamy
sand; about 10 percent uncoated sand grains, weals granular structure; very friable;
gradual wavy boundary.
C2 - 30 to 61 inches; strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) coarse loamy sand; weak fine granular
structure; very friable; clear smooth boundary.
C3 - 61 to 112 inches; red (2.5YR 4/8) sandy clay loam; many medium prominent strong
brown (7.5YR 5/8) mottles; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; firm; gradual
diffuse boundary.
C4- 112 to 120 inches; red (2.5YR 4/8) sandy clay loam; many medium prominent strong
brown (7.5YR 5/8) mottles; common pieces of ironstone; massive structure; firm.
SHWT greater than 120 inches
SOIUSITE EVALUATION • SOIL PI-IYSICALANALYSIS e LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING • WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING • SURFACF/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
Soil Boring Log (Boring 4), SOTF Facilities, Lamont Road, Fort Bragg, NC
This map unit consists of excessively drained soils that formed in sandy deposits on
uplands. Slope ranged from 0 to 1 percent.
A - 0 to 7 inches; very dark brown (IOYR 2/2) sand; single grained; loose; many fine
roots; clear smooth boundary.
C 1 - 7 to 34 inches; yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/4) loamy sand; about 10 percent uncoated
sand grains, weak granular structure; very friable; gradual wavy boundary.
C2 - 34 to 56 inches; brown (7.5YR 4/4) coarse loamy sand; weak fine granular structure;
very friable; clear smooth boundary.
C3 - 56 to 85 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) coarse loamy sand; about 30 percent
uncoated sand grains; single grained; loose; very friable; clear smooth boundary.
C4 - 85 to 108 inches; red (2.5YR 4/6) sandy clay loam to sandy clay; many medium
prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) and gray (5YR 511) mottles; massive structure;
firm; gradual diffuse boundary.
C5- 108 to 120 inches; red (2.5YR 4/8) sandy clay loam; few medium prominent
yellowish brown (10YR 518) mottles; massive structure; firm.
SHWT greater than 120 inches
Chroma 1 colors noted from 85 to 108 inches are considered evidence of later water
movement (not SHWT) as C5 layer below (108 to 120 inches) contains no chroma 2 or
less mottling.
SOIUSITE EVALUATION • SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS 41 LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING e WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING , SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTF TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Nb'id
lilli-ii
® zm-Yay�ra��yawv�t+ v
Nemgwv'a twF �Hluw sv.viuu� m "
- J
i Q
x
a
\ - •fit
Wcl
SWU
<w€®m
n.

Project Name:
Client Name:
Technician:
Test Constants
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PN89057 SOTF DFAC Addition
Stantec, Inc.
Brad Carlson
Project Number: RD180323
Report Number: 1 of 4
Date: 6/14/2018
Liquid Used: municipal water Depth of Water Table: > 10, Water Temp (IF): 75 OF
Test Location: S-1 Depth of Observed Water NA inches
Constants:
Capacity
Liquid Containers
setting
Rate cm3/cm
Sight Tube
1 L
1 On
20.000
Storage Tube
5L
2 On
105.000
Flow rate used:
105
Hole Diameter:
2.4
inches
Start Saturation:
9:14
Water Head:
12
inches
Hole Radius: 1.200 Hole Depth: 27 inches
Test a a
*k
'5
Date/Time
Elapsed
Time (hrs)
4 Total
Flow Readings
Flow Rate
in3/hr
SaturaLeZI
Conductivity
(in/h)
Remarks: Weather conditions,
etc.
Reading
Tube
Flow
Flow
cm 3
14at in/hr
1
S
6/14/18 09:15
0.02
0.02
36.3
105
451.5
1653.13
3.83
E
6/14/18 09:16
32.0
2
S
6/14/18 09:16
0.02
0.03
32.0
105
409.5
1499.35
3.47
E
6/14/18 09:17
28.1
3
S
6/14/18 09:17
0.02
0.05
28.1
105
409.5
1499.35
3.47
E
6/14/18 09:18
24.2
4
S
6/14/18 09:18
0.02
0.07
24.2
105
409.5
1499.35
3.47
E
6/14/18 09:19
20.3
5
S
E
6
S
E
7
S
E
8
S
E
9
SE
10
S
E
11
S
E
12
S
E
13
S
E
14
S
E
Stabilized Ksat in A,
3.47
CCHP - 1

Project Name:
Client Name:
Technician:
Test Constants
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PN89057 SOTF DFAC Addition
Stantec, Inc.
Brad Carlson
Project Number: RD180323
Report Number: 2 of 4
Date: 6/14/2018
Liquid Used: municipal water Depth of Water Table: >10, Water Temp (IF): 75 OF
Test Location: S-2 Depth of Observed Water NA inches
Constants:
Capacity
Liquid Containers
setting
Rate cm3/cm
Sight Tube
1 L
1 On
20.000
Storage Tube
5L
2 On
105.000
Flow rate used:
105
Hole Diameter:
2.4
inches
Start Saturation:
9:45
Water Head:
12.25
inches
Hole Radius: 1.200 Hole Depth: 51 inches
Test a a
*k
'5
Date/Time
Elapsed
Time (hrs)
4 Total
Flow Readings
Flow Rate
in3/hr
SaturaLeZI
Conductivity
(in/h)
Remarks: Weather conditions,
etc.
Reading
Tube
Flow
Flow
cm 3
KSat in/hr
1
S
6/14/18 09:46
0.02
0.02
31.2
105
493.5
1806.91
4.05
E
6/14/18 09:47
26.5
2
S
6/14/18 09:47
0.02
0.03
26.5
105
357
1307.13
2.93
E
6/14/18 09:48
23.1
3
S
6/14/18 09:48
0.02
0.05
23.1
105
357
1307.13
2.93
E
6/14/18 09:49
19.7
4
S
6/14/18 09:49
0.02
0.07
19.7
105
357
1307.13
2.93
E
6/14/18 09:50
16.3
5
S
E
6
S
E
7
S
E
8
S
E
9
SE
10
S
E
11
S
E
12
S
E
13
S
E
14
S
E
Stabilized Ksat in A,
2.93
CCHP - 2

Project Name:
Client Name:
Technician:
Test Constants
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PN89057 SOTF DFAC Addition
Stantec, Inc.
Brad Carlson
Project Number: RD180323
Report Number: 3 of 4
Date: 6/14/2018
Liquid Used: municipal water Depth of Water Table: > 10, Water Temp (IF): 75 OF
Test Location: S-3 Depth of Observed Water NA inches
Constants:
Capacity
Liquid Containers
setting
Rate cm3/cm
Sight Tube
1 L
1 On
20.000
Storage Tube
5L
2 On
105.000
Flow rate used:
105
Hole Diameter:
2.4
inches
Start Saturation:
10:22
Water Head:
11.5
inches
Hole Radius: 1.200 Hole Depth: 42 inches
Test a a
*k
'5
Date/Time
Elapsed
Time (hrs)
4 Total
Flow Readings
Flow Rate
in3/hr
SaturaLeZI
Conductivity
(in/h)
Remarks: Weather conditions,
etc.
Reading
Tube
Flow
Flow
cm 3
14at in/hr
1
S
6/14/1810:23
0.02
0.02
34.8
105
378
1384.02
3.42
E
6/14/1810:24
31.2
2
S
6/14/1810:24
0.02
0.03
31.2
105
336
1230.24
3.04
E
6/14/1810:25
28.0
3
S
6/14/1810:25
0.02
0.05
28.0
105
336
1230.24
3.04
E
6/14/1810:26
24.8
4
S
6/14/1810:26
0.02
0.07
24.8
105
336
1230.24
3.04
E
6/14/1810:27
21.6
5
S
E
6
S
E
7
S
E
8
S
E
9
SE
10
S
E
11
S
E
12
S
E
13
S
E
14
S
E
Stabilized Ksat in A,
3.04
CCHP - 3

Project Name:
Client Name:
Technician:
Test Constants
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PN89057 SOTF DFAC Addition
Stantec, Inc.
Brad Carlson
Project Number: RD180323
Report Number: 4 of 4
Date: 6/14/2018
Liquid Used: municipal water Depth of Water Table: > 10, Water Temp (IF): 75 OF
Test Location: S-4 Depth of Observed Water NA inches
Constants:
Capacity
Liquid Containers
setting
Rate cm3/cm
Sight Tube
1 L
1 On
20.000
Storage Tube
5L
2 On
105.000
Flow rate used:
105
Hole Diameter:
2.4
inches
Start Saturation:
10:45
Water Head:
10.75
inches
Hole Radius: 1.200 Hole Depth: 12 inches
Test a a
*k
'5
Date/Time
Elapsed
Time (hrs)
4 Total
Flow Readings
Flow Rate
in3/hr
SaturaLeZI
Conductivity
(in/h)
Remarks: Weather conditions,
etc.
Reading
Tube
Flow
Flow
cm 3
14at in/hr
1
S
6/14/1810:46
0.02
0.02
30.2
105
420
1537.80
4.23
E
6/14/1810:47
26.2
2
S
6/14/1810:47
0.02
0.03
26.2
105
409.5
1499.35
4.12
E
6/14/1810:48
22.3
3
S
6/14/1810:48
0.02
0.05
22.3
105
409.5
1499.35
4.12
E
6/14/1810:49
18.4
4
S
6/14/1810:49
0.02
0.07
18.4
105
409.5
1499.35
4.12
E
6/14/1810:50
14.5
5
S
E
6
S
E
7
S
E
8
S
E
9
S
E
10
S
E
11
S
E
12
S
E
13
S
E
14
S
E
Stabilized Ksat in A,
4.12
CCHP - 4

Project: SOTF DFAC
Project No.: RD180323
Prepared By: KE
Checked By:
Date: 06/19/18
Date:
Settlement of Cohesionless Soils - Schmertmann Method
References: Schmertmann, J. H. Static Cone to Compute Static Settlement over Sand, ASCE JGE Vol. 96, No. SM3, May 1970.
and Schmertmann, J. H., et al. Improved Strain Influence Factor Diagrams, ASCE JGE Vol. 104, No. GT8, August 1978.
Case Description: I Shallow Spread Foundations (assumes average undercut of 1-2 feet to clear and grub)
Contact Pressure, qo
2,000 psf
Overburden Pressure, 6'D
300 psf
Width of Footing, B
6.0 feet
Length of Footing, L
6.0 feet
Footing Bearing Depth, zf
3.0 feet
Contact Pressure, qo
1.00 tsf
Overburden Pressure, 6'D
0.15 tsf
Net Pressure, q' = qo - 6'D
0.85 tsf
Footing Aspect Ratio, L/B
1.0
Cut Depth, z�
0.0 feet
Zone of Influence
12.0 feet
Depth of Peak Influence Factor, IZp
3.0 feet
Initial Effective Vertical Pressure at IZp, 6'vp
1.80 tsf
Peak Influence Factor, Iz = 0.5 + 0.1•(q'/6'v )V2
0.569
Soil Type and Description (PHT&T Table 5.4)
qc/N
Silts, sandy silts, slightly cohesive silt -sand
2
Clean, fine to medium sands, slightly silty sands
3 to 4
Coarse sands and sands with little gravel
5 to 6
Sandy gravel and gravel
8 to 10
Depth Factor, Ct = 1 - 0.5•(6'D/q')
0.91
Secondary Creep Factor, Cz = 1 + 0.2•log(t/0.1)
1.20
Shape Factor, C3 = 1.03 - 0.03•L/B
1.00
zB=2and IZ=0.1(LB=1)
zB = 4 and IZ = 0.2 (LB >_ 10)
E,=2.5•q,�(LB=1)
E, = 3.5•q,� (LB >_ 10)
Soil q�/N
1 2.0
2 3.5
3 5.0
4 6.0
Use Ct = 0.91 >_ 0.5
Time, t = 1.0 years
Use C3 = 1.00 >_ 0.73
Layer
No.
Remarks
Soil
Type
ztop
feet
zbot
feet
Zmid
feet
H
feet
YI
c
N
b
Es
is
IZ
H•(I�/ES)
6
in
1
Fill
2
0.0
2.5
1.3
2.5
110
12
105.0
0.295
0.0070
0.08
2
SC/SM
2
2.5
7.7
5.1
5.2
110
10
87.5
0.436
0.0259
0.29
3
SC/SM
2
7.7
13.5
10.6
5.8
110
1
8.8
0.088
0.0586
0.65
3
SC
1
13.5
30.0
21.8
16.5
110
5
25.0
0.000
0.0000
0.00
4
1
30.0
Total Settlement, 6 = Ct•C2•C3•q'•E H•(I)E,)
Total Settlement (inches) 1.02
Notes: Overburden pressure is due to footing embedment or cut; u'VP is initial vertical stress from original ground surface.
Stratigraphy and layer numbers start at the bottom of the footing, where z = 0
A stratum break is required where IZP occurs, and the final zmt must be equal to the Zone of Influence.
Reference Cell I18 and Cell I17 for zmt where IZP and Zone of Influence occur, respectively.
Version 12152001 RD180323 Schmertmann Settlement, altemate.xls: Column Ftg.

Strain Influence Factor, IZ
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600
0
0. 00
5
• 0.569
• 0.436
1
• 0.08
2 0
?a 3
N
41
o. 00
4
5
6
Version 12152001 RD180323 Schmertmann Settlement, altemate.xls: Column Ftg.

CALCULATIONS
Page I A-16

0
ab
P I�
O
5'x5' Column Footing
Schmertmann: 0.88 in
0
u�
0
5 10 15 2
Project
RD180323 SOFT DFAC Expansion
tit, !
Ana/ysisDescription Settlement at B-03, 4' of Undercutting, 2,500 psf
'� !1 ` #�
Drawn By OR
Company Building & Earth Sciences
°ate 6/27/2018, 1:09:34 PM
File Name SOFT DFAC Settlement At B-03.s3z
kTTL©o4.0iz

!I,�Illalllll'Ilil
l
I
al
6
�hi
�(
r

Design Name: LID ASPHALT
Design Type :
Roads
Pavement Type :
Flexible
Road Type :
Parking Area
Terrain Type :
Flat
Analysis Type :
CBR
Depth of Frost (in) :
0
Wander Width (in) :
33.35
Layer Information
Pavement Design Report
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
PCASE Version 2.09.05
Date : 6/29/2018
Non frost
Reduced
Limited
Layer Type
Material Type
Frost Code
Analysis
Design
Subgrade
Subgrade
CBR
Thickness
Strength
Penetratio
Strength
(in)
(in)
n (in)
Asphalt
Asphalt
NFS
Compute
2
0
0
0
Base
Unbound
NFS
Compute
5.99
0
0
100
Crushed Stone
Natural Subgrade
Cohesive Cut
NFS
Manual
0
0
0
5.5
Traffic Information
Pattern Name : LID ASPHALT
Passes per Life
Equivalen
Vehicles
Weight (lb)
Span
t Passes
CAR - PASSENGER
3000
1825000
1
M1097, HMMWV, HEAVY
10000
912500
1
VARIANT 4X4
TRUCK, 2 AXLE 6 TIRE
30000
18250
18250
TRUCK, 2 AXLE 6 TIRE
30000
18252
PCASE Equivalent Single Axle 141678
Loads

Design Name: HD ASPHALT2
Design Type :
Roads
Pavement Type :
Flexible
Road Type :
Parking Area
Terrain Type :
Flat
Analysis Type :
CBR
Depth of Frost (in) :
0
Wander Width (in) :
33.35
Layer Information
Layer Type Material Type
Pavement Design Report
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
PCASE Version 2.09.05
Date : 6/29/2018
Non frost
Frost Code Analysis Design
Thickness
(in)
Reduced
Limited
Subgrade
Subgrade CBR
Strength
Penetratio Strength
(in)
n (in)
Asphalt Asphalt NFS Compute 3.5 0 0 0
Base Unbound NFS Manual 8 0 0 100
Crushed Stone
Natural Subgrade Cohesive Cut NFS Manual 0 0 0 5.5
Traffic Information
Pattern Name : HD ASPHALT
Vehicles Weight (lb) Passes per Life Equivalen
Span t Passes
AXLE, 18 KIP
18000
2600
2
M1097, HMMWV, HEAVY
10000
4562500
1
VARIANT 4X4
P-15 CRASH TRUCK (FIRE
77000
1300
1300
TRUCK)
TRUCK, 2 AXLE 6 TIRE
25000
36500
7
TRUCK, 3 AXLE
66000
2600
466
P-15 CRASH TRUCK (FIRE
77000
1776
TRUCK)
PCASE Equivalent Single Axle 141678
Loads

Design Name:
HD RIGID
Design Type :
Roads
Pavement Type :
Rigid
Road Type:
Parking Area
Terrain Type :
Flat
Analysis Type :
K
Depth of Frost (in) :
0
Wander Width (in) :
33.35
% Load Transfer:
25
Effective K (pci) :
185
Reduced Sub Effective K (pci) :
0
Joint Spacing :
10 to 15 ft
Dowel Spacing:
12.00 in
Dowel Length :
16.00 in
Dowel Diameter:
.75 in
Layer Information
Layer Type Material Type
Pavement Thickness Report
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
PCASE Version 2.09.05
Date : 6/29/2018
Flexural Non frost Reduced Limited K
Frost Code Strength % Analysis Design Subgrade Subgrade Strength
Steel Thickness Strength Penetration
(psi) (in) (in) (in) (pci )
PCC N/A NFS 650 0 Compute 6 0 0 0
Base pound Crushed Sti NFS 0 0 Manual 6 0 0 0
Natural Subgrade Cohesive Cut NFS 0 0 Manual 0 0 0 130
Traffic Information
Pattern Name : HD ASPHALT
Vehicles
Weight (lb)
Passes per Life
Equivalent
Span
Passes
AXLE, 18 KIP
18000
2600
1449
M1097, HMMWV, HEAVY
10000
4562500
1
VARIANT 4X4
P-15 CRASH TRUCK (FIRE
77000
1300
21267
TRUCK)
TRUCK, 2 AXLE 6 TIRE
25000
36500
36500
TRUCK, 3 AXLE
66000
2600
19694
TRUCK, 2 AXLE 6 TIRE
25000
78911
PCASE Equivalent Single Axle 141678
Loads

Geotechnical-Engineering Report
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the
specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering
study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of
a constructor a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering study
is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique,
prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on
this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring
with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
— not even you — should apply this report for any purpose or
project except the one originally contemplated.
Read the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on
a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Do
not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected
elements only.
Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on
a Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider many unique, project -specific
factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors
include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk -management
preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its
size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the
site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless
the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically
indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering
report that was:
• not prepared for you;
• not prepared for your project;
• not prepared for the specific site explored; or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing
geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed
from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light -
industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight
of the proposed structure;
the composition of the design team; or
project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer
of project changes even minor ones and request an
assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot
accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because
their reports do not consider developments of which they were
not informed.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that
existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the
study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose
adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time;
man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the
site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes,
or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer
before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A
minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent
major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those
points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are
taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory
data and then apply their professional judgment to render
an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ sometimes
significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining
the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to
provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most
effective method of managing the risks associated with
unanticipated conditions.
A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the confirmation -dependent
recommendations included in your report. Confirmation -
dependent recommendations are not final, because
geotechnical engineers develop them principally from
judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize
their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface
conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical
engineer who developed your report cannot assume
responsibility or liability for the report's confirmation -dependent
recommendations if that engineer does notperform the
geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the
recommendations' applicability.
A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject
to Misinterpretation
Other design -team members' misinterpretation of
geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly
Page I A-16

problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical
engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team
after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical
engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's
plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret
a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by
havingyour geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and
preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical
construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs
based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratoiy
data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a
geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn
for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, Only
photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but
recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they
can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface
conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation.
To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the
complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with
a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise
constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes
of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited;
encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer
who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/
or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of
information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also
be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform
additional study. Only then might you be in a position to
give constructors the best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial
responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to
recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than
other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding
has created unrealistic expectations that have led to
disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include
a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes
labeled "limitations; many of these provisions indicate where
geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help
others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read
these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical
engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform
an environmental study differ significantly from those used to
perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical-
engineering report does not usually relate any environmental
findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about
the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks
or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental
problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not
yet obtained your own environmental information,
ask your geotechnical consultant for risk -management
guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
someone else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal
with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design,
construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent
significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.
To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for
the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a
comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a
professional mold -prevention consultant. Because just a small
amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of
severe mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategies
focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater,
water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed
as part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in
charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant;
none of the services performed in connection with the
geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for
the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the
recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be
sufficient to prevent mold fromgrowing in or on the structure
involved.
Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer
for Additional Assistance
Membership in the Geotechnical Business Council of the
Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk -confrontation techniques
that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with
a construction project. Confer with you GBC-Member
geotechnical engineer for more information.
FTMWA GEOTECHNICAL
GARCIUM BUSINESS COUNCIL
of fix Geopr*,sionWBruinec Asmciahon
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone; 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail; [e-mail] www.geoprofessional.org
Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GSA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part,
by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document
is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review_ only members of GBA may use
this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without
being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
Page I A-17