SW4210302_ASU Child Development Center - Wood Report of Geotechnical Exploration_20210317

wood.
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
ASU PROPOSED CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
NEW BUILDING
BOONE, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
Appalachian State University
Mr. Randy Jones, AIA
Appalachian State University
Office of Design and Construction
438 Academy Street
Boone, North Carolina 28608
Prepared by:
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
1308 Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
North Carolina Engineering Firm License No. F-1253
February 5, 2020
Wood Project No. 6252-19-0357.04

wood.
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
February 5, 2020
Mr. Randy Jones, AIA
Appalachian State University
Office of Design and Construction
438 Academy Street
ASU Box 32050
Boone, North Carolina 28608
Subject: Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Proposed Child Development Center New Building
Appalachian State University
538 Poplar Grove Road, Boone, North Carolina
Wood Project No. 6252-19-0357.04
Dear Mr. Jones:
1308-C Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28806
T:828-252-8130
www.woodpic.com
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (Wood) is pleased to provide this Report of
Geotechnical Exploration for the proposed construction of a new building adjacent to the existing
Child Development Center located at 538 Poplar Grove Road in Boone, North Carolina. Our services
were provided in general accordance with our proposal PROP19ASHE-82 dated December 11, 2019
and authorized by ASU by issuance of an email dated December 11, 2019. The purpose of this
exploration was to determine general subsurface conditions within this area and provide geotechnical
recommendations.
We thank you for the opportunity to provide our professional geotechnical services during the
planning phase of your project. We have attached to this report for your review important information
prepared by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) regarding geotechnical studies of the
type performed for this project. We will be pleased to discuss our recommendations with you and
welcome the opportunity to continue to provide additional geotechnical services during the design
and construction phases of this project.
Sincerely,
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
4 EAL
Timothy P. Quig ey, P.E. 3�91
Senior Engineer
Registered, North Carolina 034 09�1��� A°`e
1!9l,91
Mel Y. Browning, RE
Principal Engineer
Registered, North Carolina 8696

Report of Geotechnical Exploration February 5, 2020
ASU Proposed Child Development Center New Building
Wood Project No. 6252-19-0357.04
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT AND SITE INFORMATION..............................................................................................1
2.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS..........................................................................................1
2.1 SITE GEOLOGY...........................................................................................................................1
2.2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION.................................................................................................. 2
2.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS..................................................................................................... 3
2.3.1 Soil Conditions................................................................................................................. 4
2.3.2 Groundwater Conditions................................................................................................ 5
2.4 SEISMIC SITE CLASS................................................................................................................... 6
2.4.1 Additional Seismic Considerations................................................................................ 6
3.0 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................... 6
3.1
Surface Stripping and Removal of Below -Grade Construction and Utilities .................... 6
3.2
Groundwater Control................................................................................................................. 7
3.3
Proofrolling................................................................................................................................. 7
3.4
Construction of Structural Fill and Backfill............................................................................ 8
3.5
Difficult Excavation....................................................................................................................8
3.6
Cut and Fill Slopes...................................................................................................................... 9
3.7
Grade Slabs................................................................................................................................11
4.0 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES.......................................................................................................11
5.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................13
5.1
Shallow Foundations................................................................................................................13
5.2
Helcial Anchor Piles..................................................................................................................15
6.0 QUALIFICATION OF REPORT.......................................................................................................15
ATTACHMENTS:
GBA Geotechnical Engineering Report Brochure
Figure 1— Site and Field Exploration Location Plan
Figures 2 through 4 - Subsurface Profiles
Key to Symbols and Descriptions
Soil Boring Test Records (10)
Record of Test Pit Observation (8)
Photographs

Report of Geotechnical Exploration February 5, 2020
ASU Proposed Child Development Center New Building
Wood Project No. 6252-19-0357.04
1.0 PROJECT AND SITE INFORMATION
Project information was provided in emails and conversations with you and the design team, as well as
during a site visit to observe test pit excavations with you. A topographic site plan with eleven
proposed boring locations was also provided to us by Clark Nexsen. The proposed building location
had yet to be determined and was not shown on this site plan. Ten borings (B-1 through B-10) were
located within the general building area and one boring (B-11) was located to the north near where
additional parking may be proposed. We understand that the project is in the preliminary phases of
design but that a one-story building is currently being proposed to be constructed to the southwest of
the existing building. The building will likely be of modular wood framed construction and lightly
loaded. We understand that the finish floor elevation of the building will be 3334.5 feet and that a
crawl space basement, approximately 3.5 feet in height, will be underneath the floor in order to provide
space to set and install the modular frame units during construction and run plumbing for the building.
Currently, the area generally slopes down to the north of the existing building. An asphalt -paved
parking/drive area exists to the west of the building. The area within and to the south of the proposed
building is sloped upward and wooded. The existing relatively flat parking/drive area west of the
building is approximately 25 to 30 feet lower than the existing ground surface elevation of the three
southernmost soil test borings on the wooded slope above (B-1, B-2 and B-3 on Figure 1). An existing
two-story barn is located just to the west of soil test boring location B-6. To the west of the barn, a
creek approximately 6 to 12 inches in width and a few inches in depth was observed to be flowing to
the northeast at the time of our site visit to observe test pit excavations. We understand that the
existing building has had several additions over many years and some cracks have been recently
observed within the structure.
Based on the proposed finish floor elevation, up to approximately 16 feet of cut will be required within
the southwest corner of the proposed building in order to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation
of 3334.5 feet (19.5 feet of cut including the proposed basement crawl space). Based on our review of
the latest site plan provided to us, the ground surface elevation of the wooded slope to the south of
the proposed building will be graded and cut up to 14 feet to eliminate the need to construct a site
retaining wall.
2.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
2.1 SITE GEOLOGY
The project site is located in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province. The bedrock in this province is a
complex mixture of igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rock that has been repeatedly squeezed,
fractured, faulted and distorted by past tectonic movements. The virgin soils encountered in this area

Report of Geotechnical Exploration February 5, 2020
ASU Proposed Child Development Center New Building
Wood Project No. 6252-19-0357.04
are the residual product of in -place weathering of rock, which was similar to the rock presently
underlying the site. In areas not altered by erosion or disturbed by the activities of development, the
typical residual soil profile consists of clayey soils near the surface, where soil weathering is more
advanced, underlain by sandy silts and silty sands. The less weathered soils exhibit relict features of the
parent rock, including foliation patterns and joints.
The boundary between soil and rock is not sharply defined. This transitional zone termed "partially
weathered rock" (PWR) is normally found overlying the parent bedrock. Partially weathered rock is
defined, for engineering purposes, as residual material with standard penetration resistance values in
excess of 100 blows per foot. Fractures, joints, and the presence of less resistant rock types facilitate
weathering. Consequently, the profile of the partially weathered rock and hard rock is quite irregular
and erratic, even over short horizontal distances. Also, it is not unusual to find lenses and boulders of
hard rock and zones of partially weathered rock within the soil mantle, well above the general bedrock
level.
The upper soils along drainage features and in floodplain areas are often water -deposited (alluvial)
materials that have been eroded and washed down from adjacent higher ground. Also, soils from
higher elevations slough and slide down the slopes under gravity forces to form colluvial deposits
without sedimentation from water. The colluvial deposits may contain features such as perched
groundwater and the planes of weakness on which sliding took place.
2.2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Eight test pit locations (designated as TP-1 through TP-8) were staked within the potential building
area by ASU. The test pits were spread out within the grass covered area of the potential building site
and the locations were recorded in the field by Wood personnel by measuring distances from existing
site features.
The test pits were excavated utilizing a Kubota U45 mini excavator with a 24 inch wide backhoe bucket
that was operated by a representative of ASU. The seven test pits were excavated to depths ranging
from 3 to 7.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Excavation depths were either limited by the
subsurface conditions or the maximum reach of the excavation equipment. Excavation of the test pits
was monitored by a Wood geotechnical engineer, with a few performed prior to Wood arriving onsite.
The excavated soil and excavation sidewalls were classified in the field during test pit excavation.
Following the completion of each test pit excavation, the test pit was later backfilled with the excavated
material for safety purposes. Records of Test Pit Observations are attached with additional details.
Wood advanced 10 of the 11 proposed soil test borings (designated as B-1 through B-4 and B-6
through B-11) during our recent field exploration at the approximate requested locations as shown on
the attached Site and Boring Location Plan (Figure 1). Following the completion of our field

Report of Geotechnical Exploration February 5, 2020
ASU Proposed Child Development Center New Building
Wood Project No. 6252-19-0357.04
exploration, an updated site plan was provided showing the proposed building location. As discussed
with you in the field, borehole B-5 was not performed due to the proposed location having to be offset
close to other boring locations to avoid having to perform significant amounts of clearing and
benching to safely access with an ATV drill rig.
The boring locations were staked in the field by a Wood representative, referencing from site features
(such as existing buildings, power poles and parking lots) shown on site plans provided to us. The
ground surface elevations of these test pits and borings shown were estimated based on elevations
shown on the provided topographic site plan. Therefore, the test pit and boring locations and ground
surface elevations shown should be considered very approximate given the methods utilized to locate
them in the field.
The soil test borings were drilled by mechanically twisting hollow -stem augers into the soil. Soil
sampling and penetration testing were performed in general accordance with ASTM D1586. At
assigned intervals, soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4-inch I.D., 2-inch O.D. split -spoon
sampler. The sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings, and then driven an
additional 12 inches with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer
blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches was recorded and is designated the "N-Value"
or "penetration resistance". The N-Value, when properly evaluated, is an index to soil strength and
foundation support capability.
Representative portions of split spoon samples were sealed in containers and returned to our
laboratory where they were visually classified by a geotechnical professional. The boreholes were
sounded to determine presence and depth to groundwater at the time of drilling and prior to
backfilling. The boreholes were filled with drill cuttings after final sounding for groundwater
measurements.
2.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The following descriptions provide a general summary of the subsurface conditions encountered
during this exploration. The attached Record of Test Pit Observations, Soil Test Boring Records and
Subsurface Profiles (Figures 2 through 4) represent our interpretation of the field drilling logs based on
examination of the field samples. The lines designating the interfaces between various strata shown on
the test boring records represent approximate and interpreted boundaries and actual conditions
between the borings can be expected to vary.
The subsurface conditions encountered within our soil test borings are discussed below. Similar
conditions were generally encountered within the nearby test pit locations observed, see attached
Record of Test Pit Observations and photographs. Based on observations during test pit excavations,
the material that resulted in test pit refusal was partially weathered rock or weathered rock fragments
mixed in with soil that was unable to be excavated within the relatively small and narrow test pit
excavation with the equipment available onsite and not continuous bedrock.

Report of Geotechnical Exploration February 5, 2020
ASU Proposed Child Development Center New Building
Wood Project No. 6252-19-0357.04
2.3.1 Soil Conditions
During our field exploration, a thin surficial cover of grass, topsoil and roots up to 4 inches in thickness
was encountered at the ground surface within some of the boring locations as indicated on the
attached Soil Boring Test Records. Below the surficial layers, existing fill, alluvial soil, residual soil, and
partially weathered rock were encountered within our boreholes. Each of these layers is briefly
discussed below:
Existing Fill: Existing fill was encountered in soil test borings B-4 and B-6 though B-9 to
depths varying between 2 and 5.5 feet. In general, the fill was sampled as very loose clayey
sand, loose silty sand and soft sandy lean clay. Within the layer of fill soils that were sampled,
the N-value blow counts ranged from N=2 to N=7 blows per foot (bpf). Based on the blow
counts recorded within our soil test boring, this fill appears to have received a very minimal
degree of compactive effort during original placement.
Alluvial: Alluvial (water deposited) soils or possible alluvial soils placed as fill were
encountered in borings B-6, B-9 and B-10 to depths varying between 5.5 to 9.5 feet. In
general, the alluvium was sampled as firm sandy lean clay, very loose clayey sand, and very
loose silty sand. Within the layer of alluvial or possible alluvial soils that were sampled, the N-
value blow counts ranged from N=2 to N=8 blows per foot (bpf).
Residuum/Partially Weathered Rock: Residual soil and/or partially weathered rock produced
by weathering of the underlying bedrock was encountered in each of the soil test borings. The
residual soil generally consisted of very loose to very dense silty sand. A summary table
showing depths and elevations in which PWR was first encountered within the boreholes is
presented in Table 1 below. Within some of the boreholes this layer was underlain by a
relatively softer layer of residual soil before PWR was encountered again.
Auger Refusal: Auger refusal was encountered in eight of the eleven soil test borings as
summarized in Table 1. Refusal may result from boulders, lenses, ledges or layers of relatively
hard rock underlain by partially weathered rock or residual soil. Core drilling procedures are
required to penetrate refusal materials and determine their character and continuity. Such core
drilling was outside the scope of this exploration.
4

Report of Geotechnical Exploration
ASU Proposed Child Development Center New Building
Wood Project No. 6252-19-0357.04
February 5, 2020
Table 1. Approximate Depths of PWR First Encountered and Auger Refusal
Boring
Number
Boring
Termination
Depth,
feet
Depth to PWR
First
Encountered,
feet
Elevation
of PWR,
feet
Depth to
Auger
Refusal,
feet
Elevation of
Auger
Refusal,
feet
B-1
24.6
8
3340
24.6
3323.4
B-2
19
5
3351
19
3337
B-3
19.5
8
3348
19.5
3336.5
B-4
27
13
3335
27
3321
B-6
24
7
3335
24
3318
B-7
23.6
3
3337
NE
NE
B-8
18.5
10.5
3327.5
18.5
3319.5
B-9
17
13
3325
17
3321
B-10
16.5
14.5
3317.5
16.5
3314.5
B-11
10
3
3321
NE
NE
Notes: Indicates PWR or material sufficiently hard enough to cause auger refusal was
encountered above the proposed finish floor elevation of 3334.5 feet and/or the
3331 feet basement crawl space subgrade elevation.
NE = Not Encountered
2.3.2 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater levels were measured in the borings at the time of drilling and up to two days
following the completion of drilling. The results of groundwater measurements are summarized
below.
Table 2. Approximate Depths and Elevations of Groundwater Encountered
Boring
Number
Boring
Termination
Depth,
feet
Depth to
Groundwater, feet
Elevation of
Groundwater, feet
(approx. elevation)
B-1
24.6
18.5
3329.5
B-2
19
NE
NE
B-3
19.5
NE
NE
B-4
27
13.5
3334.5
B-6
24
9.8
3332.2
B-7
23.6
9.2
3330.8
B-8
18.5
8.8
3329.2
B-9
17
11
3327
B-10
16.5
9.5
3322.5
B-11
10
NE
NE

Report of Geotechnical Exploration
ASU Proposed Child Development Center New Building
Wood Project No. 6252-19-0357.04
February 5, 2020
Notes: Indicates groundwater was encountered above and/or near the proposed finish
floor elevation of 3334.5 feet and/or the 3331 feet basement crawl space
subgrade elevation).
NE — Not Encountered
Groundwater elevations will vary seasonally, with higher levels typically occurring during late winter
and early spring.
2.4 SEISMIC SITE CLASS
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered by the soil test borings and our understanding of the
proposed construction, the proposed structure should be designed for a Seismic Site Class C, as
defined in the 2018 North Carolina State Building Code. Should the location of the building move or
the finish floor/basement crawl space subgrade elevation change to be at a greater elevation, Wood
should be contacted to re-evaluate this recommendation.
2.4.1 Additional Seismic Considerations
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered within our soil test borings, it is our opinion that the
soils within the proposed building area have a very low potential for liquefaction. Additionally, the
potential for additional seismic hazards such as slope instability, differential settlement due to
liquefaction and surface displacement due to faulting or lateral spreading is low.
3.0 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Surface Stripping and Removal of Below -Grade Construction and Utilities
Within the proposed construction area, the existing layer of surficial topsoil should be stripped and
removed beneath the proposed building area to identify potential areas with deleterious materials
during a proofroll prior to placement of any additional fill. Any existing below -grade utilities should
also be removed and re-routed away from the location of the proposed addition. Voids left from
removing underground utilities from the previously existing structures should be filled with structural
fill that is placed and compacted as recommended in this report.
During stripping and rough grading, positive surface drainage should be maintained to prevent the
accumulation of surface water. If the exposed subgrade becomes excessively wet, or if conditions
encountered are different from those described previously in this report, the geotechnical engineer
should be contacted.
m

Report of Geotechnical Exploration February 5, 2020
ASU Proposed Child Development Center New Building
Wood Project No. 6252-19-0357.04
If encountered during construction, the contractor should be prepared to promptly remove the surface
water and/or groundwater from the construction area. This has been done effectively on pastjobs by
means of gravity ditches and pumping from filtered sumps. In addition, the site should be sloped and
the surface soil should be sealed to facilitate runoff of surface water.
3.2 Groundwater Control
Groundwater was encountered in soil test borings B-4, B-6, B-7 and B-8, as summarized in Table 2, at
depths which will likely be at, near or above the proposed FFE and/or basement crawl space subgrade
elevations for the proposed building. Groundwater elevations should be expected to fluctuate.
Therefore, the contractor should be prepared to promptly remove any surface water or groundwater
from the construction area to maintain the groundwater elevation a minimum of 2 feet below the
bottom of foundation elevations prior to foundation excavation, continuing until the completion of
concrete placement within the excavations, to prevent water intrusion and softening of the foundation
bearing soils. Groundwater control may be handled as discussed in section 3.1 above.
Permanent underdrains under the building area and cutoff trenches constructed around the perimeter
of the building are also recommended in order to reduce the water elevation below the building
subgrade surface and to help provide a "drier" basement crawlspace condition. Prior to foundation
excavation and grading near the proposed subgrade elevations, it may be worthwhile to consider
performing several small shallow test pits outside the building areas near the proposed building
locations to determine the depth of groundwater and to develop a plan to lower groundwater
elevations during foundation construction.
3.3 Proofrolling
Prior to the excavation for shallow foundations, the placement of structural fill and placement of
aggregate base course within paved areas, we recommend that proofrolling be performed to detect
unsuitable soil support conditions. Proofrolling should be performed with a heavily loaded dump truck
or with similar approved construction equipment. The proofroller should make at least four passes over
each location, with the last two passes perpendicular to the first two. Proofrolling should be done after
a suitable period of dry weather to avoid degrading an otherwise acceptable subgrade. The
proofrolling should be monitored by an engineering technician working under the supervision of the
geotechnical engineer. Areas that wave, rut, or deflect excessively and continue to do so after several
passes of the proofroller should be excavated and replaced with suitable structural fill material
(compacted as recommended in this report).
7

Report of Geotechnical Exploration February 5, 2020
ASU Proposed Child Development Center New Building
Wood Project No. 6252-19-0357.04
3.4 Construction of Structural Fill and Backfill
Fill used to raise the site grades, as backfill in utility trenches or for replacement of unsuitable material
detected by proofrolling should be uniformly compacted in sufficiently thin lifts, maximum of 8 inches
loose, to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density and within +/- 3 percent of
it's optimum moisture content (ASTM D 698). The upper two feet of fill placed directly under grade
slabs and under pavements should be compacted to 100 percent of this criteria.
Before filling operations begin, representative samples of each proposed fill material should be
collected and tested to determine the compaction and classification characteristics. In general, soils
containing more than 5 percent (by weight) fibrous organic material or having a Plasticity Index (PI)
greater than 30 (less than 15 is preferable) should not be used for fill. Soil used for structural fill should
have a maximum dry density of at least 90 pcf, based on Standard Proctor. The onsite soils
encountered within our borings should be suitable for re -use as structural fill provided they are near
the material's optimum moisture content. The maximum size of hard rock pieces in structural fill should
be 6 inches or less.
Once compaction begins, a sufficient number of density tests, typically one test per 2000 square feet
per lift or one test per lift every 100 linear feet of utility trench backfill, should be performed by an
experienced engineering technician working under the direct supervision of the geotechnical engineer
to measure the degree of compaction being obtained.
The surface of compacted subgrade soils can deteriorate and lose its support capabilities when
exposed to environmental changes and construction activity. Deterioration can occur in the form of
freezing, formation of erosion gullies, extreme drying, exposure for a long period of time or rutting by
construction traffic. We recommend that the surfaces of floor slab and pavement subgrades that have
deteriorated or softened be proofrolled, scarified and recompacted (and additional fill placed, if
necessary) immediately prior to construction of the floor slab or pavement. Additionally, excavations
through the subgrade soils (such as utility trenches) should be properly backfilled in compacted lifts.
Recompaction of subgrade surfaces and compaction of backfill should be checked with a sufficient
number of density tests to determine if adequate compaction being achieved.
3.5 Difficult Excavation
PWR and/or material sufficiently hard enough to cause auger refusal was encountered within the
borings as summarized in Table 1.
In general, very dense residual soil and partially weathered rock with N-values ranging from 50 blows
per 6 inches to 50 blows per 3 inches can often be excavated with bulldozers (Caterpillar D-8 with a
single tooth -ripper, or equivalent) or powerful tractor -drawn rippers without blasting, although often
with difficulty. Much can depend on the quality of the equipment and the experience of the operators,
as well as the nature of the material being excavated (i.e., presence and direction of more weathered
H.,

Report of Geotechnical Exploration February 5, 2020
ASU Proposed Child Development Center New Building
Wood Project No. 6252-19-0357.04
seams, bedding planes, etc.). Our experience indicates that partially weathered rock that has a standard
penetration resistance of 50/3 inches or fewer, as indicated on the boring records, will require an
extreme amount of effort to be removed by ripping and can most effectively be removed by blasting.
Confined excavations, such as utility trenches and excavations for shallow foundations, in partially
weathered rock may require pneumatic hammers or blasting. Blasting may be necessary to efficiently
remove more resistant rock and large boulders that could be present within the partially weathered
rock. The ease of excavation of partially weathered rock cannot be specifically quantified and depends
on the quality of grading equipment, skill of the equipment operators and geologic structure of the
material itself, such as the direction of bedding, planes of weakness and spacing between
discontinuities.
Auger refusal material, if continuous, will require blasting to excavate. We recommend that the
requirement for blasting be defined in terms of equipment performance. For general excavation,
typical recommendations would be that rock be defined as material that cannot be excavated with a
single tooth -ripper drawn by a Caterpillar D-8 or equivalent bulldozer. For trench excavation, typical
recommendations would be that rock be defined as material that cannot be excavated by a Caterpillar
225 or equivalent backhoe equipped with rock teeth.
Prior to blasting, pre -blast surveys of nearby structures should be performed to document existing
damage to these structures. Vibration monitoring should also be performed near the closest structures
to the site during blasting.
In a larger, open excavation site such as this may be, a particularly resistant area could be approached
from any direction with the ripper and thus align with a plane of weakness. Partially weathered rock
that is excavated by ripping may be removed in large slabs or boulders which are difficult to move
and/or break into smaller pieces for use in the fill.
In areas where excavation is anticipated to be difficult, it may be worthwhile to consider mass
excavating below the design subgrade level to the bottom level of utilities and foundations. This is
because boulders, rock lenses and massive rock can be more easily and more economically removed in
a mass form than by local excavation. Also, depending upon the construction schedule, there may be a
time advantage to completing most local excavation of rock during mass grading. The over -excavated
part can be backfilled with compacted onsite cut materials provided they meet the size requirements
discussed subsequently in this report.
3.6 Cut and Fill Slopes
Based on our review of the latest site plan provided, we understand that it is desired to attempt to
limit the use of site retaining walls within the proposed construction area. Therefore, cut slopes with up
to 16 feet of soil height removed from the toe of the proposed slope south of the building will be
required to achieve the proposed site grades. A slope stability analysis was outside the scope of our
M

Report of Geotechnical Exploration
ASU Proposed Child Development Center New Building
Wood Project No. 6252-19-0357.04
February 5, 2020
work. However, based on precedent, the recommended slopes should have an acceptable factor of
safety against slope failure (global stability), if properly constructed in accordance with the criteria of
this report.
After stripping and removal of the surficial topsoil layer, the surface of the existing slope should be
leveled and benched prior to placement of fill. Fill should then be placed on a suitable natural soil
foundation and benched into the existing slope as the fill is placed and compacted in horizontal layers
from the prepared foundation up the existing natural slope. Fill slopes should initially be constructed
beyond the design slope edge due to the difficulty of compacting the edge of the slopes. The fill
should then be cut back, leaving the exposed face of the slope well compacted. Fill should be placed
and compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. We recommend
that the edge of paved areas be constructed at least 10 feet away from the edge of slopes. The edge of
buildings should be constructed a minimum distance equal to one-third the slope height from the
edge of slopes.
It has been our experience with soils similar to those encountered at the site, that permanent cut and
fill slopes may exhibit surficial erosion and/or sloughing during periods of heavy rain or prolonged
rainfall if effective erosion control measures are not implemented. Ditches at the top of the cut slopes
and berms or grades sloping away from the top of fill slopes should be planned to control and divert
storm water away from the face of the slopes. Construction and maintenance of these diversion
ditches, berms, and grades will be crucial to preventing excessive erosion on the cut and fill slopes.
Establishment and maintenance of a suitable ground cover on the cut and fill slopes will be critical to
preventing excessive erosion and surface raveling on the slopes at this site. We recommend that the
owner adopt a regular maintenance plan to monitor the amount of erosion experienced on the slopes
and to remove displaced soil that may collect along the bottom of the cut slopes, especially until a
suitable ground cover has become established.
Based on local experience, cut slopes of up to 2:1 (H:V) excavated in soils similar to those encountered
in our soil test borings should have an acceptable factor of safety against slope failure (global stability).
However, if slickensides are encountered during excavation, flatter slopes or benches may have to be
used to provide slope stability.
Fill slopes should be constructed on a suitable firm foundation. Where normal slope maintenance is
desired, we recommend fill slopes be constructed at 2.5:1 (H:V), or flatter. It has been our experience
with soils similar to those encountered at the site, that permanent slopes constructed steeper than 2:1
(H:V), may exhibit surficial erosion and/or sloughing during periods of heavy rain or prolonged rainfall.
All slopes should be seeded and mulched as soon as practical to prevent surface erosion. Permanent
slopes constructed at 3:1 (H:V) or flatter would be desirable for mowing.
10

Report of Geotechnical Exploration February 5, 2020
ASU Proposed Child Development Center New Building
Wood Project No. 6252-19-0357.04
3.7 Grade Slab
We understand that currently the proposed building will not have a slab on grade but a floor elevated
above a basement crawl space. However, should this change, we recommend that following the
performance of a proofroll and replacement of areas identified as being unsuitable, a modulus of
subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used in design of grade slabs for the
building addition. This subgrade modulus used for slab design should be reduced for the full size mat,
if required by the software used for the slab design. Wood can provide assistance in this regard if
desired. While a proofroll typically is able to identify areas unsuitable for grade slab support, deeper or
smaller pockets of deleterious material may not be detected.
A minimum 4-inch layer of crushed stone covered with an impermeable membrane should be placed
on the soil subgrade prior to slab construction to provide a level bearing surface and to increase the
load distribution capabilities. The grade slabs should bejointed around columns and along footing -
supported walls so that the slabs and foundations can settle differentially without damage. Joints
containing smooth dowels or keys may be used in the slab to permit rotational movement between
parts of the slab without sharp vertical displacements or cracking.
Exposure to the environment and construction traffic may disturb the subgrade soils at the slab
bearing level. The slab subgrade should be graded and maintained to prevent ponding of surface
water. If the subgrade soils are softened by water intrusion, exposure or construction traffic; the
softened soils must be removed or scarified, allowed to dry, and recompacted prior to placement of
the crushed stone leveling course or construction of the grade slab.
We recommend that the engineering technician observe the soil subgrade immediately prior to
placement of the crushed stone leveling course or the aggregate base course layer and document the
conditions observed. The slab subgrade should be free of loose soil, ponded water, and debris at the
time of this observation. Any significant differences from the specified subgrade condition should be
brought to the attention of the owner's representative along with appropriate recommendations for
correction of the observed condition.
4.0 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
Below -grade or site retaining walls, if any, must be capable of resisting the lateral earth pressures that
will be imposed on them. We have assumed that soil similar to the on -site silty sands, sandy silts or
wash stone will be used as backfill for below -grade or site retaining walls.
Based on previously developed correlations for silty sands, sandy silts and washed stone, the effective
stress properties and earth pressure coefficients for a horizontal backfill condition are recommended in
the following table:
11

Report of Geotechnical Exploration
ASU Proposed Child Development Center New Building
Wood Project No. 6252-19-0357.04
Table 3. Recommended Soil Properties and Earth Pressure Coefficients
February 5, 2020
Earth Pressure
Effective Stress Properties
Coefficients*
Total
Internal
Unit
Angle of
Material
Weight
Cohesion
Friction
Description
(pcf)
(psf)
(degrees)
Ko
Ka
Kp
Silty Sand
120
0
28
0.53
0.36
2.8
Sandy Silt
120
100
24
0.59
0.40
2.4
Clean washed
100
0
40
0.36
0.22
4.6
stone (#57)
Notes:
Ko = At -Rest earth pressure coefficient
Ka = Active earth pressure coefficient
Kp = Passive earth pressure coefficient (divide by SF=2, use with active
opposite case)
* - for horizontal backfill
The at -rest, active, and passive earth pressure coefficients presented above are based on the
assumption of horizontal backfill. Sloping backfill will increase the above earth pressure coefficients.
We should be consulted regarding the appropriate earth pressure coefficients if a sloping backfill
condition will exist. A coefficient of 0.35 could be reasonably assumed for evaluating ultimate frictional
resistance to sliding at the soil to foundation contact.
Walls which will be prevented from rotating such as below grade walls braced against the upper floor
level should be designed to resist the "at -rest" lateral earth pressure. Walls such as exterior retaining
walls which are permitted to rotate at the top may be designed to resist "active" lateral earth pressure.
Typically, a top rotation of about 1 inch per 10 feet height of wall is sufficient to develop active
pressure conditions in soils similar to those encountered at the site. Less deflection would be required
to develop active conditions in the crushed stone backfill.
The total unit weight of the backfill soil should be used with the above earth pressure coefficients to
calculate lateral earth pressures. Lateral pressure arising from surcharge loading, earthquake loading,
and groundwater, should be added to the above soil earth pressures to determine the total lateral
pressures which the walls must resist. We recommend that vertical wall drainage be provided behind
the retaining walls to minimize potential for hydrostatic pressure. Periodically spaced weep holes
should be placed near the base of walls to drain from the wall drains.
If washed stone is to be used as backfill behind the below -grade walls, the minimum area of stone
backfill should be within the wedge behind the wall defined by a line extending upward from the base
of the wall at a 45 degree angle. A pervious, non -woven geotextile should be placed between the soil
and the washed stone.
12

Report of Geotechnical Exploration February 5, 2020
ASU Proposed Child Development Center New Building
Wood Project No. 6252-19-0357.04
In addition, transient loads imposed on the walls by construction equipment during backfilling should
be taken into consideration during design and construction. Excessively heavy grading equipment (that
could impose temporary excessive pressures or long term excessive residual pressures against the
constructed walls) should not be allowed within about 5 feet (horizontally) of the walls.
5.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Shallow Foundations
Based on our review of the subsurface conditions encountered during our field exploration with
respect to the proposed basement crawl space subgrade elevation of 3331 feet, much of the surficial
fill/disturbed residual soils should be removed during site grading. However, approximately 1 foot and
8.5 feet of soft fill and/or alluvial soils will remain within the northwest portion of the building near the
borings B-9 and B-10, respectively. Based on our site observations of the surrounding topography,
other areas in the northern portion of the building that were not explored with soil test borings may
contain existing fill soils or alluvial as well that would need to be evaluated during construction.
Although foundation loads will likely be relatively light, we recommend that these soft soils be
removed within at least the foundation bearing areas to suitably firm residual soil to reduce the
potential for differential settlement between foundations bearing on soft existing fill and foundations
bearing on dense/very dense residual soil, partially weathered rock and/or rock.
A proofroll should first be performed over the building basement crawl space subgrade prior to
foundation excavation to identify areas of unsuitable soil for support of the building foundations so
they may be repaired, as subsequently discussed in this report.
The undercut foundation excavations should extend laterally, beyond the foundation edges at least 1/2
foot for every 1 foot of vertical excavation. Given the likely presence of groundwater approximately
near the residual soil contact and difficulty keeping the open excavation suitably dry to place and
compact structural fill after undercutting is complete, we recommend that the portion of the
excavation at and below the groundwater table be backfilled with #57 stone wrapped in a nonwoven
filter fabric. The remaining portion of the foundation excavation undercut above the groundwater level
should be backfilled with suitable soil fill, compacted to 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum
dry density. Based on the soil encountered within our borings, the existing soil fill above the
groundwater should may suitable for re -use as structural fill if it is at/near it's optimum moisture
content. However, given the amount of material being excavated as cut material within the building
area, we would recommend considering using the less rocky residual silty sand material encountered
within the test pit excavations and borings as backfill material as it is less plastic/moisture sensitive and
likely closer to it's optimum moisture contact for compaction.
13

Report of Geotechnical Exploration
ASU Proposed Child Development Center New Building
Wood Project No. 6252-19-0357.04
February 5, 2020
Individual building foundations should bear entirely in either compacted fill, residual soils, partially
weathered rock, or hard rock. For building foundations bearing on a combination of soils and hard
rock, overexcavation of the hard rock approximately 1 foot in depth and replacement with compacted
aggregate base course or structural fill to provide a cushion is recommended.
Following completion of this recommended undercut, shallow strip and spread footings may be
designed to bear in approved newly compacted fill and residual soil with an allowable net soil bearing
pressure of 3,000 pounds per square feet (psf). Allowable soil bearing pressures in excess of 10,000 psf
would potentially be available in very dense residual soil or PWR, although minimum footing widths
rather than soil bearing pressure would govern foundation sizes for lightly loaded structures as
proposed.
Minimum column and continuous wall footing widths should be 24 and 18 inches, respectively, to
provide a margin of safety against local or punching shear failure of the bearing soils. Exterior footings
should bear at least 30 inches below final exterior grade and interior footings within a conditioned
space should bear at least 18 inches below the surface of the grade slab to provide frost protection
and protective embedment.
We recommend that masonry walls, if any, (but not the wall footings) be provided with periodically
spaced movementjoints to accommodate differential settlement that may occur along strip footings
supported on both residual soil and compacted fill.
Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the footing bearing level if the foundation
excavations remain open for a prolonged period of time. Therefore, foundation concrete should be
placed as soon as possible, preferably on the same day excavated. If the bearing soils are softened by
surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed immediately prior to
placement of concrete. Foundation concrete should not be placed on frozen or saturated soil. If
foundation excavations must remain open overnight when rainfall is imminent, we recommend that a
2- to 3-inch thick "mud -mat" of "lean" (2,000 psi) concrete be placed on the excavated surface to
protect the bearing surface.
An engineering technician working under the supervision of the geotechnical engineer should observe
the foundation excavations immediately prior to concrete placement. The foundation bearing areas
should be level or suitably benched and be free of loose soil, ponded water, and debris prior to the
observation. Within foundation excavations, the engineering technician should perform hand auger
borings with dynamic cone penetration testing below the excavated surface to correlate actual soil
conditions observed with those indicated by this geotechnical exploration. Any significant differences
should be brought to the attention of the owner's representative along with appropriate
recommendations for additional excavation to provide suitable bearing conditions for the affected
foundations.
14

Report of Geotechnical Exploration February 5, 2020
ASU Proposed Child Development Center New Building
Wood Project No. 6252-19-0357.04
5.2. Helical Anchor Piles
An alternative to the undercut and replacement option previously discussed within the area of the
proposed northwest building foundations area would be to install helical anchors within the area
(extent to be identified during construction) to transfer the building foundation loads down to the
underlying layer of residual soils beneath the soft existing fill. This would eliminate the need for
undercutting, replacing and properly disposing of these excavated soils below the groundwater level.
This type of foundation support system is typically designed by a specialty installation contractor.
Helical anchor piles consist of single flights of screw helix along a shaft installed with rotary installation
equipment. They can be installed in relatively confined areas and the installation produces minimal
vibration. The shafts are designed to withstand the compressive and tensile foundation loads as well as
the installing torque. The individual screw helixes act similar to small footing foundations. The
foundation loads should be transferred to residual soils. Torque values recorded during installation
should be monitored to estimate soil consistency as the helix penetrates through the different strata.
The specialty installation contractor typically specifies that a certain torque value be achieved during
installation to verify that the helical anchor piles have achieved their design capacity. If required, load
testing should be performed to confirm uplift resistance of the helical anchors.
6.0 QUALIFICATION OF REPORT
This geotechnical exploration was preliminary in nature and does not attempt to represent the
subsurface conditions between the boring locations. The recommendations provided in this report are
based in part on project information provided to us and they only apply to the specific project and site
discussed in this report.
Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical exploration, there is always a possibility that
conditions between borings will be different from those at specific locations and that conditions will
not be as anticipated by the designers or contractors. In addition, the construction process may itself
alter subsurface conditions. Therefore, experienced geotechnical personnel should observe and
document the construction procedures used and the conditions encountered. Unanticipated
conditions and inadequate procedures should be reported to the design team along with timely
recommendations for addressing the unanticipated conditions or inadequate procedures. We
recommend that Wood be retained to provide this service based upon our familiarity with the project,
the subsurface conditions, and the intent of the recommendations and design.
We recommend that this complete report be provided to the various design team members,
contractors, and the project owner. Potential contractors should be informed of this report in the
"Instructions to Bidders" section of the bid documents. The report should not be included or
referenced in the actual contract documents.
15

Report of Geotechnical Exploration
ASU Proposed Child Development Center New Building
Wood Project No. 6252-19-0357.04
February 5, 2020
The assessment of site environmental conditions for the presence of pollutants in the soil, rock, or
ground water of the site is beyond the scope of this exploration. The analysis of dynamic foundation
loading was also beyond the scope of our services.
16

ATTACHMENTS

Geotechnical-Engineering Repopt
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA)
has prepared this advisory to help you — assumedly
a client representative — interpret and apply this
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively
as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from
a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems
that, for decades, have been a principal cause of
construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and
disputes. If you have questions or want more
information about any of the issues discussed below,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.
Active involvement in 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.
Geotechnical-Engineering 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 given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil -
works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each
geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-
engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Those who
rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client
can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives
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 this Report in Full
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-
engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an
executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report
in full.
You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer
about Change
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project -specific factors
when designing the study behind this report and developing the
confirmation -dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few
typical factors include:
• the client's goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and
risk -management preferences;
• the general nature of the structure involved, its size,
configuration, and performance criteria;
• the structure's location and orientation on the site; and
• other planned or existing site improvements, such as
retaining walls, access roads, parking lots, and
underground utilities.
Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
those that affect:
• the sites size or shape;
• 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. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept
responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical
engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise
would have considered.
This Report May Not Be Reliable
Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
• for a different client;
• for a different project;
• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a
portion of the original site); or
• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent
to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or
environmental remediation, or natural events like floods,
droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.
Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering
report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time,
because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified
codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If your
geotechnical engineer has not indicated an `apply -by" date on the report,
ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain
about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical
engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis - if any is required at all - could prevent major problems.
Most of the "Findings" Related in This Report Are
Professional Opinions
Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site's
subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures.
Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at
those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The
data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your
geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to
form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual
sitewide- subsurface conditions may differ - maybe significantly - from
those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your
geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to
project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly,
whenever needed.

This Report's Recommendations Are
Confirmation -Dependent
The recommendations included in this report - including any options
or alternatives - are confirmation -dependent. In other words, they are
not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied
heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer
can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface
conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your
geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist
actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming
no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared
this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation -
dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform
construction observation.
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted
Other design professionals' misinterpretation of geotechnical-
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk
by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the
design team, to:
• confer with other design -team members,
• help develop specifications,
review pertinent elements of other design professionals'
plans and specifications, and
• be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering
guidance is needed.
You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this
report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in
prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction
observation.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift
unanticipated -subsurface -conditions liability to constructors by limiting
the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent
the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the
complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments
or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note
conspicuously that you've included the material for informational
purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note
that "informational purposes" means constructors have no right to rely
on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in
the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific
times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that
constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements,
including options selected from the report, only from the design
drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may
perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough
time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position
to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring
them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming
from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction
conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do
not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other
engineering disciplines. That lack of understanding has nurtured
unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays,
cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical
engineers commonly include 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.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an
environmental study - e.g., a "phase -one" or "phase -two" environmental
site assessment - differ significantly from those used to perform
a geotechnical-engineering 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 subsurface environmental problems have led to project
failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental
information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk -management
guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report
prepared for a different client, site, or project, or that is more than six
months old.
Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture
Infiltration and Mold
While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater,
water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer's
services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled
migration of moisture - including water vapor - from the soil through
building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can
cause mold growth and material -performance deficiencies. Accordingly,
proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer's recommendations
will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront
the risk of moisture infiltration by including building -envelope or mold
specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building -
envelope or mold specialists.
GEOPROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
&EPA ASSOCIATION
Telephone: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail] wwwgeoprofessional.org
Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly
prohibited, except with GBAs 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 or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any
kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent

<1Z w
rn
LL
d
V/
63
Q
C
z
Ai y !
J
i -ratio- i �ol
5S !
o
f a❑ ��� m rrr rn
=o
UJ
tico
�'Ca co ! f6 D
Iv
a�, N t z
\ �! /!
/r j!!! !�t`,$��; J f iL E m 0
` �' °� X a �Y� ! r��if '! Q- C- C Z
�V \ ���� I O N
jCO
L N
U
o o
1
A f11; it i/I11� 1 1 I�V� i !
t .1 i I i 1.•f � j �� �' I
06
,°3 o
! °o 0
oo
0 O >Uo0
fn Q zN
1 f ss A I li/ •� + Y I f ( t / 7 r C = •5 N =
0 LI)
U U Wco
� N> N
'aU dOD � W
E 'a 0 M ¢
U
r � � L
N �
0 F4-
❑

JLO W `Cli LLA
Cl
Ch Ch
C`') O C`')
Cl
C`')
O C`')
V
�i
O
O
Q
O
co
0
o
r
Qr
� U
U
o
a Q
o
O
M�
O
o
w
m
(D
a
rn
0
N
i0
Z
♦
Cl) Q
W
�
♦
a
O
00
♦
O
0
O
z
`
a a
o
♦
o
N
O
o
N o
■
w°'
O
o
Ito�
•
o
Lo
O
Lo
cd ,
�C
O •
0
N •
o
CY)
"d
�
OOp
LU
w
•
'
�V-) w a
>
z O vQ,
N •
'
z w
_ w
O( Q
°3 w o
O
'
N
v� •
m m
�� O 2
cc
T
I -`I
T m N
•
M O
CS
C
C
cc
T �
�
W M
bA �D
� N
C3 Q
Cr
J
N
W p W W
O
W
cc w O
O
0[
(D
O
[p
Q
cc N
C4
Cn O Cn O Cn O Cn O Cn
(D (D Lo Lo V V m C`) N
Ch
Ch Ch Ch
Ch
Ch
Ch Ch
W �Ch
Ci Ci
Ci Ci Ci
Ci
C`)
C`i C`i
J
w

J `
W
LO LO
ly C`i
C`i C`i
LO
C`i
C`i
C`i
C`i
� O
C`i
N
C`i
N
C`i
LO
U
O
o
I
O
m
O
co
r
r
■
�
T
r
c
� �
N
c M �I
IRL
a
o
T
°�
m;
w
oc
o
T
W
� o
M
�I I
I,k,III I ICI
I I I,k,I
I I
��
(D a�
h rn
rn
I
rn
Q N
■
Cl)
I
W
00
■
00
O
O
■
W W
■
O
O
r-
■
■
- 0
■
o
M
I�
o
p
c
o
c
r' wai
M
O
^
N
O
ai
■
LO
_ +, (�
CY)o
M
Cl)w
I N
oo Q
�
W
I c�
U' w
Z
z o Q
■m ��
w
°o w m
CQ
O
O cc
0
0—O
O
-
10,_Lo
■WUW
O';o
TmN
O
O
O
11 IF I�)
I
I�, I
I-
o[ 2 O 2
r■
N
� N
Q W � W w
W
w O O
O
0[
■
02 ti CQ
U O
O
C`i
Lo
N
O
N
Lo O Lo O Lo
Cn Cn V V C`i
Ch
Ch
Ch
Ch
Ch
Ch
Ch
W �CC`i
C`i
C`i
C`i
C`i
C`i
C`i
Ch
`i
CCh
`i
J
W

CLA
J `V M O� N N O
W Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch
C`i C`i C`i C`i C`i C`i C`i C`i
I
■
I
■
p..
R� N
o
LO
rN
w
O
LO
M
on n
■
v
I
v
■
I
■
U I
0
M ICl)
M ■
CY)
O I
�
Co ■
>I
U
LU ■
O
o'>
O
a>
70
I
co ■
CDIm
31
N
��/
U) ■
N
IU
Q ■
�I
O
N
■
O
N
co
I
Lf?
V ■
Ln
co
I
E
L2
■
W
cnn I
U-
W ■
o
N
I
o
■
Q
CLI
■
I
LO
b
O
W...
O
M
tw '
■
■
Cn O
Cn
O
Cn O
Cn
O
M M
M
M
M M
Ch
Ch
W
Ch Ch
Ch
Ch
Ch Ch
Ch
Ch
J �
W
W
J
W
W
Lu
= W
O �:
OW
c
tim
O
r O
m N
O
ti
Z
Z
Q
Q
W
p
W
W
O
W
W
O
O
0[
C'3

1
A
N
x
Cn
v1W�>to
x
n
ciOn
•
,�
N
U
y
N
m/j,
Vi
Cn
�
,'ma,�yy
R
�
H
I I
.y
•O W
� �
�
�
--i
�
�
�
O
M
0
M
O
��■■ O
U
O
OcdU
O
O
N
Lr)
l0
O
W
a�
o
4.
cn
Q
��
_
W
0
0 �
o •�
W
Q
'�
°o
��
Q
V
.�
U
U
U
O
O
ti
ti
O
CJ~�i
Q
a
w
W
t
o
S
0
t
0
U
O
t/7
-o
:
N O
z
c>C
'O
'O
W
�. �
o �
�
°
o
a.
. �
s
�
�
�
O
• � a
'b
�'
cl�
bA
O
M C
�..{
W
[�
cny
o
O
'O ..
'�
W
'O >
�. >
'O
cC
U s
U
r
U
U
U
CArQ,i
cn
>
cn
..
cn
> on
°
>
°
cn r�
�
cn
cli
cl� a
�
cA
�
cn
�
U O
M W
u
v
L7
w
N
ct
_
C2
cli
O
U
C7
C/i
C!1
U
O
U
O
ix
U pp
p
Z Q e 0
m
UC�/1
U
.a
y
.a
t/�lH� o
�
U �
U
v1
LT.
O
w
ct
U
E�
, >
.
°.2
w v
CA
�wW'
x
u
�1
Zow�Z
cn
cl y
WZ�
C'

T
H
(ft)
0
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
AND REMARKS
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
L
E
N
D
E
V
(ft)
3356.
SAMPLES
10
PL
(%)
NM
(%)
LL
(%)
100
E
N
T
Y
E
�C�U�T
T N C)
v
20
30
•
40
FINES
SPT
50
(%)
(bpf)
60
70
80
90
POSSIBLE DISTURBED RESIDUUM- Dense,
Brown, Silty, Fine to Coarse SAND (SM), Moist
SS-1
1-10-23
03
RESIDUUM- Dense, Brown, Tan, Silty, Fine to
Medium SAND (SM), Moist
Medium Dense Orange, Gray, Tan, Silty, Fine to
Coarse SAND (SM), Moist
5
3351.
SS-2
28-11-6
7
5
Dense, Orange, Brown Silty, Fine to Medium SAND
(SM), With Fine Graver
SS-3
12-20-24
SSA
x
32r50/2"
100
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK- Sampled As,
Oranr Brown,
With Fine Gravel Silty, Fine to Coarse SAND (SM),
10
3346.
10
Very Dense, Gray, Brown, Silty, Fine to Medium
SAND (SM), With Fine Gravel
15
3341.
SS-5
16-19-40
9
15
SS-6
34-50/2"
100
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK- Sampled As.
Gray, Brown, Silty, Fine to Medium SAND (SM), With
Fine Gravel.
Hard Drill Chatter 17.5 to 18 feet, 19.5 to 20 feet and
22 to 22.5 feet
20
3336.
20
SS-7
6-50/1"
41100
Gray, Black Brown, Micaceous, San dyY SILT (ML),
Wef, With Fine Gravel and Weathered'Ftock
Fragments
25
3331.
25
Auger Refusal at 24.6 feet
Groundwater Encountered at 18.5 feet at Time of
Boring
DRILLER:
Techdrill
EQUIPMENT:
CME 45 Autohammer
METHOD:
2.25 inch HSA
HOLE DIA.:
0.5' Nominal
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: MNQ
CHECKED BY: TPQ
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
F--SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
PROJECT: ASU - Child Development Center BORING NO.: B-1
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE:
DRILLED: January 9, 2020
PROJ. NO.: 6252190357.04 PAGE 1 OF 1

SOIL CLASSIFICATION
L
E
SAMPLES
PL
(%)
NM
(%)
LL
(%)
E
Y
�C�U�T
v
FINES
(%)
T
AND REMARKS
E
V
H
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
N
N
E
T N C)
•
SPT
(bpf)
(ft)
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
D
(ft)
T
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
3356.
4 inches Rootmat
POSSIBLE DISTURBED RESIDUUM- Loose, Light
Brown Silty Fine to Coarse SAND (SM) Trace Clay,
Moist With dine Gravel and Trace Fine Moots
RESIDUUM- Loose, Gray, Tan Silty, Fine to
Coarse SAND (SM), Moist, With Fine to Coarse
SS-1
2-4-4
41
Gravel
Dense, Brown, Yellow, Silty, Fine to Coarse SAND
(SM), With Fine Gravel
SS-2
9-18-14
5
3351.
5
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK- Sampled As
VLi ht Brown, Yellow, Silty, Fine to Coarse SAND �SM),
th Fine Gravel and Shale Rock Fragments
Hard Drill Chatter from 5 to 6 feet
SS-3
48-50/2"
100
Very Dense, OranT, Brown, Silty, Fine to Coarse
SAND (SM), With Fine Gravel and Shale Rock
Fragments
SSA
22-28-25
10
3346.
10
PARTAILLY WEATHERED ROCK- Sampled As,
Gray, Brown, Tan, With Fine Gravel and Shale Rock
Fragments
Hard Drill Chatter 18.5 to 19 feet
SS-5
24-50/6"
l00
15
3341.
15
SS-6
50/5.5"
40100
Auger Refusal at 19 feet
Borehole caved and dry at 15.5 feet after completion
20
of Boring
3336.
20
25
3331.
25
DRILLER:
Techdrill
EQUIPMENT:
CME 45 Autohammer
METHOD:
2.25 inch HSA
HOLE DIA.:
0.5' Nominal
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: MNQ
CHECKED BY: TPQ
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
F__SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
PROJECT: ASU - Child Development Center BORING NO.: B-2
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE:
DRILLED: January 9, 2020
PROJ. NO.: 6252190357.04 PAGE 1 OF 1

T
H
(0)
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
AND REMARKS
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
L
E
N
D
E
V
3 (ft)
SAMPLES
10
PL
(%)
NM
(%)
LL
(%)
100
E
N
T
Y
E
�C�U�T
T N C)
v
20
30
•
40
FINES
SPT
50
(%)
(bpf)
60
70
80
90
2 inches Roots
POSSIBLE DISTURBED RESIDUUM- Dense,
Brown Silty Fine to Medium SAND (SM), Moist, With
Trace dine Moots
RESIDUUM- Dense, Tan Silty, Fine to Coarse
SAND ((SM) Moist, With dine to Coarse Gravel and
'Fragments
SS-1
8-24-19
Shale Rock
Very Dense Brown, Tan, Silty, Fine to Coarse SAND
(SM), With dine Gravel
5
3351.
SS-2
18-40-35
7
5
Dense, Brown, Tan, Silty, Fine to Coarse SAND (SM),
Moist
SS-3
7-8-24
10
SSA
40-50/5"
100
10
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK- Sampled As
Orange, Graff, Brown, Silty, Fine to Coarse SANd
(SM), With Fine Gravel
Hard Drill Chatter 12 to 13 feet
�U543346.
Dense Gray, Tan, Silty Fine to Coarse SAND (SM),
With Fine gravel and Shale Rock Fragments
15
3341.
SS-5
X
34-14-22
6
15
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK,- Sampled As,
Orange, Brown, Micaceous, Silty, Fine SAND (SM)
20
3336.
SS-6
13-50/5.5"
100
20
Auger Refusal at 19.5 feet
Borehole caved and dry at 15.7 feet after completion
of Boring
25
3331.
25
DRILLER:
Techdrill
EQUIPMENT:
CME 45 Autohammer
METHOD:
2.25 inch HSA
HOLE DIA.:
0.5' Nominal
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: MNQ
CHECKED BY: TPQ
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
F--SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
PROJECT: ASU - Child Development Center BORING NO.: B-3
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE:
DRILLED: January 9, 2020
PROJ. NO.: 6252190357.04 PAGE 1 OF 1

SOIL CLASSIFICATION
L
E
SAMPLES
PL
(%)
NM
(%)
LL
(%)
E
Y
�C�U�T
v
FINES
(%)
T
AND REMARKS
E
V
H
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
N
N
•
SPT
(bpf)
(ft)
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
D
(ft)
T
E
T N C)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
FILL - Loose Oran e, Brown, Silty, Fine to Medium
}vloist,race
3348.
SAND (SM), Fine Roots
SS-1
1-2-4Medium
RESIDUUM- Loose Gray, Tan, Silty, Fine to
SAND (SMJ, Moist
Dense, Orange, Gray, Silty, Fine to Medium SAND
(SM), Moist
SS-2
X
4-16-25
41
5
Dense, Orange, Brown, Micaceous, Silty, Fine SAND
3343.
5
(SM) With Fine Gravel
HHand Auger Chatter from 5 to 6 feet
SS-3
X
9-13-20
3
Medium Dense Oran e, Gray, Brown, Micaceous,
Silty, Fine SANS (SM�
SSA
X
6-8-14
10
3338.
10
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK- Sampled As
Brown Tan White, Silty, Fine to Coarse SAND (W),
With Fine dravel and Weathered Rock Fragments
SS-5
50/4"
0100
15
—V-�--3333.
15
------------------------
Brown Tan White, Silty, Fine to Coarse SAND (SM),
Wet, With nine Gravel and Weathered Rock
SS-6
50/2"
100
Fragments
20
Very Hard Drilling 18.5 to 22 feet
3328.
20
SS-7
5015"
40100
25
3323.
25
SS-8
50/0"
41100
Auger and Split Spoon Refusal at 27 feet
Groundwater Encountered at 13 feet at Time of Boring
zn
Groundwater Encountered at 13.5 feet on 1/9/2020
��i4
DRILLER:
Techdrill
EQUIPMENT:
CME 45 Autohammer
METHOD:
2.25 inch HSA
HOLE DIA.:
0.5' Nominal
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: MNQ
CHECKED BY: TPQ
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
F--SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
PROJECT: ASU - Child Development Center BORING NO.: B-4
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE:
DRILLED: January 8, 2020
PROJ. NO.: 6252190357.04 PAGE 1 OF 1

T
H
(ft)
0
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
AND REMARKS
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
L
E
N
D
E
V
(ft)
3342.
SAMPLES
10
PL
(%)
NM
(%)
LL
(%)
100
E
N
T
Y
E
�C�U�T
T N C)
v
20
30
•
40
FINES
SPT
50
(%)
(bpf)
60
70
80
90
3 inches Grass and Roots
�, ;�
FILL - Soft, Brown Tan, Sandy, Lean CLAY (CL),
Moist, With Topsoil with Grass and Fine Roots
SS-1
1-1-1
2
POSSIBLE ALLUVIUM- Firm Oranqge, Gray,
Sandy, Lean CLAY (CL), With dine Gravel and Roots
SS-2
X
2-3-5
5
3337.
5
Very Dense, Gray, Tan, Silty, Fine to Medium SAND
S
(SM)
SS-3
15�1-50/5.5"
100
PA WEATHERED ROCK- Sampled As,
Gray, Brown, Silty, Fine to Coarse SAND With
(SM),
Fine Gravel and Weathered Rock Fragments
Drill Chatter at 7.5 feet and 9 to 10 feet
SS-4
5015"
0100
10
3332.
10
Gray, Silty, Fine to Medium SAND (SM), With Gravel
SS-5
50/2"
1100
15
3327.
15
Very Dense, Gray, Brown, Micaceous, Silty, Fine
SAND (SM), We
20
3322.
SS-6
7-11-41
2
20
SS-7
40-50/0"
100
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK- Sampled As
Gray, Brown Tan, SiltyY,, Fine to Coarse SAND (SM),
Wet With Weathered Flock Fra ments
Auger Refusal at 24 feet
Groundwater Encountered at 10.9 feet at Time of Boring
Groundwater Encountered at 9.8 feet on 1/7/2020
25
3317.
25
DRILLER:
Techdrill
EQUIPMENT:
CME 45 Autohammer
METHOD:
2.25 inch HSA
HOLE DIA.:
0.5' Nominal
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: MNQ
CHECKED BY: TPQ
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
F--SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
PROJECT: ASU - Child Development Center BORING NO.: B-6
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE:
DRILLED: January 6, 2020
PROJ. NO.: 6252190357.04 PAGE 1 OF 1

T
H
(ft)
0
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
AND REMARKS
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
L
E
N
D
E
V
(ft)
3340.
SAMPLES
10
PL
(%)
NM
(%)
LL
(%)
100
E
N
T
Y
E
�C�U�T
T N C)
v
20
30
•
40
FINES
SPT
50
(%)
(bpf)
60
70
80
90
FILL Very Loose Liggh�t Brown, Clayey, Fine to
Medium SAND (S�),><lloist
SS-1
0-0-3
RESIDUUM- VeryLoose Orange, Brown Silty,
Fine to Medium SAND (SIM), Trace Clay, Moist
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK- Sampled As,
Gray, Tan, Silty, Fine to Coarse SAND (SM), Moist,
With Fine Gravel
SS-2
37-50/5.5"
100
5
3335.
5
SS-3
38-50/5.5"
100
Gray brown Tan, Silty, Fine to Coarse SAND (SM),
Moisf With kelict Rock Structure
Hard brill Chatter 11 to 11.5 feet 1
SS-4
50/5.5"
100
10
3330.
10
SS-5
50/6"
100
15
3325.
15
SS-6
50/4"
100
20
3320.
20
SS-7
5011"
40100
Boring Terminated at 23.6 feet
Groundwater Encountered at 10.9 feet at Time of
25
zn
Boring
Groundwater Encountered at 9.2 feet on 1/6/2020
3315.
��in
25
DRILLER:
Techdrill
EQUIPMENT:
CME 45 Autohammer
METHOD:
2.25 inch HSA
HOLE DIA.:
0.5' Nominal
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: MNQ
CHECKED BY: TPQ
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
F--SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
PROJECT: ASU - Child Development Center BORING NO.: B-7
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE:
DRILLED: January 4, 2020
PROJ. NO.: 6252190357.04 PAGE 1 OF 1

T
H
03
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
AND REMARKS
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
JG
E
V
(ft)
3338.
SAMPLES
10
PL
(%)
NM
(%)
LL
(%)
100
E
N
T
Y
EN
�C�U�T
T C)
v
20
30
•
40
FINES
SPT
50
(%)
(bpf)
60
70
80
90
inches Grass/Roots
FILL - Loose, Gray, Tan, Silty, SAND (SM), Moist
SS-1
X
1-2-3
-05
RESIDUUM- Loose Brown, Tan, Silty, Fine to
Medium SAND (SMJ, Trace Mica
Dense Orange Brown Tan, Silty, Fine SAND (SM),
Trace Mica, Wifh Fine gravel
Intermittent Drill Chatter 4 to 7 feet
SS-2X
13-16-34
50
5
3333.
5
Medium Dense Brown, Tan, Micaceous, Silty, Fine
SAND (SM), With Fine Gravel
Very Hard Drill Chatter at 10.5 feet
SS-3
X
6-15-8
2
1
SSA
4-4-10
10
3328.
10
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK- Sampled As,
Brown, Tan, Silty, Fine to Coarse SAND (SM), Wet
Hard Drill Chatter 16 to 17 feet and 18 to 18.5 feet
No Split Spoon Recovery at 18.5 feet
�
SS-5
50/4"
100
SS-6
x
29-50/1"
41100
15
3323.
15
SS-7
50/0.5"
40100
Auger Refusal at 18.5 feet
Groundwater Encountered at 12.5 feet at Time of
20
Boring
Groundwater Encountered at 8.8 feet on 1/4/2020
3318.
20
25
zn
3313.
��n4
25
DRILLER:
Techdrill
EQUIPMENT:
CME 45 Autohammer
METHOD:
2.25 inch HSA
HOLE DIA.:
0.5' Nominal
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: MNQ
CHECKED BY: TPQ
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
F--SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
PROJECT: ASU - Child Development Center BORING NO.: B-8
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE: _-_----
DRILLED: January 3, 2020
PROJ. NO.: 6252190357.04 PAGE 1 OF 1

T
H
(ft)
0
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
AND REMARKS
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
L
E
N
D
E
V
(ft)
3338.
SAMPLES
10
PL
(%)
NM
(%)
LL
(%)
100
E
N
T
Y
E
�C�U�T
T N C)
v
20
30
•
40
FINES
SPT
50
(%)
(bpf)
60
70
80
90
2 inches Grass/Roots
FILL/POSSIBLE ALLUVIUM- Loose Gray, Tan,
Claye , Fine to Medium SAND (SC), Moist, With Fine
Grave and Roots
SS-1
x
1-3-4
417
XSS-2
3-3-45
3333.
5
POSSIBLE ALLUVIUM- Very Loose Orange, Gray,
Red, Claye , Fine to Medium SAND (SC), hoist, With
Fine Grave Roots
SS-3
X
0-2-2
4
SSA
9-7-17
RESIDUUM- Medium Dense, Gray, Tan, Silty, Fine
to Coarse SAND (SIM Moist, With Fine Gravel and
Shale Rock Fragmentfs
Drill Chatter 8 to 8.5 feet
10
3328.
10
1
SS-5
50/4"
100
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK- Sampled As,
Gray, Brown, Silty,WFine to Medium SAND (SM), With
Fine Gravel and eathered Rock Fragments
Hard Drill Chatter 13 to 14 feet and at 16.5 feet
15
3323.
15
SS-6
5010"
100
Auger and Split Spoon Refusal at 17 feet
Borehole caved and dry at 15 feet after completion of
Boring
Groundwater Encountered at 11 feet on 1/7/2020
20
—3318.0
20
25
zn
3313.
��n4
25
DRILLER:
Techdrill
EQUIPMENT:
CME 45 Autohammer
METHOD:
2.25 inch HSA
HOLE DIA.:
0.5' Nominal
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: MNQ
CHECKED BY: TPQ
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
F--SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
PROJECT: ASU - Child Development Center BORING NO.: B-9
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE:
DRILLED: January 6, 2020
PROJ. NO.: 6252190357.04 PAGE 1 OF 1

SOIL CLASSIFICATION
L
E
SAMPLES
PL
(%)
NM
(%)
LL
(%)
E
Y
�C�U�T
v
FINES
(%)
T
AND REMARKS
E
V
H
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
N
N
•
SPT
(bpf)
(ft)
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
D
(ft)
T
E
T N C)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
ALLUVIUM/POSSIBLE FILL- Ver Loose Orange,
trace
3332.
Gray Micaceous, Silty, Fine SANDy(SM), Clay,
Moisf, With Fine Gravel
SS-1
X
2-2-2
4
SS-2
X
1-1-1
2
5
3327.
5
SS-3
X
3-2-2
Very Loose, Gra Black, Silty, Fine SAND ((SM), With
Trace Decayingoot Matter and Organic Sfained
Soils
10
3322.
SSA
2-9-20
9
l0
RESIDUUM- Very Loose Orange Gray Silty Fine
to Coarse SAND (SM), With Fine Gravel and hock
Fragments
Hard Drill Chatter at 10 feet
Auger Refusal at 10.5 feet, offset 5 feet South for
Second Attempt
Very Dense Orangqe�, Brown, Micaceous, Silty, Fine to
Medium SAND (SIVI)
SS-5
X
9-17-50/5.5"
100
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK- Sampled As
15
Gra , Tan, Micaceous, Silty, Fine to Medium SAND
(so, With Fine Gravel
3317.
15
SS-6
50/4"
41100
Auger Refusal at 16.5 feet
Groundwater Encountered at 13.8 feet at Time of
Boring
Groundwater Encountered at 9.5 feet on 1/7/2020
20
3312.
20
25
3307.
25
DRILLER:
Techdrill
EQUIPMENT:
CME 45 Autohammer
METHOD:
2.25 inch HSA
HOLE DIA.:
0.5' Nominal
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: MNQ
CHECKED BY: TPQ
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
F--SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
PROJECT: ASU - Child Development Center BORING NO.: B-10
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE:
DRILLED: January 6, 2020
PROJ. NO.: 6252190357.04 PAGE 1 OF 1

T
H
(ft)
0
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
AND REMARKS
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
L
E
N
D
E
V
(ft)
3324.
SAMPLES
10
PL
(%)
NM
(%)
LL
(%)
100
E
N
T
Y
E
�C�U�T
T N C)
v
20
30
•
40
FINES
SPT
50
(%)
(bpf)
60
70
80
90
3 inches Grass/Roots
\ 1, yv /
FILL/POSSBILE DISTURBED RESIDUUM -
Medium Dense, Orange, Brown, Silty, Fine to Medium
SAND SM Moist
RESIDUUM.- Medium Dense, Orange, Tan, Silty,
Fine to Medium SAND (SM), Moist
SS-1
4-8-9
7
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK- Sampled As,
Brown, Tan, Silty, Fine to Medium SAND (SM)
SS-2
X
10-13-16
29
5
3319.
5
Medium Dense, Orange, Gray, Brown, Silty, Fine to
Medium SAND (SM)
SS-3
X
7-11-10
21
SSA
8-8-10
18
10
3314.
10
Boring Terminated at 10 feet
Borehole caved and dry at 7.9 feet after completion of
Boring
15
3309.
15
20
3304.
20
25
zn
3299.
Inn
25
DRILLER:
Techdrill
EQUIPMENT:
CME 45 Autohammer
METHOD:
2.25 inch HSA
HOLE DIA.:
0.5' Nominal
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: MNQ
CHECKED BY: TPQ
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
F--SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
PROJECT: ASU - Child Development Center BORING NO.: B-11
LATITUDE:
LONGITUDE:
DRILLED: January 8, 2020
PROJ. NO.: 6252190357.04 PAGE 1 OF 1

wood.
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
1308-C Patton Avenue - Asheville, North Carolina 28806
[phone] phone
RECORD OF TEST PIT OBSERVATION
Job Name: ASU Child Development Center Job Number: 6252-19-0357.04
Date: 12-12-2019 Elevation: 3332
Test Pit No. TP-1
Depth
(ft.)
Soil Description and Remarks
From
To
0
0.2
2 inches Grass and Topsoil
0.2
Alluvium/Possible Fill - Gray, Brown, Clayey Sand, Trace Fine Gravel, Moist
7
Test pit terminated at 7 feet due to limits of excavation equipment.
Kubota U45 Mini Excavator utilized during test pit excavation.
Observed by: Tim Quigley
Entered by: Mandy Quinzi
Date: 12/12/2019
Date: 01/30/2020
Reviewed by: Tim Quigley Date: 01/30/2020

wood.
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
1308-C Patton Avenue - Asheville, North Carolina 28806
[phone] phone
RECORD OF TEST PIT OBSERVATION
Job Name: ASU Child Development Center Job Number: 6252-19-0357.04
Date: 12-12-2019 Elevation: 3340
Test Pit No. TP-2
Depth
(ft.)
Soil Description and Remarks
From
To
0
0.2
2 inches Topsoil
0.2
2
Fill - Brown, Silty Sand, Sandy Silt
2
Residual - Gray, Brown, Silty Sand, Moist, Trace Fine Gravel, Trace
Weathered Rocks
7.5
Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet due to limits of excavation equipment.
Kubota U45 Mini Excavator utilized during test pit excavation.
Observed by: Tim Quigley
Entered by: Mandy Ouinzi
Date: 12/12/2019
Date: 01/30/2020
Reviewed by: Tim Quigley Date: 01/30/2020

wood.
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
1308-C Patton Avenue - Asheville, North Carolina 28806
[phone] phone
RECORD OF TEST PIT OBSERVATION
Job Name: ASU Child Development Center Job Number: 6252-19-0357.04
Date: 12-12-2019 Elevation: 3344
Test Pit No. TP-3
Dept
(ft.)
Soil Description and Remarks
From
To
0
2 inches Grass/Rootmat
0.2
0.2
Possible Fill - Brown, Sandy Silt/Silty Sand
3
3
Possible Alluvium - Gray, Brown, Silty Sand/Clayey Sand, Trace Fine Gravel
4
4
Residual - Brown, Dark Brown, Silty Sand, Some Weathered Rock with
Depth
7
Test pit terminated at 7 feet due to limits of excavation equipment.
Kubota U45 Mini Excavator utilized during test pit excavation.
Observed by: Tim Quigley
Entered by: Mandy Ouinzi
Date: 12/12/2019
Date: 01/30/2020
Reviewed by: Tim Quigley Date: 01/30/2020

wood.
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
1308-C Patton Avenue - Asheville, North Carolina 28806
[phone] phone
RECORD OF TEST PIT OBSERVATION
Job Name: ASU Child Development Center Job Number: 6252-19-0357.04
Date: 12-12-2019 Elevation: 3346
Test Pit No. TP-4
Depth
(ft.)
Soil Description and Remarks
From
To
0
2 inches Grass/Rootmat
0.2
0.2
Possible Fill - Brown, Sandy Silt, Likely Residual
2
2
Residual - Brown, Dark Brown, Gray, Weathered Rock less than 6 inches in
size increasing in quantity with depth
5
Test pit terminated at 5 feet due to excavation equipment excavation
refusal. Kubota U45 Mini Excavator utilized during test pit excavation.
Observed by: Tim Quigley
Entered by: Mandy Ouinzi
Date: 12/12/2019
Date: 01/30/2020
Reviewed by: Tim Quigley Date: 01/30/2020

wood.
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
1308-C Patton Avenue - Asheville, North Carolina 28806
[phone] phone
RECORD OF TEST PIT OBSERVATION
Job Name: ASU Child Development Center Job Number: 6252-19-0357.04
Date: 12-12-2019 Elevation: 3352
Test Pit No. TP-5
Depth
(ft.)
Soil Description and Remarks
From
To
0
3 inches Topsoil, Grass and Leaves
0.3
0.3
Residual - Brown, Sandy Silt and Silty Sand, Moist, Hard Seams of
Weathered Rock in Bottom with Soil not Continuous
3
Test pit terminated at 3 feet due to excavation equipment refusal.
Kubota U45 Mini Excavator utilized during test pit excavation.
Observed by: Tim Quigley
Entered by: Mandy Ouinzi
Date: 12/12/2019
Date: 01/30/2020
Reviewed by: Tim Ouig1gy Date: 01/30/2020

wood.
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
1308-C Patton Avenue - Asheville, North Carolina 28806
[phone] phone
RECORD OF TEST PIT OBSERVATION
Job Name: ASU Child Development Center Job Number: 6252-19-0357.04
Date: 12-12-2019 Elevation: 3340
Test Pit No. TP-6
Depth
(ft.)
Soil Description and Remarks
From
To
0
2 inches Grass/Rootmat
0.2
0.2
Residual - Brown, Dark Brown, Gray, Sandy Silty, Weathered Rock up to 1.5
feet in size
4
Test pit terminated at 4 feet due to excavation equipment refusal.
Kubota U45 Mini Excavator utilized during test pit excavation.
Observed by: Tim Quigley
Entered by: Mandy Ouinzi
Date: 12/12/2019
Date: 01/30/2020
Reviewed by: Tim Ouiglgy Date: 01/30/2020

wood.
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
1308-C Patton Avenue - Asheville, North Carolina 28806
[phone] phone
RECORD OF TEST PIT OBSERVATION
Job Name: ASU Child Development Center Job Number: 6252-19-0357.04
Date: 12-12-2019 Elevation: 3346
Test Pit No. TP-7
Depth
(ft.)
Soil Description and Remarks
From
To
0
2 inches Grass/Rootmat
0.2
0.2
Possible Fill/Disturbed Residual - Brown, Sandy Silt/Sandy Silt
1
1
Residual - Brown, Orangish Brown, Silty Sand, Smaller 6 inches or less
Shale Rock with Depth
5.5
Test pit terminated at 5.5 feet due to excavation equipment refusal.
Kubota U45 Mini Excavator utilized during test pit excavation.
Observed by: Tim Quigley
Entered by: Mandy Ouinzi
Date: 12/12/2019
Date: 01/30/2020
Reviewed by: Tim Quigley Date: 01/30/2020

wood.
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
1308-C Patton Avenue - Asheville, North Carolina 28806
[phone] phone
RECORD OF TEST PIT OBSERVATION
Job Name: ASU Child Development Center Job Number: 6252-19-0357.04
Date: 12-12-2019 Elevation: 3340
Test Pit No. TP-8
Depth
(ft.)
Soil Description and Remarks
From
To
0
2 inches Grass/Rootmat
0.2
0.2
Residual - Brown, Gray, Tan, Silty Sand, With some Weathered Rock up to
2 feet long, some near the surface
4
Test pit terminated at 4 feet due to excavation equipment refusal.
Kubota U45 Mini Excavator utilized during test pit excavation.
Observed by: Tim Quigley
Entered by: Mandy Ouinzi
Date: 12/12/2019
Date: 01/30/2020
Reviewed by: Tim Quigley Date: 01/30/2020

Report of Geotechnical Exploration
ASU Proposed Child Development Center New Building
Wood Project No. 6252-19-0357.04
Photographs:
View of test pit TP-1 excavation stockpile of alluvial and possible fill soils.
February 5, 2020
View of test pit TP-6 excavation stockpile mixed with rock and weathered rock fragments (typical of the
other test pits excavated encountering this similar material).