The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSW3170504_HISTORICAL FILE_20170710STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS PERMIT NO. SW DOC TYPE ❑ CURRENT PERMIT ❑ APPROVED PLANS j� HISTORICAL FILE (❑ COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION DOC DATE YYYYMMDD Report of Geotechnical Study Iredell County New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina Prepared For: Iredell County Facility Services 200 South Center Street Statesville, North Carolina 28677 F&R Record No. 63T-0112 o�shiPpGd��bF C-3 `~ P 9 Report of Geotechnical Study Iredell County New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina Prepared For: Iredell County Facility Services 200 South Center Street Statesville, North Carolina 28677 By: FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. 2505 Hutchison -McDonald Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28269 N CAlt L. FPP July 17, 2015 F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 SINCE FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. / Engineering Stability Since 1881 F&� 2505 Hutchison -McDonald Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28269 ® T 704.596.2889 1 F 704.596.3784 1861 NC License #F-0266 F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 Iredell Facility Services 200 South Center Street Statesville, North Carolina 28677 Attn: Mr. Robert Woody, Director Re: Report of Geotechnical Study Iredell County New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina Dear Mr. Woody: "ecei ✓&4 ,7 Ma01 �oc on rye July 17, 2015 The enclosed report presents the results of the subsurface Exploration program and geotechnical engineering evaluation undertaken by Froehling & Robertson, Inc. (F&R), in connection with the planned Iredell County New Public Safety Complex project. Our services were performed in general accordance with F&R Proposal No. 1663-00092G dated May 28, 2015. The report presents our understanding of the project, reviews our exploration procedures, describes the general subsurface conditions at the boring locations, and presents our evaluations, conclusions, and recommendations. There are important limitations to this and all geotechnical reports. Some of these limitations are discussed in the information prepared by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA), provided in Appendix I of this report. We ask that you review the referenced GBA information. Corporate HQ: 3015 Dumbarton Road Richmond, Virginia 23228 T804.264.2701 F 804.264.1202 www.fandr.com VIRGINIA • NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA • MARYLAND • DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA A Minority -Owned Business U We have enjoyed working with you on this project, and we are prepared to assist you with the recommended quality assurance monitoring and testing services during construction. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this report or if we may be of further service. Sincerely, FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. Kristian S. Molander, P.E. Staff Engineer KSM/MLF Email Distribution: rwoodv@co.iredelLnc.us eay. Far r, P.E. Branch Manager, Senior Engineer F:\Projeas 63T\63T0112(1redelI County - Geotechnical Services for New Publlc Safety Complex)\Report\T0112 - GEOi.docx Iredell County Facility ServicesNew Public Safety Complex F&R Record No. 63T-0112 Statesville, North Carolina F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 July 17, 2015 Page ii of ii fsR TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................... 1 1.0 PURPOSE & SCOPE OF SERVICE................................................................................... 2 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION.............................................................................................3 2.1 PROJECT INFORMATION AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION....................................................... 3 2.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION.................................................................................... 3 3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES....................................................................................... 3 3.1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION............................................................................................ 3 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING.................................................................................................. 5 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS......................................................................................... S 4.1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................................................. S 4.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY.................................................................................................... 6 4.3 SURFICIAL MATERIALS.................................................................................................. 6 4.4 GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY........................................................................ 7 4.5 PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK........................................................................................ 8 4.6 GROUNDWATER DATA.................................................................................................. 9 S.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................:.........9 5.1 GENERAL...................................................................................................................9 5.2 SHALLOW FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................ 10 5.3 ANTICIPATED SHALLOW FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT............................................................ 10 5.4 CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE....................................................................................... 10 5.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES.......................................................................................... 11 S.6 SOIL ENGINEERING PROPERTIES ATT-1........................................................................... 13 5.7 PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................... 13 5.8 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION....................................................................................... 14 5.9 POTENTIAL LIQUEFACTION......................................................................................... .. 15 5.10 STORMWATER RUNOFF AND ARCHITECTURAL LANDSCAPING ................................................. 15 6.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................... 16 6.1 GENERAL................................................................................................................. 16 6.2 SITE PREPARATION.................................................................................................... 16 6.3 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS.......................................................................................... 17 6.4 STRUCTURAL FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION.............................................................. 17 6.5 SHALLOW FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION......................................................................... 19 6.6 SURFACE WATER CONTROL.......................................................................................... 19 Iredell County Facility Services New Public Safety Complex F&R Record No. 63T-0112 Statesville, North Carolina F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 July 13, 2015 Page iofii 6.7 EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS........................:............................................................ 20 6.8 NON-STRUCTURAL FILL............................................................................................... 20 6.9 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS....................................................................................... 21 6.10 SOIL EROSION........................................................................................................... 21 6.11 EXCAVATIONS........................................................................................................... 21 7.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES................................................................................... 22 8.0 LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................22 APPENDICES APPENDIX I GBA Publication "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report" APPENDIX II Site Vicinity Map (Drawing No. 1) Test Location Plan (Drawing No. 2) APPENDIX III Boring Logs (B-01 through B-10, T-1, CBR-1 through 4) Composite Subsurface Profiles (Building Area, Parking Area) Key to Boring Log Soil Classifications Unified Soil Classification System APPENDIX IV Laboratory Test Results Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 Page ii of ii 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 40 M00 S'`aP<R S an a/ p�.e This Executive Summary is provided as a brief overview of our geotechnical engineering evaluation for the project and is not intended to replace more detailed information contained elsewhere in this report. As an overview, this summary inherently omits details that could be very important to the proper application of the provided geotechnical design recommendations. This report should be read in its entirety prior to implementation into design and construction. The New Public Safety Complex project involves constructing a new 35,000-sf, one-story building in the general vicinity of Westminster Drive and Bristol Drive in Statesville, North Carolina. A 172 foot communications tower and adjacent parking lots with connection roads will also be built. • The subsurface exploration program consisted of 15 soil test borings performed during the weeks of June 15 and 22, 2015. Site subsurface conditions generally consisted of surficial soils underlain by residual soils. • Based on soil laboratory testing and visual observations, elastic silts (MH) were typically in the upper 8 feet below existing grades. • The proposed buildings may be supported on a shallow foundation system bearing on approved residual soil or controlled structural fill. If the recommendations in the report are followed, we can recommend that building foundations be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for foundations bearing on approved subgrades. Exterior footings should be constructed at least 24 inches below adjacent grades for frost and bearing capacity considerations. • From the average SPT N-values obtained, the subsurface conditions at the project site correspond most closely with those of Site Classification "D". • Monitoring and testing of site grading and foundation construction should be performed in conjunction with the recommendations contained in this report. Deviating from the recommendations listed in this report could lead to potential excessive settlement issues and site erosion with the planned construction. Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 Page 1 of 23 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 FaR 1.0 PURPOSE & SCOPE OF SERVICE Froehling & Robertson, Inc. (F&R) was involved with the planned Iredell County New Public Safety Complex in Statesville, North Carolina, to 1) perform a subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, 2) provide shallow foundation design recommendations, provide pavement section design recommendations and 3) comment on geotechnical aspects of the proposed construction. In order to accomplish these objectives, we undertook the following scope of services: • Visited the site to observe existing surface conditions and mark the proposed boring locations. • Coordinated underground utility clearance with NC811. • Reviewed and summarized readily available geologic and subsurface information relative to the project site. • Executed the requested subsurface exploration program consisting of fifteen Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings. SPT borings B-01 through B-10 were advanced to termination depths of 20 feet below the proposed building footprint. Four additional 10 feet deep test borings were also performed at planned parking and road locations. One SPT boring was drilled at the planned location for the 172- foot tall tower. • Performed nine sets of soil classification tests (ASTM D422 without hydrometer, D4318, D2216) and four standard Proctor maximum dry density tests with California Bearing Ratio determinations (ASTM D698 and D1883). • Preparation of this written report summarizing our work on the project, providing descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered, presenting the recommended shallow foundation and pavement section designs, and discussing geotechnical related aspects of the proposed construction. Copies of the boring logs and laboratory test results are included. F&R's geotechnical services did not include topographic or field surveying, development of quantity estimates, preparation of plans and specifications, or the identification and evaluation of wetlands or other environmental aspects of the project site. Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 Page 2 of 23 0 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Project Information and Proposed Construction Initial project information was provided by Mr. Robert Woody of Iredell County Facility Services to F&R, via email and email attachment to Mr. Marving L. Farmer, P.E., on May 22, 2015. F&R provided Proposal No. 1663-00092G dated May 28, 2015, to Iredell County in response to the proposal request. A new Public Safety Complex is planned on a 16-acre site. The proposed project involves constructing a new 35,000-sf, one-story building fronting on Bristol Drive in the general vicinity of Westminster Drive. A 172-foot tall communications tower is planned to be constructed behind the building. F&R understands that initial project design and development is currently underway. As a result, detailed plans and specifications are unavailable at the time of this report. 2.2 Site Location and Description The proposed building location (Parcel 4724672542.000) sits southwest of the intersection of Westminster Drive and Bristol Drive in Statesville, North Carolina. This 16-acre site is currently wooded. Project surroundings are shown on the attached Site Vicinity Map in Appendix II, Drawing No. 1. 3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES 3.1 Subsurface Exploration The subsurface exploration program consisted of fifteen Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings. Ten borings designated as B-01 through B-10 were advanced to termination depths of 20 feet below the existing ground surface at the building footprint area. Four borings (CBR-1 to 4) were performed to 10-feet below existing site grades at the proposed parking areas. One boring, for the 172-foot tower, was drilled to auger refusal at 34.8 feet. Approximate boring locations are identified on the Subsurface Exploration Plan included in Appendix II as Drawing No. 2. Boring locations were marked at the site by F&R personnel utilizing hand-held GPS equipment. As such, the boring locations should be considered approximate. Subsurface exploration was performed during the weeks of June 15 and June 22, 2015. SPT tests at boring locations were performed continuously from the existing ground surface to a Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 Page 3 of 23 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 9 depth of 6 feet in general accordance with ASTM D1586. Thereafter, boreholes were advanced and SPT performed at approximate 5-foot intervals to their termination depths. Soil samples were obtained with a standard 2" O.D. and 30" long split -spoon sampler with each SPT being driven with a 140-lb automatic hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment of penetration was recorded and are shown on the boring logs. The first six-inch increment is used to seat the sampler with the sum of the second and third penetration increments being termed the SPT value, "N". A representative portion of each disturbed split -spoon sample was collected with each SPT, placed in a glass jar, and returned to our laboratory for review. The recovered split -spoon samples were visually classified by F&R engineers in general accordance with the ASTM D2488. The boring logs provided in Appendix III show the subsurface conditions encountered on the dates and at the approximate locations indicated. The drill rig used for this project was an ATV -mounted, CME SSOX equipped with an automatic hammer. Research has shown that the Standard Penetration Resistance (N-value) determined by the automatic hammer is different from the N-value determined by the safety hammer method. Most correlations that are published in technical literature are based on the N-value determined by the safety hammer method. This is commonly termed N60 as the rope and cathead with a safety hammer delivers roughly 60 percent of the theoretical energy delivered by a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. Because an automatic hammer was used to perform the SPT tests, the sample blows recorded during drilling (Nf;eid) have been corrected to equivalent N60 safety hammer values. The N60 values reported on the boring logs included in this report were determined from the following equation: N60 = Naeid x CE where Nf;eid is the value recorded in the field, and CE is the drill rod energy ratio for the hammer used. A value of 1.3 was used for CE in accordance with guidelines provided in the Performance and Use of the Standard Penetration Test in Geotechnical Engineering Practice manual published by the Center for Geotechnical Practice and Research at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 Page 4 of 23 M By the nature of the work performed, the drilling activities result in disturbances to the site. The completed boreholes performed were backfilled upon completion. The borehole backfill may subside at some time following our work. F&R assumes no responsibility for borehole subsidence after completion of the field exploration and departing the site. For continued safety, the boreholes should be occasionally observed by others with any needed additional backfilling then being performed. 3.2 Laboratory Testing For geotechnical considerations, select split -spoon samples from the soil test borings were subjected to laboratory classification testing. This testing included natural water content determinations (ASTM D2216), sieve analysis (ASTM D422 without hydrometer), and Atterberg limits tests (ASTM D4318). Based on the results of these tests, the soil samples were then classified in general accordance with Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487). Laboratory testing was performed on bulk soil samples for determination of a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value (ASTM D1883) for the proposed paved areas. Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698) was used to prepare each soil for CBR testing. Laboratory test results for are provided in Appendix IV. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions discussed in the following paragraphs and those shown on the attached boring logs represent an estimate of the subsurface conditions based on interpretation of the field and laboratory data using normally accepted geotechnical engineering judgments. Subsurface profiles for the project stratigraphy have been prepared for convenience only. Given the wide spacing between boring locations, it is anticipated that subsurface conditions may vary between each boring location. Strata breaks designated on the boring logs represent approximate boundaries between soil types. The transitions between different soil strata are usually less distinct than those shown on the boring logs. Although individual soil test borings are representative of the subsurface conditions at the boring locations on the dates shown, they are not necessarily indicative of Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 Page 5 of 23 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 fxR subsurface conditions at other locations or at other times. Data from the specific soil test borings are shown on the individual boring logs included in Appendix III. 4.2 Regional Geology The referenced site is located within the Inner Piedmont Geologic Province according to the Geologic Map of North Carolina (1985) and is reportedly underlain mainly by Biotite Gneiss and Schist (CZbg). Underlying rock is generally described as being inequigranular, locally abundant, potassium feldspar and garnet; interlayered and gradational with calc-silicate rock, sillimanite-mica schist, mica schist, and amphibolite. Underlying rock may contain small masses of granitic rock. Ground surface elevations within the Piedmont Plateau vary from approximately 400 feet above sea level in the east to 2,000 feet in the west. The topography of the Piedmont Plateau generally consists of well-rounded hills and long -rolling ridges with a northeast -southwest trend. This rolling topography is the result of streams flowing across and acting on rocks of unequal hardness. The Piedmont Plateau region is underlain by older crystalline'(metamorphic and igneous) rock formations that trend northeast -southwest and vary greatly in their resistance to weathering and erosion. The major streams generally flow from northwest to southeast across these rock structures without regard to their northeast -southwest tending structures. The typical residual soil profile consists of fine-grained soils (clays/silts) near the surface, where soil weathering is more advanced, underlain by more coarse -grained soils (sandy silts/silty sands) with depth. The boundary between soil and rock is not sharply defined. This transitional zone, termed "weathered rock', is normally found overlying the parent bedrock. The degree of weathering is facilitated by fractures, joints, and by the presence of less resistant rock types. Consequently, the profile of the "weathered rock' and hard rack is quite irregular and erratic, even over short, horizontal distances. 4.3 Surficial Materials As identified by the boring data from this study, a surficial soil layer was encountered at multiple boring locations. Surficial soil is typically dark -colored soil material containing roots, fibrous matter, and/or other organic components, and is generally unsuitable for engineering purposes. F&R has not performed any laboratory testing to determine the organic content or Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 Page 6 of 23 other horticultural properties of the observed surficial soil materials. Therefore, the term surficial soil is not intended to indicate suitability for landscaping and/or other purposes. The surficial soil depth provided in this report is based on visual observations and should be considered approximate. We note that the transition from surficial soil to underlying materials maybe gradual and, therefore, the observation and measurement of surficial soil is subjective. Actual surficial soil depths should be expected to vary across the site. I 4.4 Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy Subsurface data obtained by the soil borings are presented in the following Composite Subsurface Profiles and in Appendix III. Figure 4.4.1: Composite Subsurface Profile — Building Area SUNFIUAI 0'S° 85 e. Ss m� 6 a 15 ID 2° 90 a ob SUflFIC1/LL s \ to R t0 ° STRATUM 1 b05 E 0 S b I c E STRATUM I� I3 ] SIRANMII ID b STRATUM II : It ] 9N ' 11 SUEiNfate hoflkrvote5: 9E '-SIinNNVenettetvm PeSetme See:11e0arng WpnnppeMuNfaa EeSmpdnOf Nebrapl�rymEohaNsoitlasslot Composite Profile Notes • STRATUM I: Very Stiff to Stiff, Reddish Brown, Elastic SILT with trace mica, moist (MH) • STRATUM II: Loose , Brownish Red, Silty SAND with trace mica, moist ISM). Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 Page 7 of 23 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 Figure 4.4.2: Composite Subsurface Profile — Parking Areas 965 M CBRd SURFICINL 33 CBR-3 955 12 S F 3 950 SDI W suRFlcut ST M%II 9a5 a CB&2 y� snLkTU\11 li ll If 935 y3B YAfvlace Rolik Hmn _YaNa,EVfnlVJlm RlNlldR SpplMOdlf{l0[Sm ALgpMn11111Fd t1[%ITIIPIOIIM l 3RInM111JN FdWSSM1GIY Composite Profile Notes • STRATUM I: Very Stiff to Stiff, Reddish Brown to Brownish Red, Elastic SILT with trace mica, moist (MH). 4.5 Partially Weathered Rock �_Partlally weathered rock (material with N-values greater than 100 bpf) was encountered in) rBoring T_1 at approximately 33%2 feet beneath the existing ground surface Boring T-1 was terminated at auger refusal in rock at 34.8 feet below existing grades. Partially weathered rock was logged and modelled for our evaluations as Sandy SILT (MH). Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GEO1 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 Page 8 of 23 4.6 Groundwater Data F&R did not obtain long-term stabilized groundwater level readings at the soil boring locations, as the boreholes were backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. The groundwater level was evaluated at each boring location by gauging the water level in the boring after drilling and by visually judging the moisture content of the recovered split -spoon soil samples. Groundwater is judged not to have been encountered by the methods described. However. caving of the borings was noted to occur between 6 and 24 feet below the around surface at an average depth of 11.5 feet. Based on the caving depth, groundwater may be encountered in e Stratum II sand Groundwater levels fluctuate with seasonal changes, periods of heavy or little rainfall, and other factors. Therefore, our evaluations of the groundwater level do not reveal the actual year-round groundwater conditions. 5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General The following findings and recommendations are based on our observations at the site, interpretation of the field and laboratory data obtained during our subsurface exploration, and our experience with similar subsurface conditions and projects. Soil penetration data has been used to evaluate the subsurface conditions based on established correlations. Subsurface conditions in unexplored locations may vary from those encountered. If the proposed building footprint is changed, F&R requests that we be advised so that our design recommendations can be re-evaluated. Determination of an appropriate foundation system for a given structure is dependent on the proposed structural loads, soil conditions, and construction constraints such as proximity to other structures, etc. The subsurface exploration aids the geotechnical engineer in determining the soil stratum appropriate for structural support. This determination includes considerations with regard to both allowable bearing capacity and compressibility of the soil strata. In addition, since the method of construction greatly affects the soils intended for structural support, consideration must be given to the implementation of suitable methods of site preparation, fill compaction, and other aspects of construction. Please refer to the Construction Recommendations included in Section 6 of this report. Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GEOI Page 9 of 23 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 faR 5.2 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations Based on the available project information and our evaluations, structures may be supported on a conventional shallow foundation system bearing in approved Stratum I soils or compacted structural fill placed in accordance with requirements in Section 6. We recommend that any shallow wall and column foundations be designed for a maximum nets allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf), for foundations bearing ink Lapproved subgrade soils. Continuous wall foundations should have a minimum width of 24 inches) and column foundations should have a minimum width of 24 inches to reduce the_ possibility of a) "punching' shear failure_ The structural elements should be centered on the foundations to provide uniform load transfer, unless the foundations are proportioned for eccentric loads. Shallow, lightly loaded foundations should bear at a depth of at least 24 inches below the finish exterior site grades to lessen the potential for damage from frost penetration and for bearing capacity considerations. 5.3 Anticipated Shallow Foundation Settlement Based on the boring data, assumed structural loading, and the considerations provided in Section 6,(the total settlement of column foundations loaded to 75 kips and continuous wall) footings loaded to_4_kips per linear foot)is expected to be on the order of/l_inch or less) Differential foundation settlement is anticipated to be on the order of %:-inch or less. Our settlement analysis was performed on the basis of structural and grading assumptions discussed in the project information section of this report. Actual settlements experienced by the structure and the time required for these soils to settle will be influenced by undetected variations in subsurface conditions, actual structural loads, final grading plans, and the quality of fill placement and foundation construction. 5.4 Concrete Slabs -On -Grade Concrete slabs not structurally supported as part of the building may be placed on properly compacted controlled structural fill over an approved soil subgrade following subgrade preparation as discussed in Section 6. A standard modulus of subgrade reaction (" V) of 75 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) may be used for the design of the slabs -on -grade. Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 Page 10 of 23 faR Slabs should be structurally isolated (float freely) from the foundations to allow for differential movement between the slabs and the structure. Settlements associated with the slabs are anticipated to be on the order of 1-inch or less, provided the slab area is prepared and controlled structural fill material is placed and compacted as recommended. A six-inch thick layer of North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Open Graded Coarse Aggregate No. 57 or No. 78 or clean sand (SP per Unified Soil Classification System) should be placed beneath the floor slab. This granular base would function as a leveling and load distributing material as well as a capillary break beneath the slab. A vapor retarder should be used beneath slabs that will be covered by tile, wood, carpet, impermeable coatings, and/or if other moisture -sensitive equipment or materials will be in contact with the slab. However, the use of vapor retarders may result in excessive curling of concrete slabs during curing. We refer the concrete slab designer to ACI 302.1R-04, Sections 4.1.5 and 11.11, for further discussion on vapor retarders, curling, and the means to lessen potential concrete shrinkage and curling. Proper jointing of the concrete slabs -on -grade is also essential to reduce cracking. ACI suggests that unreinforced, plain concrete slabs may be jointed at spacing of 24 to 36 times the slab thickness, up to a maximum spacing of 15 feet. Slab construction should incorporate isolation joints along walls and column locations to allow minor movements to occur without damage. Utility or other construction excavations in the prepared subgrade should be backfilled to a controlled fill criterion to provide uniform support. 5.5 Lateral Earth Pressures The following information is provided to aid in analysis of soil loads on below -grade concrete walls. These below -grade wall recommendations should not be correlated for use in any other wall design. Earth pressures on below grade walls are influenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of construction and/or compaction, and the strength of the materials being restrained. The most common conditions assumed for earth retaining wall design are the active and at -rest conditions. Active conditions apply to relatively flexible earth retention structures, such as freestanding walls, where some movement and rotation may Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 Page 11 of 23 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 9 occur to mobilize soil shear strength. Walls that are rigidly restrained require design using at - rest earth pressures. A third condition, the passive state, represents the maximum possible pressure when a structure is pushed against the soil, and is used in wall foundation design to help resist active or at -rest pressures. Because significant wall movements are required to develop the passive pressure, the total calculated passive pressure should be,reduced by one-half to two-thirds for design purposes. A granular material such as NCDOT No. 57 stone or SP sand should be used for backfill behind the below grade walls. This material should be free draining and meet the requirements for controlled structural backfill, as outlined in Section 6 of this report. A moist unit weight of 115 pounds per cubic foot and angle of internal friction of 30' should be used for design calculations for below grade structures or foundation with granular backfill bearing against the existing Stratum I or II soils. Based on these values, recommended lateral earth pressure coefficients and equivalent fluid pressure parameters for design of below grade structures are provided in the following Table: Table 5.5.1: Lateral Earth Pressure Design Data Granular Backfill Earth Pressure Conditions Coefficient Recommended Equivalent Fluid Pressure — Drained (psf/ft)1 Fully Submerged Equivalent Fluid Pressures (psf/ft)t Active (Ka) 0.33 38 81 At -Rest (Ka) 0.50 58 91 Passive (K.) 3.00 345 NOTE: 1—does not include a factor of safety An appropriate factor of safety should be applied to the recommended equivalent fluid pressures for below grade wall design. A soil -concrete coefficient of friction (tan 6) of 0.4 is recommended for use with respect to evaluating foundation sliding resistance. Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No.63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 Page 12 of 23 5.6 Soil Engineering Properties at T-1 The following soil properties are provided for use in the tower foundation design: Table 5.6.1: Estimated Soil Properties at T-1 Effectivemate Approxi Undrained Soil Stratum Depth Unit FrictionCohesion, c (ft) Weight Angle, (Psf) (Pcf) STRATUM I (Sandy Elastic 0 — 8.5 90 23 1,000 Silt above GW) STRATUM II (Silty Sand 8.5 — 33.5 53 30 - below GW) STRATUM III (Sandy Elastic 33.5 — 35 53 25 500 Silt below GW) Notes:GW - Groundwater Elevation 5.7 Pavement Section Recommendations The pavement design for the planned parking area should consider whether the pavement will be subjected to light duty or heavy duty traffic. A light duty pavement section can be used where traffic is expected to primarily consist of autos and occasional light service vehicles. A heavy duty pavement section should be used where the traffic will also consist of light and heavy service vehicles. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test results on four subgrade soil samples obtained from the planned parking area are presented in Attachment IV. Pavement designs are normally based on a Design CBR (DCBR) value calculated as''% of the average soaked CBR value. The DCBR for this project based on the laboratory data is 3. Using an assumed traffic type and the laboratory DCBR value, the following light and heavy duty pavement sections are recommended for the project: Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 Page 13 of 23 X Table 5.7.1: Pavement Section Design Light Duty Pavement Heavy Duty Pavement Mix Design (inches) (inches) S9.513 Bituminous Concrete 3 1.S Surface Mix 625.06 Bituminous Concrete - 4.5 Base Mix NCDOT ABC Stone Subbase 8 8 Construction of the pavements should be performed in accordance with the latest edition of the North Carolina Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. It is recommended that any dumpsters be supported on a minimum 6-inch thick concrete pad on a minimum 6-inch thick NCDOT ABC stone subbase. The pad should project horizontally in front of the dumpster such that the front wheels of any service truck are supported by the concrete pad during loading and unloading of the dumpster. 5.8 Seismic Site Classification Chapter 16 of the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) references relevant ASCE 7 provisions for determining seismic Site Class, based on soil properties present within the upper 100 feet of the subsurface profile. (Note that the deepest boring at this site encountered refusal on rock at) approximately 35 feet below the surface and that a 100-foot deep boring was not performed Data was extrapolated for our evaluation to 100 feet based on —rock at 35 feet) The available subsurface data from our exploration indicates an average N-value of 31 bpf at the site in the upper 100 feet of the subsurface. Therefore, in general accordance with Section 20.3 of ASCE 7-10,,a Site Classification "D" should be used for further evaluations relative to earthquake load desigd F&R notes that the recommended Site Class is based on information available at the time this report was written. If this classification should be so onerous to the project cost that further study is warranted, we can perform a site -specific geo-physical survey to attain sufficient detail Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 Page 14 of 23 to further define the project's seismic Site Class definition. This additional testing would be beyond the currently authorized scope of services for this project. - According to the ASCE 7-10 maps prepared by the USGS in collaboration with the Building Seismic Safety Council, the mapped spectral accelerations, as determined from Section 22, for short periods (Ss) is equal to 0.22 g and at a 1-second period (Sl ) is equal to 0.092 g. The Site Coefficient Fa is 1.6) and the Site Coefficient Fv is 2.4 from Tables 11.4-1 and 11.4-2, respectively. 5.9 Potential Liquefaction An evaluation was performed with respect to potential seismic liquefaction of the subsurface soils encountered by the soil test borings. The evaluation was performed using methods developed by Seed and Idriss (1982) and modified by Youd (2001). The evaluation was based on N-values and soil classification. A Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) of 0.097 g and an earthquake magnitude 7.4 was used in the evaluation based on data obtained from the 2008 NSHMP PSHA Interactive Deaggregation web site Using this data, the minimum (calculated safety factor was found to be 3.2, which is above the typically recommended mmimum value of 1.1. As such, the site is considered to possess an adequate safety factor with � P q Y to potential seismic liquefaction. 5.10 Stormwater Runoff and Architectural Landscaping Due to the moisture sensitivity of the subgrade soils, roof drainage and downspouts should be designed to discharge at least 10 feet away from the building footprint or onto nearby concrete or asphalt surfaces. Irrigation systems should be designed to discharge no closer than 10 feet to the buildings. Architectural landscaping plantings requiring irrigation should be no closer than 10 feet to the buildings. Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 Page 15 of 23 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 fsR 6.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 General The principal purpose of this section is to comment in general on the items related to earthwork and associated geotechnical engineering aspects of construction that should be expected for this project. It is recommended that F&R's geotechnical engineer be retained to provide soil -engineering services during the construction phases of the project and perform appropriate evaluations to help assure that conditions encountered during construction are similar to conditions encountered in the borings. The geotechnical engineer can also assist in interpretation of differing subsurface conditions that may be encountered and recommend remedial work, if needed. 6.2 Site Preparation The entire construction area should be stripped of grass, trees, stumps, vegetation, organic - laden soils, debris or any other deleterious materials to a minimum of 10 feet outside the structural limits for buildings and 5 feet for paved areas. Depressions or low areas resulting from stripping and or clearing operations should be backfilled with approved soil and compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. During grading operations, hidden features in the substratum, such as organic laden soils, trash, or other deleterious materials will likely be encountered within the proposed construction area. Generally, such features will require removal. Details regarding the removal of deleterious materials should be determined on a case -by -case basis; and, therefore,`contract documents; should include a contingency cost for the removal of such subsurface features We recommend site preparation be monitored by the geotechnical engineer or his representative to verify that the recommendations presented herein are implemented. 'Prior to) fill placement and or at -grade construction, areas to provide support for foundations, floor - --- - - — - slabs pavements and structural fills should be proofrolled under the supervision of the) ge �otechnical engineer or his -representative.) Proofrolling should be performed with a fully loaded tandem -axle dump truck or similar piece of rubber -tired equipment with a minimum loaded weight of 20 tons. The purpose of the proofrolling is to detect the existence of any soft, very loose, or wet, near -surface materials or unsuitable soils that may require undercutting. Areas that deflect, rut, or pump excessively during proofrolling, and which cannot be densified� Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 Page 16 of 23 faR n-place by further rolling, should be remediated as directed by the geotechnical engineer or his representative and approved by the Owner. Some localized undercutting and or recompaction should be anticipated; and, therefore, contract documents should include a contingency cost for localized undercutting and recompaction 6.3 Moisture Sensitive Soils Based on the results of our visual/manual classification and laboratory testing, moisture sensitive soils, elastic SILT (MH), were encountered as the Stratum I and III soils. In general, elastic silts are highly moisture sensitive, have low strength properties, can undergo significant changes in volume (shrink/swell) with changes in their moisture content, and are generally considered unsuitable for direct structural or pavement support. Evaluation of subgrades by the aeotechnical engineer or his representative should be performed during to help reduce the potential for soil movement from such materials directly underlying structures. Pending a successful proofroll and if Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing indicates suitable bearing conditions. these soils may be left in place If the soils evaluated are considered unstable, they should be undercut to suitable, stable soils. Due to the nature of these moisture sensitive soils, we recommend positive drainage be provided away from the building pad and roadway areas during and after construction Please be aware that there is the possibility that problems may arise when using elastic silts as structural fill. If elastic silts are to be used as structural fill, we recommend using these soils in the deeper fill areas if laboratory testing indicates dry unit weights above 90 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). If the elastic silts are tested and are lightweight (less than 90 pcf), they may be used in landscaped areas. Elastic silts should not be used as structural fill within the upper 1.5 feet off the building pad subgrade elevations. 6.4 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction Prior to fill placement, representative samples of each engineered fill material should be collected and tested by F&R to determine the material's moisture -density characteristics (including, the maximum dry density, optimum water content, gradation and Atterberg limits). These tests are needed for quality control of the structural fill and to determine if the fill rial meets project specification requirements. Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GEOI Page 17 of 23 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 fxg Fill in structural areas should be free of organics, roots, or other deleterious materials; should not contain more than five percent (by weight) organic material; have a plasticity index (PI) greater than 25; or have a maximum dry density less than 90 pounds per cubic foot. Soils not meeting these criteria may be used in landscaped or non-structural areas. Compacted structural fill should consist of material classified as CL, MIL, SC or SM per ASTM D2487, or others as approved by the geotechnical engineer. CH and MH materials are generally not recommended for use as structural fill due to their low strength characteristics and moisture sensitivity, but may be approved on a case -by -case basis. Soils imported from off -site sources should also meet similar classification requirements and be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to use. Successful reuse of the excavated, on -site soils as compacted structural fill will depend on the water content and the plasticity of the soils encountered during excavation. Once fill placement begins, ,a_ qualified soils technician should perform field density tests to� -- — document the degree of compaction being obtained in the field Structural fills should be placed in thin (8- to 10-inch) loose lifts and compacted to the following recommendations: • CUpper 18 inchesjbelow the final subgrade elevation: 100% of the soil's standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D698) at or near optimum water content: maximum deviation of ±3 percent. • DeDe the below 18 inches 98% of the soil's standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D698) at or near optimum water content: maximum deviation of±3 percent. Some manipulation of the water content (such as wetting or drying) may be required during the filling operation to obtain the required degree of compaction. The manipulation of the water content is highly dependent on weather conditions and site drainage conditions. Therefore, the grading contractor should be prepared to both dry and wet the fill materials to obtain the specified compaction during grading. Regular one -point Proctor tests should be conducted in an attempt to verify that the most representative Proctor curve is being selected. Sufficient density tests should be performed to confirm the required compaction of the fill material. The contractor should exercise care after these soils have been compacted. If water is allowed to stand on the surface, these soils may become saturated. Movement of construction traffic on saturated subgrades can cause rutting that may destroy the fill's integrity. Once the Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 Page 18 of 23 integrity of the subgrade is destroyed, mobility of construction traffic becomes difficult or impossible. Therefore, the fill surface should be sloped to achieve positive drainage and to minimize water from ponding on the surface. If the surface becomes excessively wet, fill operations should be halted and our geotechnical engineer consulted for guidance. Testing of the fill material and compaction monitoring by our engineering technician is recommended during fill placement operations. 6.5 Shallow Foundation Construction To document suitable bearing within the actual foundation excavation, we recommend that the urface bearing soils be evaluated ment or other suitable methods hand to foundation instal gs with DCP testing Any unsuitable soils detected during this evaluation should be undercut and remediated as directed by the geotechnical engineer. Depending on final design grades, some localized undercutting and/or recompaction should be anticipated. We recommend that individual foundations be concreted as soon after the evaluation as possible to minimize the potential disturbance of the bearing soils. If the foundation excavation subgrade soils must remain exposed overnight or during inclement weather, we recommend that a 2- to 4-inch thick "mud -mat" of lean concrete be placed on the bearing soils, taking care to maintain the required thickness of foundation concrete and the design top of footing elevation. The foundation bearing area should be free of any very loose or soft material, standing water, and debris at the time of concrete placement. Concrete should not be placed on soils that have been softened by precipitation or frost heave. Exposure of the subgrade materials to the environment may weaken these soils at the foundation bearing level: If the foundation excavations remain open for long periods of time, or during inclement weather, re-evaluation of the subgrade materials by the geotechnical engineer or his representative should be performed prior to steel, concrete, or stone placement. 6.6 Surface Water Control If free water is allowed to stand on stable subgrade soils, particularly the elastic silts, these soils can absorb water, swell, and experience a reduction in their support capability. As a result, we recommend that the subgrade surface be graded to provide positive drainage away from the Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 Page 19 of 23 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 faR construction areas and towards suitable drainage handling areas, such as a perimeter ditch, . French drain, culvert, or retention pond. Due to the presence of moisture -sensitive soils, trapped or perched water conditions could develop during periods of inclement weather and during seasonally wet periods. Such conditions could cause seepage into excavations and deeper cuts. Therefore, grading of the project should be performed in such a manner to prevent ponding of water and promote runoff away from construction areas. In addition, if site grading is performed during the seasonally wet months or after extended periods of inclement weather, wet and water softened near surface soil conditions should be expected. 6.7 Excavation Characteristics We anticipate a majority of the near -surface subgrade soils at the site can be excavated with backhoes, front-end loaders or other similar equipment using conventional means and methods. However, if weathered rock is encountered at shallow depths, increased effort such as jack hammering or ripping will likely be necessary to excavate the weathered rock. Typically, material with an N-value of 50 blows per 3 to 6 inches of penetration can be excavated with moderate to heavy effort using appropriately sized equipment, such as a large track -hoe (e.g., Caterpillar 330 with rock teeth). Material that exhibits less than 3 inches of penetration per 50 blows and material causing auger refusal will likely require jack hammering, blasting or drilling to facilitate removal. Since the site is relatively close to neighboring structures, we do not recommend blasting be performed. 6.8 Non -Structural Hill Elastic silts not meeting the classification of controlled structural fill were encountered in the near surface strata. Soils not meeting the requirements for Controlled Structural Fill could be used for backfill in "green" areas. However, it may not be economically feasible to dry soils that are found to be excessively wet during the excavation procedures. Such conditions may require the use of off -site borrow for backfill. Placement and compaction of non-structural fill materials in green areas should be in accordance with the recommendations provided in Section 6.4; however, the required minimum compaction could be reduced to at least 90 percent of the standard Proctor)(ASTM D698) maximum dry density. Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 Page 20 of 23 6.9 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater for the purposes of this report is defined as water encountered below the existing ground surface. Based on the data obtained during our exploration program, groundwater was not encountered to the depths explored. However, caving of the borings was noted to occur between 6 and 24 feet below the ground surface at an average depth of 11.5 feet. Based on the caving depths, groundwater may be encountered at depths below 6 feet, especially in the Stratum II sands. The contractor should be prepared to dewater locations where excavations are advanced below the groundwater level. The contractor should be responsible for the design and installation of any dewatering systems required for this project. Groundwater levels tend to fluctuate with seasonal and climatic variations as well as with some types of construction operations. Generally, the highest groundwater levels occur in late winter and early spring and the lowest levels occur in late summer and early fall. Depending on time of construction, groundwater may be encountered at shallower depths and locations not explored during this study. If encountered during construction, engineering personnel from our office should be notified rr�mecliatelyj 6.10 Soil Erosion The Stratum I soils at this site are fine-grained and highly erodible. Once design finish grade elevations are established for green areas, finish grades should be protected from erosion. Sloped areas with increased stormwater runoff rates should be protected from erosion using temporary erosion prevention practices until permanent erosion prevention methods, such as vegetative growth, can be established. 6.11 Excavations Mass excavations and other excavations required for construction of this project must be performed in accordance with the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines (29 CFR 1926, Subpart P, Excavations) or other applicable jurisdictional codes for permissible temporary side -slope ratios and/or shoring requirements. The OSHA guidelines require daily inspections of excavations, adjacent areas Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 Page 21 of 23 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 fxR and protective systems by a "competent person" for evidence of situations that could result in cave-ins, indications of failure of a protective system, or other hazardous conditions. Excavated soils, equipment, building supplies, etc., should be placed away from the edges of the excavation at a distance equaling or exceeding the depth of the excavation. F&R cautions that the actual excavation slopes will need to be evaluated frequently each day by the "competent person" and flatter slopes or the use of shoring may be required to maintain a safe excavation depending upon excavation specific circumstances. The contractor is responsible for providing the "competent person" and all aspects of site excavation safety. F&R can evaluate specific excavation slope situations if we are informed and requested by the owner, designer or contractor's "competent person". 7.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES F&R recommends that we be retained for professional and construction materials testing services during construction of the project. Our continued involvement on the project helps provide continuity for proper implementation of the recommendations discussed herein. Additionally, we request the opportunity to review the foundation plans and project specifications when these construction documents approach completion. This review evaluates whether the recommendations and comments provided herein have been understood and properly implemented. The above listed services are not part of the currently authorized scope of services. 8.0 LIMITATIONS There are important limitations to this and all geotechnical studies. Some of these limitations are discussed in the information prepared by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA), which is included in Appendix I. We recommend that you review the GBA information. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Iredell County Facility Services, or their agents, for specific application to the New Public Safety Complex in Statesville, North Carolina, in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on design information furnished to us at the time the work was performed; the data obtained from the previously described subsurface exploration program, and generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. The findings and recommendations do not reflect variations in subsurface Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 Page 22 of 23 0 conditions, which could exist in unexplored areas of the site. In areas where variations from the available subsurface data become apparent during construction, it will be necessary to re- evaluate our conclusions and recommendations based upon on -site observations of the conditions. Regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface exploration, there is the possibility that conditions in other areas will differ from those at the boring locations, that conditions are not as anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the soil conditions. Therefore, our experienced geotechnical engineers should evaluate foundation construction to verify that the conditions anticipated in design actually exist. Otherwise, we assume no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations. In the event that changes are made in the design or location of the proposed building, paved areas, and tower location, the recommendations presented in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by our firm and conclusions of this report modified and/or verified in writing. If this report is copied or transmitted to a third party, it must be copied or transmitted in its entirety, including text, attachments, and enclosures. Interpretations based on only a part of this report may not be valid. Iredell County Facility Services F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 Page 23 of 23 New Public Safety Complex Statesville, North Carolina July 17, 2015 faR APPENDIX I GBA Publication "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report" Geolechnical-Engineeping Repots ,, 6eotechnical Services Are Performed top Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geolechnical engineers structure their services to meel the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one —not even you —should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geolechnical- engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geolechnical-Engineering Report Is Based 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 struc- ture on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotech- nical 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 gentechnical- 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, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • 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. Geolechnical 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 geolechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineer- my reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as Hoods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwa- ter fluctuations. Always contact the geolechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most 6eotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geolechnical engi- neers review held 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 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 construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geolechnical 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 recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinlerprelation of geotectulical-engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- lechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design learn after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pedi- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical-engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconslruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Be Not Redraw the Engineer's logs Geolechnical engineers piepsre finzl boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should neverbe 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 Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical-engineering repod, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors 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 geolechnical 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 contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors 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 contractors do not recognize that geolechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that GSA 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' responsi- bilities 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 bandy. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental 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 geoenvi- ronmenlal information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk manage- ment guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for some- one else. Obtain Professional Assistance b 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 com- prehensive 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 consultanl; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geolechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing In or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your GDA-Member Geotechncial Engineer for bdditional Assistance Membership in the GEOPROFESSIGNAL BUSINESS AssoCIAllON exposes geotech- nical engineers to a wide array of risk confrontaton techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your GBA-member geolechnical engineer for more information. GEOPROFESSIONAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info®geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org Copyright 2014 by Geoprofessional Business Association, Inc.IGBA), Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, In whale or in part, by any means whatsoever, Is strictly prohibited, except with GBA's specific written permission. Excerpling, quoting or otherwlse extracting wording from this document Is permitter) only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholady 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 that, individual, or other enlity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be commiling negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentalion. TIGER 0914/5.OMRP APPENDIX II Site Vicinity Map (Drawing No. 1) Test Location Plan (Drawing No. 2) 4p.yP r +�.. .hw�..., n•' -s r+>+ '� \`,Ilr �:'._ A w VI Al. ;fq . K l �t"� r a P-l. M�. r ; 1 (►L; .¢t:, .-Ja4vr. {• 4 ` l r<r< �C+'f` J!.� `-� ''b' <ti4 m.tit', < � . i�N � S � �� +y '£'r � i •" � J wla y � a � � < it C � � �� .uti .. ,,�e, �`F IS � • � h- 1 / \ {i , �L �, r x,a +� {•J3f ��r i�-._rJ�� ..'t' f °a��'r < ' `J°ni f i r �'�. Jai. i rtr � c �r.�<. �� • � � ��.' w ,Z'j +_ r <., AL a � � •:' l�Jr'Ye F a�� tr � i y � i ,�`._J ��1 1 <�+ ... ��YN Qt �.l:.; � +*�a.`t ! b �v a 9 F* ✓�...,,��'�. &��, "i 4«}(—�1�`� Q y 1 1 ~ 1r�}• PaS - \ s..rtiS r;'Sg+ve.. � i��, �*' r� Cf • Jam+.. r��}.'�j'� � :;'ryr��:{+` .� �.-#�- �yc�� " l • �i �\ �� P j S � �n�� r ry i 1 j5f(/ ,f Zr'i =t40 4rVr� if :•� v.' �;y � rf ti� � i. &- � '�`�� ' �'�' 1LY �/ .i �,i.. �l+ti`F r� L._. i r �� ''cb , �'` '"` `.{ fr`4; 4.p *: •. 'i siY�.:, y '$y ? c "<'" I y, - - _ .] /� a. '+ � Y � � ' V may► iY ' ( _ _. 1tr1i t� /m.`�•=.+r 3.� _ •7 ��At •r �'�• ' p' 1. iJ'tlis. �.. '�,`� .W L r CJ Y r S l (.f. �� is «- N L APPENDIX III Boring Logs (B-01 through B-10, T-1, CBR-1, CBR-2, CBR-3, CBR-4) Composite Subsurface Profiles (Building Area, Parking Area) Key to Boring Log Soil Classification Unified Soil Classification System SINCE nuFROEHLING & ROBERTSONt INC. Iva, Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 945 ± Client: Iredell County Facility Services Total Depth: 20.0' Project: New Public Safety Complex Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan City/State: Statesville, North Carolina BORING LOG Boring: B-01 (1 of 1) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 6/18/15 Driller: F&R Elevation Depth Description of Materials ' Sample Sample Dfeeth N-Value Remarks (Classification) Blows (blows/ft) Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist S-5-6 943.9 1.1 (SURFICIAL) 11 15 PPR = 4.5 tsf RESIDUUM: Stiff to Very Stiff, Reddish Brown, 6-8-13 Elastic SILT with sand and trace mica, moist 3.0 21 (MH) 9-11-14 940.5 4.5 STRATUM I 4'S 2S _ Very Stiff to Stiff, Reddish Brown, Fine Sandy 14-14-13 PPR = 3.25 tsf SILT, moist (MH) 6.0 27 STRATUM I 8.5 4-5-5 10 10.0 PPR = 1.40 tsf 931.5 13.5 13.5 Cave in at 13.7 feet I Loose, Brownish Red, Silty SAND with trace 3-4-5 930.5 14.5 mica, moist ISM) 9 STRATUM II 15.0 PPR = 1.00 tsf Firm, Brownish Red, Sandy SILT, moist (MH) STRATUM III 18.5 3.4.4 8 PPR = 1.10 tsf 92S.0 20.0 Boring Terminated at 20 feet 2B 0 Boring was dry at termination PPR = Pocket Penetrometer Reading 'Number or blows required tor a 14U lb hammer dropping 3U' to drive 2" O.U., 1.3/5" W. sampler a total or 24 inches in tour b' increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value. SINCE nuFROEHLING & ROBERTSONr INC. ICI Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 946 1 Client: Iredell County Facility Services Total Depth: 20.0' Project: New Public Safety Complex Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan City/State: Statesville, North Carolina BORING LOG Boring: B-02 (1 of 1) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 6/18/15 Driller: F&R Elevation De th P Description of Materials (Classification) ' Sample Blows Sample (feet N-Value (blows/ft) Remarks 944.9 1.1 - . Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist (SURFICIAL) T 5-8-11 12-16-18 15 19 RESIDUUM: Very Stiff, Reddish Brown, Elastic SILT with sand and trace mica, moist (MH) STRATUM 1 3.0 34 6-7-10 941.5 4.5 4.5 17 Very Stiff, Reddish Brown, Sandy SILT with 12-13-9 trace of mica, moist (MH) STRATUM I 6.0 22 937.5 8.5 8.5 Firm, Reddish Brown, Sandy SILT with trace of 3-4-5 mica, moist (MH) STRATUM I 10.0 9 Cave in at 12.5 feet 932.5 13.5 13.5 Loose, Brown, Silty SAND with trace of mica, 4-4-5 moist (SM) STRATUM II 15.0 9 927.5 18.5 18.5 Medium Dense, Brown Silty SAND with trace of 6-9-12 926.0 20.0 mica, moist (SM) STRATUM II 0.0 21 Boring was dry at Boring Terminated at 20 feet termination PPR = Pocket Penetrometer Reading i cquu cu wi a ivv iu nennnel .,up pi au to unve [ u.u., i.n n i.u. sampler a total or G4 mcnes In Tour b- IncrementS. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value. LANCE r&� FROEHLING & ROBERTSONr INC. 1 ,esi Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 949 ± Client: Iredell County Facility Services Total Depth: 20.0' Project: New Public Safety Complex Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan City/State: Statesville, North Carolina BORING LOG Boring: B-03 (1 of 1) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled:6/18/15 Driller: F&R Elevation Depth Description of Materials ` Sample Sample Depth N-Value Remarks (Classification) Blows feet (blows/ft) Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist 4-5-6 947.9 1.1 (SURFICIAL) 11 15 RESIDUUM: Stiff, Reddish Brown, Sandy SILT 6-7-g with trace mica, moist (MH) 3.0 16 6-11-13 STRATUM 1 24 4.5 8-14-14 943.0 6.0 — 6.0 28 Stiff, Brown, Sandy SILT with trace mica, moist (MH) STRATUM I 8.5 5-6-8 14 10.0 Cave in at 10.8 feet 935.5 13.5 13.5 Loose, Brown, Silty SAND with trace mica, g-4-3 moist (SM) 15.0 7 STRATUM II 930.5 18.5 Firm, Brown, Sandy SILT with trace mica, moist 3-4-4 18.5 929.0 20.0— (MH) 8 Boring was dry at STRATUM III Boring Terminated at 20 feet termination PPR = Pocket Penetrometer Reading ul mowe icyuneu im a 14V m mmImer u,upping.w w unve z u.u., 1.nn i.u. samprer a totai oT w mcnes in Tour e.. increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value. SINCE &� FROEHLING & ROE3ERTSONr INC. ICI Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 950 i Client: Iredell County Facility Services Project: New Public Safety Complex City/State: Statesville, North Carolina BORING LOG Boring: B-04 (1 of 1) Drilling Method: HSA Total Depth: 20.0' Hammer Type: Automatic Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan Date Drilled: 6/18/15 Driller: F&R Elevation Depth Description of Materials ' Sample Sample Dept N-Value Remarks (Classification) Blows (blows/ft)(fee Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist 5-7-10 U. 948.5 1.5 (SURFICIAL) 15 17 RESIDUUM: Very Stiff, Brownish Red, Sandy 15-11-12 947.0 3.0 Elastic SILT with trace mica and roots, moist 3.0 23 8-10-13 (MH) STRATUM 1 23 4 5 Very Stiff, Brownish Red, Sandy SILT with trace 6-8-9 mica and roots, moist (MH) 6.0 17 STRATUM I 941.5 8.5 8.5 Firm, Reddish Brown, Sandy SILT with trace 3-3-4 - mica, moist (MH) 7 STRATUM I 10.0 Cave in at 11.9 feet 936.5 13.5 13.5 Firm, Reddish Brown, Sandy SILT with trace 4-4-4 mica, moist (MH) 15.0 8 STRATUM I 18.5 3 4-7 930.0 20.0 Boring Terminated at 20 fee[ 20;0 11 Boring was dry at termination PPR = Pocket Penetrometer Reading 'Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 24 inches in four 6" increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value. SINCE nrdFROEHLING & ROBERTSONr INC. "I Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 945 ± Client: Iredell County Facility Services Total Depth: 20.0' Project: New Public Safety Complex Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan City/State: Statesville, North Carolina BORING LOG Boring: B-05 (1 of 1) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 6/18/15 Driller: F&R Elevation Depth Description of Materials " Sample Sample Depth N-Value Remarks (Classification) Blows feet) blows/ft Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist 3-3-4 0 943.8 1.2 (SURFICIAL) 7 1'5 PPR = 3.5 tsf Very Stiff, Brownish Red, Sandy SILT with trace 4-7-9 mica, moist (MH) 3.0 16 7-9-12 STRATUM 1 PPR = 2.0 tsf 940.5 4.5 4.5 21 Very Stiff, Brownish Red, Sandy SILT with trace 9-12-14 PPR = 3.25 tsf mica, moist (MH) 60 26 STRATUM I ' PPR = 4.25 tsf 936.5 8.5 8.5 Stiff, Brownish Red, Sandy SILT with trace 5-6-6 mica, moist (MH) 12 STRATUM 1 10.0 PPR = 0.25 tsf 13.5 Cave in at 14.3 feet 4-5-6 15.0 11 PPR = 0.75 tsf 18.5 4-5-7 12 PPR = 0.25 tsf 925.0 20.0 Boring Terminated at 20 feet 20'0 Boring g was dry at termination PPR = Pocket Penetrometer Reading -rvumoer or oiows require❑ Tor a 14u io nammer cropping su to arive c u.u., 1.3is i.u. sampler a total of 24 inches in tour b increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value. S t SINCE nuFROEHLING & ROBERTSONr INC. IN, Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 9S0 3 Client: Iredell County Facility Services Total Depth: 20.0' Project: New Public Safety Complex Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan City/State: Statesville, North Carolina BORING LOG Boring: B-06 (1 of 1) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 6/18/1S Driller: F&R Elevation Depth Description of Materials ' Sample Sample NDept-Value Remarks (Classification( Blows feet) (blows/ft) Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist 2-3-3 U.0 948.6 1.4 (SURFICIAL) 15 6 RESIDUUM:Very Stiff, Brown, Silty SAND with 3-6-10 PPR = 3.50 tsf trace mica, moist (MH) 3.0 16 7-9-9 STRATUM I PPR = 3.75 tsf 18 4'5 PPR = 1.50 tsf 9-11-14 25 6.0 PPR = 1.0 tsf 941.5 8.5 8.5 Loose, Reddish Brown, Silty SAND with trace 4-4-4 - mica, moist (SM) 8 STRATUM II 10.0 PPR = 0 tsf 936.5 13.5 13.5 Cave in at 13.3 feet - Loose, Brown, Silty SAND with trace mica, 3-3-4 moist (SM) 7 STRATUM II 15.0 PPR = 0.75 tsf 931.5 18.5 18.5 Loose, Reddish Brown, Silty SAND with trace 4-3-4 mica, moist (SM) 7 PPR = 0.25 tsf 930.0 20.0 STRATUM II 0i0 Boring was dry at Boring Terminated at 20 feet termination PPR = Pocket Penetrometer Reading -rvumoer or maws requrea ror a 14u io nammer aropping au to anve c u.u., isrs i.u. sampler a total or t4 incnes in tour b increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value. SINCE &n K FROEHLING & ROSERTSONr INC. Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 953 ± Client: Iredell County Facility Services Project: New Public Safety Complex City/State: Statesville, North Carolina BORING LOG Boring: B-07 (1 of 1) Drilling Method: HSA Total Depth: 20.0' Hammer Type: Automatic Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan Date Drilled: 6/18/15 Driller: F&R Elevation Depth Description of Materials (Classification) " Sample Blows Sample (feeth N-Value (blows/ft) Remarks Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist 3-4-6 0- 951.7 1.3 (SURFICIAL) 15 10 RESIDUUM: Stiff, Brown, Sandy SILT with trace 7-5-9 mica, moist (MH) STRATUM 1 3.0 14 8-14-12 13-16-15 4.5 26 6.0 31 944.5 8.5 8.S Firm, Reddish Brown, Sandy SILT with trace 4-4-4 mica, moist (MH) STRATUM I 10.0 8 939.5 13.5 13.5 Cave in at 12.7 feet Loose, Brownish Red, Silty SAND with trace 3-4-3 mica, moist (SM) STRATUM II 15.0 7 934.5 18.5 18.5 Medium Dense, Brown, Silty SAND with trace 7-9-4 933.0 20.0 quartz fragments (SM) STRATUM II 20.0 13 Boring was dry at Boring Terminated at 20 feet termination PPR = Pocket Penetrometer Reading *Number ot bows required lor a 140 lb hammer dropping 30 to drive Tr O.D., 1.375' I.D. sampler a total ot 24 inches in four 6 increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value. SINCE C r&� FROEHLING & ROSERTSONt INC. 1 101 Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 955 t Client: Iredell County Facility Services Project: New Public Safety Complex City/State: Statesville,, North Carolina BORING LOG Boring: B-08 (1 of 1) Drilling Method: HSA Total Depth: 20.0' Hammer Type: Automatic Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan Date Drilled: 6/18/15 Driller: F&R Elevation Depth Description of Materials ' Sample Sample N-Value Remarks (Classification) Blows Depth (blows/ft) Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist 3-4-4 953.5 1.5 L : (SURFICIAL) 1.5 8 RESIDUUM: Very Stiff, Brown, Sandy SILT with 5-8-9 trace mica, moist (MH) 3.0 17 7-11-9 STRATUM 1 20 10-11-11 4.5 22 6.0 946.5 8•5 8.5 Loose, Brown, Silty SAND with trace mica, 3-4-4 moist (SM) 8 STRATUM II 10.0 Cave in at 11.2 feet 13.5 3-4-4 8 15.0 936.5 18.5 18.5 Medium Dense, Brown, Silty SAND with trace 17-14-6 935.0 20.0 mica, moist (SM) 20.0 20 STRATUM II Boring was dry at Boring Terminated at 20 feet termination PPR = Pocket Penetrometer Reading 'Number of blows required tar a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" OD., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 24 inches in four 6 increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value. 0CSINCE r&� FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. 1 imi Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 956 t Client: Iredell County Facility Services Project: New Public Safety Complex City/State: Statesville, North Carolina Total Depth: 20.0' Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan BORING LOG Boring: B-09 (1 of 1) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 6/19/15 Driller: F&R Elevation Depth Description of Materials ' Sample Sample Depth N-Value Remarks (Classification) Blows feet (blows/ft ) Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist 3-3-4 0- 954.8 1.2 (SURFICIAL) 7 RESIDUUM: Stiff, Reddish Brown, Sandy SILT 5-7-8 1.5 with trace mica, moist (MH) 3.0 15 8-12-13 STRATUM 1 25 11-13-13 4.5 950.0 6.0 6.0 26 Firm, Reddish Brown, Sandy SILT with trace mica, moist (MH) STRATUM I 8.5 3.3-3 10.0 6 Cave in at 12.4 feet 942.5 13.5 13.5 Loose, Brownish Red, Silty SAND, moist ISM) 3-3-4 STRATUM II 15.0 7 �- 18.5 3.3.3 936.0 20.0 2 6 Boring Terminated at 20 feet Boring was dry at termination PPR = Pocket Penetrometer Reading 'Numoer of blows required for a 14u Ib hammer dropping 3U'to drive 2" O.U., 1.3/6" I.U. sampler a total of 24 inches in four 6" increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value. CSINCE r&� FROEHLING & ROBERTSONr INC. 1 ieai Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 957 t Client: Iredell County Facility Services Project: New Public Safety Complex City/State: Statesville, North Carolina Total Depth: 20.0' Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan BORING LOG Boring: B-10 (1 of 1) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 6/19/15 Driller: F&R Elevation Depth Description of Materials ' Sample Sample ep N-Value Remarks (Classification) Blows _Dth fee (blows/ft) ` Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist 3-5-8 955.9 1.1 1(SURFICIAL) 13 1'S PPR = 1.50 tsf RESIDUUM: Very Stiff, Brown, Sandy SILT with 10-12-11 trace mica, moist (MH) 3.0 23 7-10-10 STRATUM 1 PPR = 3.5 tsf 20PPR 4.5 = 4.0 tsf 9-10-12 6.0 22 PPR = 3.0 tsf 948.5 8.5 8.5 Firm, Brown, Sandy SILT with trace mica, moist 3-3-3 (MH) 10.0 6 STRATUM I PPR = 0 tsf Cave in at 12.4 feet 943.5 13.5 — Firm, Brown, Sandy SILT with trace mica, moist 3-3-5 13.5 8 SIT A)TUM I 15.0 PPR = 0.25 tsf 938.5 18.5 18.5 Firm, Brown, Sandy SILT with trace mica, moist 3-4-4 8 PPR = 0.75 tsf 937.0 2 0. 0 STRATUM I 20:0 Boring was dry at termination Boring Terminated at 20 feet PPR = Pocket Penetrometer Reading *Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30 to drive 2 O.D., 1.375 I.D. sampler a total of 24 inches in four 6 increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value. SMCE 0 FROEHLING & R0E3ERTS0Nr INC. Mi Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 955 ± Client: Iredell County Facility Services Project: New Public Safety Complex City/State: Statesville, North Carolina Total Depth: 35.0' Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan BORING LOG Boring: T-1 (1 of 1) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 6/22/15 Driller: F&R Elevation Depth Description of Materials " Sample Sample N-Value Remarks (Classification) Blows (feet) (blows/ft) Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist 3-3-5 0..0 953.8 1.2 (1 SURFICIAL) 1 S 8 RESIDUUM: Very Stiff, Brown, Sandy SILT with 8-9-8 PPR = 1.25 tsf trace mica, moist (MH) 3.0 17 951.5 3.5 STRATUM 1 5-10-12 PPR = 2.75 tsf 4,5 22 Medium Dense, Brown, Silty SAND with trace mica, moist (SM) 11-14-13 PPR = 3.50 tsf STRATUM 11 6.0 27 PPR = 3.75 tsf 946.5 8.5 8.5 Loose, Brown, Silty SAND with trace mica, 3-3-4 moist (SM) 7 STRATUM II 10.0 PPR = 0.25 tsf 13.5 2-3-4 7 15.0 18.5 4-4-4 20.0 8 PPR = 0 tsf 931.5 23.5 23.5 Loose, Brown, Silty SAND with trace mica, 3-3-3 moist (SM) 6 Cave in at 23.6 feet STRATUM II 25.0 28.5 4 3 PPR = 0 tsf 921.5 33.5 33.5 PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: Hard, Brown, 50 5 920.2 34.8 - Sandy SILT with trace mica, moist (MH) 100+ Boring terminated at 34.8 feet upon augar Boring was dry at refusal termination PPR = Pocket Penetrometer Reading 'Number or blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" W. sampler a total of 24 inches in four 6" increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value. CSINCEn nr&K FROEHLINES & ROE3ERTSONr INC. 1 ,ea,I Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 950 t Client: Iredell County Facility Services Project: New Public Safety Complex City/State: Statesville, North Carolina BORING LOG Boring: CBR-1 (1 of 1) Drilling Method: HSA Total Depth: 10.0' Hammer Type: Automatic Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan Date Drilled: 6/19/15 Driller: F&R Elevation Depth Description of Materials ' Sample Sample Depth N-Value Remarks (Classification) Blows feet) (blows/ft ) 949.5 0.S ` Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist 2-4-8 0 1(SURFICIAL) 12 1 S PPR = 4.50 tsf FILL: Very stiff, Brownish Red, Elastic SILT with 9-12-13 947.0 3.0 some sand and trace mica, moist (MH) 3 0 25 5-6-7 1STRATUM I PPR = 3.50 tsf 945.5 4.5 4.5 13 RESIDUUM: Stiff, Dark Red, Elastic SILT with 7-7-8 trace mica, moist (MH) PPR = 2.50 tsf STRATUM 1 6.0 15 Stiff to Medium Stiff, Reddish Brown, Elastic SILT with trace mica, moist (MH) STRATUM I 8.5 Cave in at 8.3 feet 3-3-4 7 PPR = 1.25 tsf 940.0 10.0 Boring terminated at 10 feet 10.0 Boring was dry at termination PPR = Pocket Penetrometer Reading *Number of blows required for a 140 Ila hammer dropping 30 to drive 2 O.D., 1.375 I.D. sampler a total of 24 inches in four 6 increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value. . ANCE nuFROEHLING & ROBE:RTSONt INC. IM Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 941 ± Client: Iredell County Facility Services Total Depth: 10.0' Project: New Public Safety Complex Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan City/State: Statesville, North Carolina BORING LOG Boring: CBR-2 (1 of 1) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 6/19/1S Driller: F&R Elevation Depth Description of Materials " Sample Sample Depth N-Value Remarks (Classification) Blows feet) blows/ft Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist 2-2-3 939.8 1.2 (SURFICIAL) 1.5 5 RESIDUUM: Stiff, Brown, Sandy SILT with trace 4-6-6 mica, moist (MH) 3.0 12 8-10-13 STRATUM 1 936.5 4.5 4.5 23 Very Stiff, Brownish Red, Sandy SILT with trace 13-13-11 mica, moist (MH) 24 STRATUM I 6.0 932.5 8.5 8.5 Medium Stiff, Brownish Red, Sandy SILT with 3-3-5 931.0 10.0 trace mica, moist (MH) }-0 8 STRATUM I Boring was dry at i Boring Terminated at 10 feet termination / PPR = Pocket Penetrometer Reading Numuci ui muwe ieyuueu im d 14u m narnuner uiuppmg au Lo anve e v.u., 1.nn 1.u. Sampler a total or [w incnes in Tour u increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value. CSINCEn nr&K FROEHLING & R0E3ERT5ONt INC. 1 Imif - Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 956 t Client: Ired ell County Facility Services Project: New Public Safety Complex City/State: Statesville, North Carolina BORING LOG Boring: CBR-3 (1 of 1) Drilling Method: HSA Total Depth: 15.0' Hammer Type: Automatic Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan Date Drilled: 6/19/15 Driller: F&R Elevation Depth Description of Materials ' Sample Sample N-Value Remarks (Classification( Blows (feeth (blows/ft) Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist 4-3-5 0_b 954.5 1.5 (SURFICIAL) 1.5 8 RESIDUUM: Stiff, Brown, Sandy SILT with trace 6-5-6 - mica, moist (MH) 3.0 11 6-4-5 STRATUM 1 951.5 4.5 4.5 9 Firm to Soh, Brown, Sandy SILT with trace 4-4-4 mica, moist (MH) 6.0 8 STRATUM 1 8,5 Cave in at 8.4 feet 2-2-2 946.0 10.0 10.0 4 Boring was dry at Very Stiff, Brown, Sandy SILT with trace mica and quartz fragments, moist (MH) termination STRATUM I 13.5 3-8-16 941.0 15.0 15:6 24 Boring Terminated at 15 feet PPR =Pocket Penetrometer Reading 'Number of blows required for a 1401la hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 24 inches in four 6" increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value. SINCE r&� FROEHLING & ROE3ERT5ON9 INC. 1 ,oai. Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 960 ± Client: Iredell County Facility Services Project: New Public Safety Complex City/State: Statesville, North Carolina Total Depth: 10.0' Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan BORING LOG Boring: CBR-4 (1 of 1) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 6/22/15 Driller: F&R Elevation Depth Description of Materials * Sample Sample N-Value Remarks (Classification) Blows Deeth (blows/ft) Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist 3-4-5 0� 958.7 1.3 (SURFICIAL) 1.5 9 RESIDUUM: Stiff, Reddish Brown, SILT (MH) 7-6-7 957.0 3.0 STRATUM I 3.0 13 Very Stiff, Reddish Brown, SILT (MH) 7-8-9 STRATUM I 4.5 17 8-6-6 954.0 6.0 6.0 12 Firm, Brown, SILT (MH) with trace mica, moist Cave in at 6.4 feet (MH) STRATUM I 8.5 4-5-4 10.0 9 950.0 Boring Terminated at 10 feet Boring was dry at termination PPR = Pocket Penetrometer Reading `Number or mows required tor a 14u to nammer dropping 31J" to drive 2" O.U., 1.315 I.D. sampler a total of 24 inches in tour 6" increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value. SINCE @ FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. toe, Project No: 63T-0112 Client: Iredell County Facility Services Project: New Public Safety Complex City/State: Statesville, North Carolina SUBSURFACE PROFILE Plot Based on Elevation Profile Name: Building Area 960 SURFICIAL B-10 o, B-09 — 955 ,, 7 B-0 .. 8 15 20 B-07i17 25 : 22 20 - - 14 26 950 .. _. .. B-06- SURFICIAL.... =6,.. . .. .. :.. 26. . ._ _ 22_.. 16 31 6 18 6 STRATUM I B 8 `0 945 05 �,7. .. 25 _ q _ 8 _u 16 8 W 21 : STRATUM I 8 940 .._.. 26 ._...... ._..._..._ ............ _.......... 1..... ._ .. :. _. .... ...._.._ ... ._. ......_. 7 a 6 1z 7 STRATUM II - 2B 935 :. .. - ... .. .:. .. _ ... .._..... ...- 13 i STRATUM 11 11 930 12 Subsurface Profile Notes: ' - Standard Penetration Resistance See the Boring Logs in Appendix Ill:for a description of the graphic symbols and soil classification 925 SINCE 11 (lCRI FROEHLING & ROBERTSONr INC. Project No: 63T-0112 Client: Iredell County Facility Services Project: New Public Safety Complex City/State: Statesville, North Carolina 965 960 955 C 0 950 q a w 945 940 935 930 SUBSURFACE PROFILE Plot Based on Elevation Profile Name: West Site Paved Areas KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION Correlation of Penetration Resistance with Relative Density and Consistency Sands and Gravels Silts and Clays No. of Relative No. of Relative Blows, N Density Blows, N Density 0 - 4 Very loose 0 - 2 Very soft 5 - 10 Loose 3- 4 Soft 11 - 30 Medium dense 5 - 8 Firm 31 -50 Dense 9 - 15 Stiff Over 50 Very dense 16 - 30 Very stiff 31 -50 Hard Over 50 Very hard Particle Size Identification (Unified Classification System) Boulders: Diameter exceeds 8 inches Cobbles: 3 to 8 inches diameter Gravel: Coarse - 3/4 to 3 inches diameter Fine - 4.76 mm to 3/4 inch diameter Sand: Coarse - 2.0 mm to 4.76 mm diameter Medium - 0.42 mm to 2.0 mm diameter Fine - 0.074 mm to 0.42 mm diameter Silt and Clay: Less than 0.07 mm (particles cannot be seen with naked eye) Modifiers The modifiers provide our estimate of' the amount of silt, clay or sand size particles in the soil sample. Approximate Content Modifiers < 5%: Trace 5%to 12%: Slightly silty, slightly clayey, slightly sandy 12%to 30%: Silty, clayey, sandy 30% to 50%: Very silty, very clayey, very Field Moisture Description Saturated: Usually liquid; very wet, usually from below the groundwater table Wet: Semisolid; requires drying to attain optimum moisture Moist: Solid; at or near optimum moisture Dry: Requires additional water to attain UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) MAJOR DIVISION TYPICAL NAMES GW Well graded grovels GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVEL ;' ; GP Poorly graded grovels More than 50/. (little or no fines) of coarse GM Silty grovels fraction larger than No. 4 sieve GRAVELS GC Clayey gravels with fines •'••• SW Well graded sands SANDS CLEAN SAND (little or no fines) More than 507.. SP Poorly graded sands of coarse fraction smaller SM Silty sands, than No. 4 sieve SAND •'•'• sand/silt mixtures with fines Clayey sands, SC sand/clay mixtures Inorganic silts, sandy ML and clayey silts with sli htly plasticity SILTS AND CLAYS Sandy or silty clays Liquid Limit is less than 50 CL of low to medium plasticity OL Organic silts of low Plasticity Inorganic silts, MH sandy micaceous or clayey elastic silts SILTS AND CLAYS Inorganic clays of Liquid Limit is greater than 50 CH high plasticity, fat clays Organic clays of OH medium to high plasticity HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils PWR (Partially Weathered Rock) 6 Rock MISCELLANEOUS Asphalt MATERIALS ABC Stone Concrete ;��;'.: v Surficial Organic Soil SINGE 0 FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. Imo, Project No: 63T-0112, Client: Iredell County Facility Services Project: New Public Safety Complex City/State: Statesville, North Carolina LABORATORY TEST SUMMARY SHEET Sheet: 1 of 1 Boring/ Sample No. Depth (k) LL PL PI Water Content (%) % Gravel % Sand % Fines USCS Class. AASHTO Class. Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Water Content (%) CBR Value @ 0.1 B-01 1.5 57 38 19 24.6 1.4 26.3 72.3 MH A-7-S B-04 1.5 57 48 9 23.0 2.4 45.0 52.6 MH A-5 B-07 1.5 60 48 12 25.2 0.0 56.6 43.4 SM A-7-5 CBR-1 1.0 62 37 25 26.1 0.0 0.0 74.3 MH A-7-5 87.5 30.8 4 CBR-2 1.0 63 44 19 29.3 0.0 0.0 1 63.5 MH A-7-5 1 92.6 1 25.9 5 CBR-3 1.0 56 30 26 23.7 0.0 0.0 59.9 MH A-7-5 98 23.7 5 CBR-4 1.0 68 46 22 30.5 0.0 0.0 77.7 MH A-7-5 91.1 28.4 4 T-1 3.5 32 31 1 12.3 5.8 76.3 17.9 SM A-2-4 T-1 23.5 37 33 4 16.3 0.0 79.5 20.S SM A-2-4 SINCE &� FROEHLINC3 & ROBERTSONV INC. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Int Project No: 63T-0112 Client: Iredell County Facility Services Project: New Public Safety Complex City/State: Statesville, North Carolina �� nvlllllm��llll"rE�nllll�■.IIIIII�■.Illnl ■ ilmmiiiiiii Milll11IM ll i■.IlIllll ■.Illlll ■ l■.IilI M lllllI■N 1l �■.IIIIIIO■milllll ■ :.11=11111110 1111111®1�II"',111111100111,111 11Emil�11�11111 �1■.III101�■ 1111I1�■� II111WM111�■milllI . �■.l1lII1�■.IIIIII ■ IIII ■� IIIII �■.IIIIII ■ In 1i■.illllll■.IIIII III1 ■\\Hill l■.11ll1 ■ 1i■.IIIIIIi■n 1III 1 ■ n■.Illllli■.II 1 IIlll �■I:IIII■. .I lll l ■ , 1�■.IIIIII�■.II�1��■�IIII��■.I�IIII�■.III 11 �■.IIIIII�■.IIIIII�■.hIull C ■.I�11 „ IN �■.Illlill■.Illllli■.I11111C■.I111110■. 11 ii■iinlilii■�ii��lINN It■ii�iiiii■III ' III 11� ■ ��■.11llll�■.IIII III 1 ■ ,1�■.IIIIII�■.IIIIIIIN �1 1�■.IIII 1�■.IIIII IIIII �■.IIIII �■.11II ■ l�■.111�1�■.II��1�■�IIII��■.IIIII��■.III�11�■ lmmiiiiilmmiiiiilimmilli i■.IIIIIIl■.11111i■ ll■.IIInI�■.lnl�■.11lim.11ll■�■.l�llli■ Classification . :. ELASTIC SILT lMH) t SILTY � ELASTIC SILT with SAND (MH) oSANDY Boring No. Depth COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine SINCE 0FROEHLINE3 & ROBERTSONV INC. GRAIN SIZE 0 DISTRIBUTION IWI Project No: 53T-0112 Client: Iredell County Facility Services Project: New Public Safety Complex City/State: Statesville, North Carolina U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 5060 100140200 I I 19 111 ' III 9 90 85 80 75 70 365 ra III 60 `v I ICI LL 55 50 a 45 40 35 30 2520 III .II: 15 10 IIIII \ 5 TI0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size (mm) f 0 Boring No. Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu • CBR-3 at 1.0 SANDY ELASTIC SILT (MH) 56 30 26 dZ CBR-4 at 1.0 ELASTIC SILT with SAND(MH) 68 46 22 i A T-1 at 3.5 SILTY SAND (SM) 32 31 1 o * T-1 at 23.5 SILTY SAND (SM) 37 33 4 o at e Boring No. Depth D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand °%Silt °%Clay 9 • CBR-3at 1.0 0.075 0.0 0.0 59.9 e •S CBR-4 at 1.0 0.075 0.0 0.0 77.7 n A T-1 at 3.5 19 0.399 0.121 5.8 76.3 17.9 s t T-1 at 23.S 4.75 0.22 0.097 0.0 79.5 20.5 at COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP 90 88 86 U a ZAV for Sp.G. _ > 2.70 N c O 84 82 80 23.5 25.5 27.5 29.5 31.5 33.5 35.5 Water content, % Test specification: ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard Elev/ Depth Classification Nat. Moist. Sp.G. LL PI %> 114 %< No.200 USCS AASHTO MH 26.1 62 25 2.9 74.3 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Maximum dry density = 87.5 pcf Optimum moisture = 30.8 % BROWN CLAYEY SILT WITI I MICA Project No. 63T0112 Client: IREDELL COUNTY FACILFI'Y SERVICES Project: GEOTECHNIICAL SERVICES FOR NEW PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX oLocation: STATESVILLE,NC Sample Number: 1 (120645) Remarks: PROCTOR NO. I ON SITE 6-8-2015 M. FARMER Figure I FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. LABORATORY CBR TEST (REMOLDED) (ASTM D 1883 / AASHTO T 193) Project: Geo-Technical Services for New Public Safety Complex DATE: 23-Jun-15 Job Number: 63T-01 12 140 120._ 100 80 I 60 - F 40 20 . 0 0.000 0.100 0.200 0,300 0.41t1 0500 0.600 PENETRATION (IN.) Soil Sample Parameters Boring No: #1 Sample Depth (ft.): (0-5)ft Soil Description: Brown Clayey SILT W/Mica LL: 62 PL 37 Pl: 25 ASTM Compaction Method: D 698 Passing #200 74.3 Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 87.5 Unified Soil Classification: MH Optimum Moisture Content 1%): 30.8 Natural Moisture Content (%): 26.1 Test Specimen Data Molding MC(%): 31.2 Dry Density(pco: 86.1 Percent Compaction(pci): 98.4 Sample Condition: SOAKED Surcharge Weight(lbs): 10 Ave. MC after soaking, %: 35.0 Final Dry Density(pct): 85.0 Top MC after soaking, %: 38.6 Swell(%): 0.02 CBR = 4 Froehling & Robertson, Inc. 5 1 x e F PLATE 2505 Hutchison -McDonald Road C(Y Charlotte, North Carolina Ir 7VC�• GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS CONSULTANTS ieni� MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP 9s 94 92 U a T CC N T p` 90 ZAV for Sp.G. 2.70 88 86 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 Water content, % Test specification: ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard Elev/ Depth Classification Nat. Moist. Sp.. G LL PI %> #4 % < No.200 USCS AASHTO MH 29.3 63 19 1.4 63.5 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Maximum dry density = 92.6 pcf Optimum moisture = 25.9 % RED BROWN SANDY SILT Project No. 63TO112 Client: IREDELL COUNTY FACILITY SERVICES Project: GEOTECHNIICAL SERVICES FOR NEW PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX o Location: STATESVILLE, NC Sample Number: 2 (120648) Remarks: PROCTOR NO. 2 ON SITE, (0-5)FT 6-19-2015 J. ABERNATHY Figure 2 FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. LABORATORY CBR TEST (REMOLDED) (ASTM DI883I AASHTO TI93) Project: Geo-Technical Services for New Public Safety Complex DATE: 29-Jun-15 Job Number: 63T-0112 90 80 70 60 ^ rn 6. 50 rn 40 W W F � 30 20 . 10 — 0 0.000 0.100 0300 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 PENETRATION (IN.) Soil Sample Parameters Boring No: #2 Sample Depth (d.): (0-5)ft Soil Description: Brown Clayey SILT W/Mica LL: 63 PL: 44 Pi 19 ASTM Compaction Method: D 698 Passing #200 63.5 Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 92.6 Unified Soil Classification: MH Optimum Moisture Content 1%): 25.9 Natural Moisture Content 1%): 29.3 Test Specimen Data Molding MC(%): 26.7 Dry Density(pef): 90.8 Percent Compaction(pef): 98.1 Sample Condition: SOAKED Surcharge Weight(lbs): 10 Ave. MC after soaking, %: 34.6 Final Dry Density(pcf): 88.5 Top MC after soaking, %: 41.4 Swell(%): 0.10 CBR = 3 Froehling & Robertson, Inc. , I N C F PLATE 2505 Hutchison -McDonald. Road Charlotte, North Carolina Vx�K GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS CONSULTANTS ieai� MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP 100 98 96 U d _T N C N 13 O 94 ZAV for Sp.G. _ 2.70 92 Oil 90 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Water content, % Test specification: ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard Elev/ Depth Classification Nat. Moist. Sp.G. LL PI %> #4 %< No.200 USCS AASHTO MH 23.7 56 26 0.64 59.9 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Maximum dry density = 98.0 pcf Optimum moisture = 23.7 % BROWN RED SANDY SILT Project No. 63TO112 Client: IREDELL COUNTY FACILITY SERVICES Project: 6EOTECHNIICAL SERVICES FOR NEW PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX o Location: STATESVILLE. NC Sample Number: 3 (120648) Remarks: PROCTOR NO. 3 ON SITE, (0-5)FT 6-19-2015 1.ABERNATHY Figure 3 FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. LABORATORY CBR TEST (REMOLDED) (ASTM DI S83 / AASHTO TI93) Project Geo-Technical Services for New Public Safety Complex DATE: 29-Jun-15 Job Number: 63T-0112 140 120. _-___.---__ _--. too G 80 60 F 40 20 0 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0400 0.500 0.60o PENETRATION (IN.) Soil Sample Parameters Boring No: #3 Sample Depth (ft.): (0-5)ft Soil Description: Brown Red Sandy SILT LL: 56 PL: 30 PI: 26 ASTM Compaction Method: D 698 Passing #200 59.9 Maximum Dry Density (pct): 98 Unified Soil Classification: MIT Optimum Moisture Content (%): 23.7 Natural Moisture Content (%): 23.7 Test Specimen Data Molding MC(%): 25.4 Dry Densky(pcf): 97.0 Percent on Com acti P' (pe0: 99.0 Sample Condition: SOAKED Surcharge Weight(lbs): 10 Ave. MC after soaking, %: 29.4 Final Dry Density(pef): 95.1 Top MC after soaking, %: 33.2 Swell(%): 0.02 CBR = 5 Froettling & Robertson; Inc. SINCE PLATE 2505 Hutchison -McDonald. Road . Charlotte; North CarolinaGEOTECHNICAL (9e ANDMATERIALSCONSULTANTS MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP 95 93 91 U a N C N U> L 89 — — 87 ZAV for #- ILI - Sp.G. _ 85 2.70 23.5 25.5 27.5 29.5 31.5 33.5 35.5 Water content, % Test specification: ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard Elevl Depth Classification Nat. Moist. Sp.G. LL PI %> #4 %< No.200 USCS AASHTO MH 30.5 68 22 3.2 77.7 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Maximum dry density = 91.1 pcf Optimum moisture = 28.4 % RED BROWN ELASTIC SILT Project No. 63T0112 Client: IREDELL COUNTY FACILITY SERVICES Project: GEOTECHNIICAL SERVICES FOR NEW PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX o Location: STATESVILLE, NC Sample Number: 4 (120650) Remarks: PROCTOR NO. 4 ON SITE, (0-5)FT 6-24-2015 J. FOWLER Figure 4 FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. LABORATORY CBR TEST (REMOLDED) (ASTM D1883 / AASHTO T193) Project: Geo-Technical Services for New Public Safety Complex DATE: 29-Jun-15 Job Number: 63T-01 12 140 120 too C_ 80 - 60 17 40 >_0 ze:E 0 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 PENETRATION (IN.) Soil Sample Parameters Boring No: #4 Sample Depth (ft.): (0-5)ft Soil Description: Red Brown Elastic SILT LL: 68 PL: 46 Pl: 22 ASTM Compaction Method: D 698 Passing #200 77.7 Maximum Dry Density (pef): 91.1 Unified Soil Classification: MH Optimum Moisture Content (%): 28.4 Natural Moisture Content (%): 30.5 Test Specimen Data Molding MC(%): 29.5 Dry Density(pcf): 89.8 Percent Compaction (pc f): 98.6 Sample Condition: SOAKED Surcharge Weight(lbs): 10 Ave. MC after soaking, %: 37.2 Final Dry Density(pcf): 97.4 Top MC after soaking, %: 43.5 Swell(%): 0.34 CBR = 4 Froehling & Robertson, Inc. SINCE PLATE 2505 Hutchison -McDonald Road' Charlotte, NortWarolinaGEOTECHNICAL Ro AND-MATERIALSCONSUL'rANTS benesch Transmittal Form 161 Alfred Benesch & Company 2320 West Morehead Street Charlotte, NC 28208 www.benesch.com P 704-521-9880 F 704-521-8955 NCDEQ 1621 Mail Service Center Date: .• 0.17 1 Job No. 17000142 Subject: Ire gtCo Public Safety Center Raleigh, NC 27669-1621 Storm Water Management Permit Application submittal ❑ Mail ❑ Messenger ❑ Next Day Delivery ® UPS Ground ❑Other: WE ARE SENDING YOU: ❑Attached Elunder separate cover:' `!ECE'VED MAY 19 2017 COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION � _ OENR•LAnir) ^,,.. 2 4.28.17 Storm Water Management Permit Application Fo 1 4.17.17 Check #128455 for $505.00 for permit fee 1 5.4.17 Supplement EZ Form 1 5.4.17 Operation and Maintenance Agreement 1 10.30.15 Property Deed 1 7.17.15 Geotechnical Report 1 4.12.17 Storm Water Management Report 2 1 4.12.17 1 Sets of Site drawings THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below ® For approval ❑ Approved as submitted []Resubmit copies for approval ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment Remarks: The attached information is submitted for your review and approval. Please let me know as soon as possible if I failed to provide some of the required information. Please email a receipt for the permit fee to me at wsherrill@benesch.com. cc: Signature: UU/�'4 s Wesley E. Sherrill, PE, LEED, AP �� i PS01-0998-06form Type: CONSOLIDATED REAL PROPERTY Recorded: 10/30/2015 12:33:57 PM Fee Amt: $674.00 Page 1 of 5 Revenue Tax: $648.00 Iredell County, NC Matthew J. McCall Register of Deeds BK 2387 PG 2212 - 2216 REVENUE STAMPS/EXCISE TAX: $10-- Parcel Identifier No. 47V -fa7. 25Lfi N' Mail after recording to GRANTEE G This instrument was prepared by: Edmund L. Gaines., Attorney At Law Homeslcy, Gaines, Dudley & Clodfelter, LLP NO TITLE SEARCH PERFORMED AND NO TITLE OPINION RENDERED BY PREPARER. NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL WARRANTY DEED This DEED made this '�' day of October 2015, by and between GRANTOR(S) I GRANTEE(S) MFG Development, Inc. Iredell County, North Carolina a NC corporation (a 75% undivided interest) a Body Politic and Corporate, duly and The Johnson Group, Inc., a NC Corporation created by the State of North Carolina (a 25% undivided interest) ADDRESS: P.O. Box 788 Statesville, NC 28687 The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context. WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, all that certain lot or parcel of land situated in or near Statesville Outside Township, Iredell County, North Carolina, and more particularly described as follows: See Attached Exhibit "A". The property hereinabove described was acquired by Grantor by instrument recorded in Book 786 at Page 105 A map showing the above described property is recorded in Plat Book page TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the Grantee in fee simple. AND THE GRANTOR covenants with the Grantee, that Grantor is seized of the premises in fee simple, has the right to convey the same in fee simple, that title is marketable and free and clear of all encumbrances, and that Grantor will warrant and defend the title against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever except for the exceptions hereinafter stated. Title to the property hereinabove described is subject to the following exceptions: All such valid and enforceable easements, restrictions and conditions of record. Page C ount R.O.T.C. ❑NS 0PQ 0SI Book: 2387 Page: 2212 Page 1 of 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, or if corporate, has caused this instrument to be signed in its corporate name by its duly authorized officers and its seal to be hereunto affixed by authority of its Board of Directors, the day and year first above written. (seal) By: Managing member of MFG Development, Inc. 4L� • 4 l Q (seal) By: of The J hn ;on Group, Inc. Pre�fdu� NORTH CAROLINA - IREDELL COUNTY I, , a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that personally came before me this day and acknowledged that he/she is a managing member of MFG Development, Inc. the due execution of the foregoing instrument. WITNESS my hand and official stamp or seal, this the day of October, 2015. Notary Public My Commission Expires: NORTH CAROLINA - IREDELL COUNTY I, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that Nn;� _� p _ personally came before me this day and acknowledged that he/she is a awber of The Johnson Group, Inc. the due execution of the foregoing instrument. WITNESS my hand and official stamp or seal, this the —— day of October, 2015. I Notary Public U Q My Commission Expires: i?=^E.CGA LYEFLY NGTARY l,VBLIC Iredell County NoRn Caro;ina 2 Book: 2387 Page: 2212 Page 2 of 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, or if corporate, has caused this instrument to be signed in its corporate name by its duly authorized officers and its seal to be hereunto affixed by authority of its Board of Directors, the day and year first above written. / • Ir...��_ (seal) By: A4a7giag em60r of MFG Development, Inc. By: Managing member of The Johnson NORTH CAROLINA - IREDELL COUNTY (seal) Id/4 //' / 7 1/ a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that ha rn lly came before me this day and acknowledged that he/she is a aneging>rtember personaof MFG Development, Inc. the due execution of the foregoing instrument. tptNnttnururr WITNESS my hand and official stamp or seal, this the My Commission Expires: Ig "1O.14 NORTH CAROLINA - IREDELL COUNTY :dayof October, 2 _S), a ' a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that personally came before me this day and acknowledged that he/she is a managing member of The Johnson Group, Inc. the due execution of the foregoing instrument. WITNESS my hand and official stamp or seal, this the Notary Public My Commission Expires: day of October, 2015. Book: 2387 Page.. 2212 Page 3 of 5 Legal Description TRACT 1 BEING all of Lot Nos. Two Hundred Eighty (280), Two Hundred Eighty -One (281), Two Hundred Eighty - Two (282), Two Hundred Eighty -Three (283), Two Hundred Eighty -Four (284), Two Hundred Eighty -Five (285), Two Hundred Eighty -Six (286), Two Hundred Eighty -Seven (287), Two Hundred Eighty -Eight (288), Two Hundred Eighty -Nine (289), Two Hundred Ninety (290), Two Hundred Ninety -One (291), Two Hundred Ninety -Two (292), Two Hundred Ninety -Three (293), Three Hundred Five (305), Three Hundred Six (306), Three Hundred Seven (307), Three Hundred Eight (308), Three Hundred Nine (309), Three Hundred Ten (310), Three Hundred Eleven (311), Three Hundred Twelve (312), Three Hundred Thirteen (313), Three Hundred Fourteen (314), Three Hundred Fifteen (315), Three Hundred Sixteen (316), Three Hundred Seventeen (317), Three Hundred Eighteen (318), Three Hundred Nineteen (319), Three Hundred Twenty (320), Three Hundred Twenty -One (321), Three Hundred Twenty -Two (322), Three Hundred Twenty -Three (323), Three Hundred Twenty -Four (324), Three Hundred Twenty -Five (325), Three Hundred Twenty -Six (326), Three Hundred Twenty -Seven (327), Three Hundred Twenty -Eight (328), Three Hundred Twenty -Nine (329), Three Hundred Thirty (330), Three Hundred Thirty -One (331), Three Hundred Eighty (380), Three Hundred Eighty -One (381), Three Hundred Eighty -Two (382), Three Hundred Eighty -Three (383), Three Hundred Eighty -Four (384), Three Hundred Eighty -Five (385), of the J. W. Sherrill West Statesville Property, as shown on a general map thereof made by R. L. Crawley, Surveyor, on October 9, 1924 and recorded in Plat Book 1, at page 93B in the Iredell County Registry, to which recorded map reference is hereby made for a full and complete description of said lots. TRACT2: There is also conveyed the following Streets shown on said survey and general map, as follows: 2nd Street, 3`" Street, "C" Street, "D" Street and "E" Street. These are unopened streets and have never been opened or used as streets. The Grantor(s) conveys to the Grantee(s) hereby such title as they might have in said street, but do not warrant title thereto. Parts of some of said streets are open. FOR BACK TITLE to Tracts 1 and 2 see Deed as conveyed to The Johnson Group, Inc., from Franklin Beatty et al., dated December 22, 1988 and recorded in Book 779, page 3, Iredell County Registry. THERE IS EXCEPTED from Lot No. 385 above, a tract containing 1.23 acres, more or less, conveyed to Hoyle N. Beaty and wife, Allie Mae Beaty by deed of D. I. Beaty (widower), dated September 30, 1971, and recorded in Deed Book 509, page 444, Iredell County Registry. THERE IS FURTHER EXCEPTED from the above described properties the following: BEGINNING at a point in the center of the right of way of State Road 1358, known as Bristol Drive and being a corner of the Perry W. Jenkins, et al property as described in Deed Book 1006, Page 1253 and Page 1256; and running thence with the Jenkins line, South 84' 00' 00" West 1121.59 feet to a point; and continuing thence, North 88° 00' 00" West 1,262.00 feet to an existing railroad spike in the center of the right of way of State Road 1617, known as Westminister Road; and running thence with the center of the right of way of Westminister Road, North Y 22' 12" East 1,044.92 feet to an existing railroad spike, being a corner of the James R. Gray property as described in Deed Book 999, at Page 645, Iredell County Registry; and running thence with the Gray line, North 66° 39' 04" East 691.34 feet to an existing iron pin set, being a corner of the James R. Gray property; and continuing thence with the Gray line, South 63° 21' 09" East Book: 2387 Page: 2212 Page 4 of 5 580.46 feet to an existing iron pin, a corner of the Gray property; and running thence with the Gray line, North 26' 22' 50" East 85.09 feet to a point being a corner of the Statesville Housing Authority property as that property is described in Deed Book 826, at Page 565, Iredell County Registry; and running thence South 63" 21' 09" East 558.16 feet to an iron pin set; and running thence South 04' 59' 19" West 784.76 feet to an iron pin set; and running thence North 84` 00' 00" East 706.01 feet to a point in the center of the right of way of State Road 1358 known as Bristol Drive; and running thence with the center of the right of way of Bristol Drive, South 040 59' 19" West 101.87 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING, containing 46.250 acres, more or less; and being in accordance with that survey prepared by Gerald V. Grant, dated December 9, 1997. FOR BACK TITLE reference see Deed as conveyed to State of North Carolina from MFG Development, Inc. and The Johnson Group, Inc., dated February 9, 1998, and recorded in Book 1062, page 1527, Iredell County Registry. Book: 2387 Page: 2212 Page 5 of 5