SW3220102_Soils/Geotechnical Report_20220131

UNIVERSAL
ENGINEERING
SCIENCES
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
WAXHAW DOWNTOWN CENTRAL PARK
GIVENS STREET
WAXHAW, NORTH CAROLINA
UES PROJECT No. 2530.2100003.0000
UES REPORT No. 1850597
PREPARED FOR:
Alfred Benesch & Company
2539 Perimeter Pointe Parkway, Suite 350
Charlotte, North Carolina
Phone [phone]
PREPARED BY:
Universal Engineering Sciences
2520 Whitehall Park Drive, Suite 250
Charlotte, NC 28273
[phone]
March 22, 2021
Consultants in: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspection
• Geophysical Services • Building Inspection • Plan Review • Building Code Administration

LOCATIONS:
Atlanta, GA
UNIVERSAL-
• Charlotte, NC
• DC Metro, VA
,
ENGINEERING SCIENCES
03
• Daytona Beach, FL
Consultants In: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences
• Fort Myers, FL
■ Fort Pierce, FL
Geophysical Services • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspection
• Gainesville, FL
Building Inspection • Plan Review • Building Code Administration
■ Jacksonville, FL
• Miami, FL
March 22, 2021
• Ocala, FL
• Orlando, FL (Headquarters)
Alfred Benesch & Company
• Palm Coast, FL
Panama City, FL
2359 Perimeter Pointe Parkway, Suite 350
Pensacola, FL
Charlotte, NC 28208
• Rockledge, FL
Sarasota, FL
• Tampa, FL
Attention: Mr. Jon Wood
• Tifton, GA
■ West Palm Beach, FL
Reference: Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration
Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Givens Street
Waxhaw, North Carolina
UES Project No. 2530.2100003.0000
UES Report No. 1850597
Dear Mr. Wood.
Universal Engineering Sciences, LLC (Universal) has completed a geotechnical exploration for
the above referenced project in Waxhaw, North Carolina. The scope of our exploration was
planned in conjunction with and authorized by you. This exploration was performed in general
accordance with Universal Proposal Number 1833717 and generally accepted soil and
foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.
The following report presents the results of our field exploration with a geotechnical engineering
interpretation of those results with respect to the project characteristics as provided to us. We
have included soil and groundwater conditions at our boring locations and geotechnical
recommendations for site preparation, foundation design and pavement design. The site was
found to be generally suitable for the proposed development construction following typical site
preparation procedures presented in this report.
We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you on this project and look forward to a
continued association. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you should have any questions, or
if we may further assist you as your plans proceed.
Respectfully Submitted,
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
NC Certificate of Authorization No. F-0515
N.C. License No. 44443
2520 Whitehall Park Dr., Ste. 250, Charlotte, NC 28273, [phone] —
www.UniversalEngineering.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................................................I
2.0
SITE DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................................................1
2.1
GENERAL............................................................................................................................1
2.2
GEOLOGY........................................................................................................................... 1
3.0
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES....................................................................................................2
3.1
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICE......................................................................................2
3.2
LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................................................3
4.0
FIELD EXPLORATION...............................................................................................................................3
4.1
GENERAL............................................................................................................................3
4.2
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) BORINGS..................................................................4
5.0
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.....................................................................................................................4
5.1
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE...............................................................................................4
5.2
GROUNDWATER.................................................................................................................. 5
5.3
SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL..............................................................................6
6.0
LABORATORY TESTING...........................................................................................................................6
7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT..............................................................................................................7
7.1 EXISTING FILL.....................................................................................................................7
7.2 RESIDUAL MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS................................................................................7
7.3 RETAINING WALL BACKFILL.................................................................................................8
7.4 BRIDGE STRUCTURE........................................................................................................... 8
8.0 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION............................................................................................................8
9.0
FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
...................................................................................9
9.1
GENERAL............................................................................................................................9
9.2
ALLOWABLE NET SOIL BEARING PRESSURE.........................................................................9
9.3
FOUNDATION SIZE.............................................................................................................10
9.4
BEARING DEPTH...............................................................................................................10
9.5
BEARING MATERIAL..........................................................................................................10
9.6
SETTLEMENT ESTIMATES..................................................................................................10
10.0
SLABS-ON-GRADE....................................................................................................................................11
11.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................13
11.1 GENERAL..........................................................................................................................13
I

11.2 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE PREPARATION................................................................................
13
11.3 ASPHALT "FLEXIBLE" PAVEMENTS......................................................................................
13
11.4 CONCRETE "RIGID" PAVEMENTS........................................................................................
14
11.4 PAVEMENT MATERIALS......................................................................................................14
11.5 PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS........................................................................
15
12.0 SITE PREPARATION.................................................................................................................................15
12.1 GENERAL..........................................................................................................................15
12.2 STRUCTURAL FILL.............................................................................................................16
12.3 ACCEPTABLE FILL.............................................................................................................16
12.4 COMPACTION RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................
17
12.5 EXCAVATED SLOPES AND FILL EMBANKMENTS...................................................................
17
12.6 EXCAVATIONS...................................................................................................................
17
13.0 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES..............................................................................................................18
13.0 CLOSURE.....................................................................................................................................................19
LIST OF TABLES
Table I:
Groundwater Measurements.................................................................................6
Table II:
Laboratory Methodologies.....................................................................................7
Table III:
Flexible Pavement Design...................................................................................
13
Table IV:
Rigid Pavement Design.......................................................................................
14
Table IV:
Lateral Earth Pressure Parameters (Level Backfill).............................................18
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
SiteLocation Map.............................................................................................. Figure A-1
Boring Location Plan..........................................................................................
Figure B-1
Profile1..............................................................................................................
Figure B-2
Profile2..............................................................................................................
Figure B-3
BoringLogs........................................................................................................
Figure B-4
KeyTo Boring Logs............................................................................................
Figure B-5
APPENDIX C
GBADocument............................................................................................................. C-1
Constraints and Restrictions......................................................................................... C-2
u

Waxhaw Downtown Central Park UES Project No.: 2530.2100003.0000
Waxhaw, North Carolina March 22, 2021
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property is an undeveloped ±9.9-acre site located to the southeast of the
intersection of Givens Street and S High Street in Waxhaw, North Carolina. We understand
proposed construction will include parking areas, a multi -purpose event pavilion, an
amphitheater, various water features, athletic areas, a rope bridge, public recreation amenities
and bridge structure for maintenance vehicle access. We have assumed for the purpose of this
proposal that building construction will consist of typical structural steel framing, reinforced
masonry construction, and/or wood framing with column loads up to 30 kips and exterior wall
loads of up to 5 kips per linear foot (klf) and that cut/fill depths required to reach final site grades
will be about 8 feet.
Should any of the above information or assumptions made by UES be inconsistent with the
planned development and construction, we request that you contact us immediately to allow us
the opportunity to review the new information in conjunction with our report and revise or modify
our engineering recommendations accordingly, as needed.
Universal requests the opportunity to review the final site and grading plans and structural
design loads to validate all recommendations rendered herein. Without such a review, our
recommendations may not be applicable, resulting in potentially unacceptable performance of
site improvements for which Universal will not be responsible or liable. Depending on the
finalized details of the development, alterations to the recommendations provided herein and/or
additional field work may be warranted.
No site or project facilities/improvements, other than those described herein, should be
designed using the soil information presented in this report. Moreover, UES will not be
responsible for the performance of any site improvement so designed and constructed.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 GENERAL
The site is located on the south side of Givens Street to between S Broad Street and Church St
in Waxhaw, Union County, North Carolina. The is generally undeveloped and heavily wooded,
however there is evidence of past site work in the portion of the property along Givens Street
near borings B-01 and B-02. A sanitary sewer easement runs parallel to an unnamed creek
along the eastern parcel boundary.
The site generally slopes downward in a west to east direction to the unnamed creek. No other
structures or drainage features were observed during our geotechnical exploration.
2.2 GEOLOGY
The project site is located in the south-central portion of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
(Piedmont) of North Carolina within the Carolina Terrane. The Piedmont is a relatively broad
strip extending from central Alabama across Georgia and the Carolinas into Virginia. Rocks of
the Piedmont occur in belts that are some of the oldest formations in the United States. The
rock types are primarily metamorphic gneiss and schist with some granite intrusions.
u

Waxhaw Downtown Central Park LIES Project No.: 2530.2100003.0000
Waxhaw, North Carolina March 22, 2021
The major portion of the bedrock in the Piedmont is covered with a varying thickness of residual
soil that has been derived by chemical decomposition and physical weathering of the underlying
parent rock. Residual soils developed during the weathering of this bedrock consist
predominately of micaceous sandy silts and silty sands, which grade to clayey silts and clays
with nearness to the ground surface. The thickness of the residual soils can vary from only a
few feet to in excess of 100 feet.
The boundary between the residual soil and the underlying bedrock is not sharply defined.
Generally, a transition zone consisting of very hard soil to soft rock, appropriately classified as
"partially weathered rock" (PWR), is found. For engineering purposes, "partially weathered rock"
is defined as any residual soils which exhibit blow counts greater than 100 blows per foot.
Within the transition zone, large boulders or lenses of relatively "fresh" rock that are generally
much harder than the surrounding material often exist. The irregular bedrock surface is
essentially a consequence of differential weathering of the various minerals and joint patterns of
the rock mass.
3.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
3.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICE
This report presents an evaluation of site conditions on the basis of geotechnical procedures for
site characterization, with special attention to potential problems that may impact the proposed
development. The recovered samples were not examined, either visually or analytically, for
chemical composition or environmental hazards. We would be glad to provide you with a
proposal for these services at your request.
The services conducted by Universal Engineering Sciences during our geotechnical exploration
are as follows:
• Drilled thirteen (13) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings within the proposed
development areas to depths ranging from 10 to 30 feet below the ground surface (bgs);
• Performed two (2) Seasonal High -Water Table (SHWT) estimates within the proposed water
features near borings B-04 and B-05. This included two (2) borings extended to a depth of
15 feet in the central areas of the proposed water features with a temporary 15-foot
standpipe piezometer in each;
• Secured samples of representative soils encountered in the soil borings for review,
laboratory analysis and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer;
• Measured the existing site groundwater levels after a period of stabilization post -drilling;
• Assessed the existing soil conditions with respect to the proposed construction;
• Prepared a report which documents the results of our exploration and analysis with
geotechnical engineering recommendations for site preparation, foundation design and
pavement design.
2
u

Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
UES Project No.: 2530.2100003.0000
March 22, 2021
3.2 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Alfred Benesch & Company and their
affiliates, successors, and assigns. This report should aid the architect/engineer in the design of
the proposed commercial structure. The scope is limited to the specific project and locations
described herein. Our description of the project's design parameters represents our
understanding of the significant aspects relevant to soil and foundation characteristics. In the
event that any changes in the design or location of the structures as outlined in this report are
planned, we should be informed so the changes can be reviewed and the conclusions of this
report modified, if required, and approved in writing by UES. UES cannot be held responsible for
problems arising from changes about which we are not informed.
The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil
borings performed at the locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan and from other
information as referenced. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between
the boring locations. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until the
course of construction. If variations become evident, it will then be necessary for a re-evaluation
of the recommendations of this report after performing on -site observations and/or testing during
the construction period and noting the characteristics of the variations.
All users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for UES to attempt to locate
any man-made buried objects or identify any other potentially hazardous conditions that may
exist at the site during the course of this exploration. Therefore, no attempt was made by UES
to locate or identify such concerns. UES cannot be responsible for any buried man-made
objects or subsurface hazards which may be subsequently encountered during construction that
are not discussed within the text of this report. We can provide this service if requested.
Borings for a typical geotechnical report are widely spaced and generally not sufficient for
reliably detecting the presence of isolated, anomalous surface or subsurface conditions, or
reliably estimating unsuitable or suitable material quantities. Accordingly, UES does not
recommend relying on our boring information to negate presence of anomalous materials or for
estimation of material quantities unless our contracted services specifically include sufficient
exploration for such purpose(s) and within the report we so state that the level of exploration
provided should be sufficient to detect such anomalous conditions or estimate such quantities.
Therefore, UES will not be responsible for any extrapolation or use of our data by others beyond
the purpose(s) for which it is applicable or intended.
For a further discussion of the scope and limitations of a typical geotechnical report please
review the document attached within the Appendix, "Important Information about This
Geotechnical Engineering Report' prepared by GBC.
4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION
4.1 GENERAL
The field exploration was performed with an ATV mounted CME-550X drill on March 11, 2021.
Horizontal and vertical survey control was not provided for the test boring locations prior to or
during our field exploration program. UES personnel located the borings on site by using the
provided site plan, existing on -site landmarks, and by using a handheld GPS device. The boring
locations should be assumed approximate and accurate to a degree of the methods described.
If more exact locations are desired, a professional surveyor should be engaged to have the
borings located in the field.
3
u

Waxhaw Downtown Central Park UES Project No.: 2530.2100003.0000
Waxhaw, North Carolina March 22, 2021
4.2 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) BORINGS
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings were performed in general accordance with the
procedures of ASTM D-1586 (Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split -Barrel Sampling
of Soils). The SPT drilling technique involves driving a standard split -barrel sampler into the soil
by a 140-pound hammer, free falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the
sampler 1 foot, after an initial seating of 6 inches, is designated the standard penetration
resistance, or N-value, an index to soil strength and consistency. All borings were advanced
using hollow stem auger drilling techniques. SPT sampling was performed continuously on
approximate 2-foot intervals to a depth of 10 feet, and on 5 feet intervals thereafter.
The SPT tests were performed using an automatic hammer as opposed to a manual hammer
driven by a cat -head. The automatic hammer has a higher efficiency than a manual hammer,
thus yielding lower standard penetration resistance values (blow counts). We recognized this
and account for it in our evaluation. However, the raw field -recorded blow counts, and the
reported consistency/relative density terms based on those field -recorded values, are presented
on the boring logs without correction factors applied.
5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
5.1 GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
The results of our field exploration and laboratory analysis, together with pertinent information
obtained from the SPT borings, such as soil profiles, penetration resistance and groundwater
levels are shown on the boring logs included in the Appendix. The Key to Boring Logs, Soil
Classification Chart is also included in the Appendix. The soil profiles were prepared from field
logs after the recovered soil samples were examined by a Geotechnical Engineer. The
stratification lines shown on the boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil
types, and may not depict exact subsurface soil conditions. The actual soil boundaries may be
more transitional than depicted. A general summary of the soils encountered at our boring
locations is presented below. For detailed soil profiles and sample descriptions, please refer to
the attached boring logs.
Surface Materials: Topsoil was encountered in thicknesses ranging from approximately
3 to 6 inches at all boring locations. Additionally, variation in topsoil thickness can occur
due to the motorized drilling equipment traversing and disturbing the boring locations,
previous site utilization and/or topographic variations. Therefore, variations in topsoil
thickness should be anticipated throughout the site during stripping operations. Topsoil
is generally considered to be a dark colored surficial material with a high organic content
and is generally unsuitable for structural and pavement support. UES has not performed
any organic content tests on these soils nor evaluated their agricultural and/or
horticultural properties.
A layer of crushed stone associated with a former driveway was visible beneath the
surface grass near borings B-01 and B-02 adjacent to Givens Street.
Existing Fill Soils: Beneath the surface materials at borings B-02 and B-03, existing fill
soils extend to approximate depths ranging from 2 to 4 feet bgs. These soils generally
classified as firm Lean CLAY [CL], Elastic SILT [MH], and Sandy SILT [ML] soils and
Il
u

Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
LIES Project No.: 2530.2100003.0000
March 22. 2021
exhibited N-values of 5 blows per foot (bpf). Additional considerations for these fill soils
are outlined in the Geotechnical Assessment section of this report.
Residual Moisture Sensitive Soils: Beneath the surface materials or existing fill,
residual moisture sensitive soils of the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North
Carolina were encountered and extend to boring termination depths ranging from
approximately 2 to 12 feet bgs at all boring locations. These soils were classified as firm
Fat CLAY [CH], very soft to stiff Lean CLAY [CL] and soft to stiff Elastic SILT [MH] soils
exhibiting N-Values ranging from 1 to 14 bpf. These soils are considered moisture
sensitive for their propensity to become difficult to work when wet and/or exposed to
repeated construction traffic, particularly when construction takes place in the wetter
times of the year. Special considerations regarding these soils are presented in the
Geotechnical Assessment section of this report.
Residual Soils: Beneath the residual moisture sensitive soils, residual moderate to low
plasticity soils of the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina were
encountered. These soils extend to depths corresponding to boring termination depths
or the approximate depths where partially weathered rock (PWR) was first encountered
within all borings. These soils were generally classified as medium dense silty SAND
[SM] and soft to stiff Sandy SILT [ML] soils. These residual soils exhibited N-values
ranging from 4 to 25 bpf.
Partially Weathered Rock: Partially Weathered Rock (PWR) was first encountered at
depths of approximately 17 feet bgs at boring locations B-12 and B-13. For engineering
purposes, PWR is considered any residual material exhibiting an N-value of greater than
100 bpf.
5.2 GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was encountered in several borings during our geotechnical exploration after the
borings had been allowed to stabilize for a period of at least 24 hours after drilling operations
were completed. Depending on the final site grades, and based on the measured depths to
groundwater encountered during our geotechnical exploration, temporary and/or permanent
dewatering of the site is not anticipated for the majority of the site. However, water was
encountered near the unnamed creek in the vicinity of the proposed bridge. Therefore,
temporary groundwater control will be required during the construction of the bridge. It should
also be noted that fluctuations in groundwater levels throughout the year are common in this
geology, primarily due to seasonal variations in rainfall, surface runoff, proximity to adjacent
bodies of water and other factors that may vary from the time the borings were conducted. A
summary of the stabilized groundwater measurements is presented in Table I and the measured
water levels at the boring locations are shown on the individual boring logs in Appendix B.
It should also be noted that the similar geology in the region often produces small natural
springs which may not be visible during our site visits, and may become apparent during
construction. Recommendations for the remediation of any natural springs encountered can be
provided during construction by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction.
5
u

Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
LIES Project No.: 2530.2100003.0000
March 22, 2021
TABLE I - GROUNDWATER MEASUREMENTS
Boring ID
Depth to Groundwater ft.
B-04
4.7
B-05
14.7
B-12
4.1
B-13
2.5
5.3 SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL
In order to estimate the seasonal high water level at borings B-04 and B-05, many factors are
examined, including the following:
• Measured groundwater level
• Drainage characteristics of existing soil types
• Current & historical rainfall data
• Natural relief points (such as lakes, rivers, wetlands, drainage features,etc.)
• Man-made drainage systems (ditches, canals, retention basins, etc.)
• On -site types of vegetation
• Review of available data (soil surveys, USGS maps, etc.)
• Redoximorphic features (mottling, stripping, etc.)
Based on the results of our field exploration and the factors listed above, we estimate that the
seasonal high groundwater level within boring B-04 corresponds with the groundwater
measurement of approximately 4 feet bgs. Additionally, the seasonal high groundwater level
within boring B-05 is likely approximately 12 feet from the existing ground surface.
It should be noted that the estimated seasonal high water levels provided should be considered
accurate to approximately ±%2 foot and do not provide any assurance that groundwater levels
will not exceed these estimated levels during any given year in the future. Should the
impediments to surface water drainage be present, or should rainfall intensity and duration, or
total rainfall quantities, exceed the normally anticipated rainfall quantities, groundwater levels
might exceed our seasonal high estimates. Further, it should be understood that changes in the
surface hydrology and subsurface drainage from on -site and/or off -site improvements could
have significant effects on the normal and seasonal high groundwater levels.
6.0 LABORATORY TESTING
The soil samples recovered from the test borings were returned to our laboratory and visually
classified in general accordance with ASTM D 2487 "Standard Classification of Soils for
Engineering Purposes" (Unified Soil Classification System). If necessary, select representative
soil samples were evaluated with additional laboratory testing to aid in determination of general
engineering characteristics of the site soils. The results of these tests are shown on the boring
logs in Appendix B where performed. A summary of the type of tests performed is shown in
Table II.
0
u

Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
LIES Project No.: 2530.2100003.0000
March 22, 2021
TABLE II
LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES
Test Performed
Reference
Grain Size Analysis
ASTM D 1140 "Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200 (75 -
(#200 wash only)
lam) sieve"
Moisture Content
ASTM D 2216 "Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of
Soil by Mass"
Atterberg Limits
Determination
ASTM D 4318 "Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils"
7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
The following geotechnical design recommendations have been developed on the basis of the
previously described project characteristics and subsurface conditions encountered. If there are
any changes in these project criteria, including building locations on the site, a review should be
made by UES to determine if modifications to the recommendations are warranted.
Once final design plans and specifications are available, a general review by UES is
recommended as a means to check that the evaluations made in preparation of this report are
correct and that earthwork and foundation recommendations are properly interpreted and
implemented.
Based on the results of the fieldwork, laboratory evaluation and engineering analyses, we have
identified the following potential constraints to the development of this site including the
presence of shallow weathered rock, as well as wet and moisture sensitive soils. However, we
believe with proper planning and execution, as well as performing the site preparation measures
presented herein to address the wet soils on -site, the site can be adapted for the proposed
structure and associated improvements.
7.1 EXISTING FILL
Existing fill consisting of Lean CLAY [CL], Elastic SILT [MH], and Sandy SILT [ML] soils were
encountered in borings B-02 and B-03 to depths ranging from approximately 2 to 4 feet bgs.
These soils, in their current state, appear to be suitable to remain in place or to use as structural
fill elsewhere on site. If these soils are to remain in place, we recommend that they be
proofrolled in a manner outlined in the Site Preparation section of this report to determine their
suitability to remain in place. It should be noted that these soils are considered moisture
sensitive and are difficult to work when wet. As such, their suitability to remain in place will be
influenced by prevailing weather conditions, final site grades and construction practices at the
time of construction and some undercut may be necessary.
7.2 RESIDUAL MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS
The results of our geotechnical exploration identified the presence residual moisture sensistive
soils at the ground surface to depths ranging from approximately 2 to 12 feet bgs. These soils
are typically difficult to work when wet, and can lose strength when exposed to moisture
intrusion and repeated construction traffic. Depending on final site grades, we anticipate that
some moisture modification and/or some undercutting of these soils may be necessary during
7
u

Waxhaw Downtown Central Park UES Project No.: 2530.2100003.0000
Waxhaw, North Carolina March 22. 2021
construction. The depth and extent of undercut required will depend on the final site grades, the
prevailing weather conditions and construction practices. We recommend that site grading
operations take place in the warmer, dryer months of the year to reduce the delays or additional
costs associated with extended drying times and/or importing soils. Proofrolling these moisture
sensitive soils during construction, and prior to fill placement, in the manner outlined in the Site
Preparation and Grading section of this report should be done to determine their suitability to
remain in place. Additional recommendations for remediation of any unstable soils observed
during construction can be provided in the field by a qualified engineer from UES during
construction.
If final site grades necessitate the excavation of these soils to achieve design grades, these
soils are generally suitable for reuse as structural fill with the exception of retaining wall backfill.
The index properties of these moisture sensitive soils in this region generally do not meet the
requirements for wall backfill.
7.3 RETAINING WALL BACKFILL
The on -site soils are generally fine grained and do not meet the typical qualifications and
requirements for use as retaining wall backfill, either modular block or cast in place concrete.
We therefore recommend determining a source of select engineering backfill that meets the
qualifications and requirements of the retaining wall design documents once those are finalized.
Universal can provide specialized laboratory testing services to confirm that the index properties
of the import materials are suitable for use as wall backfill.
7.4 BRIDGE STRUCTURE
The bridge structure to be the maintenance vehicle access to the park has not been finalized. If
a culvert type structure is selected, we estimate that undercut ranging from 6 to 8 feet deep
within the culvert foundations will be required to provide adequate support if bearing elevation is
near current grades. We recommend that the resulting excavations be backfilled with washed
stone fully encapsulated in a woven geotextile (Mirafi 500X or similar).
Alternatively, stabilization of the very soft and wet clay soils encountered at the surface could be
performed by incorporating surge stone into the subgrade. In this alternative, surge stone would
be placed over the subgrade and forced into the clay soils by traversing the surface with a
tracked piece of equipment or by pounding the stone in using the bucket of a track hoe. Stone
should be added to the subgrade in layers and fully incorporated into the wet clay soils until an
unyielding subgrade is achieved. This work should be performed under the observation of the
Geotechnical Engineer or his authorized representative.
Depending on the type of structure selected, and the loads involved, an intermediate or deep
foundation system such as rigid inclusions or piles could be considered. Universal can assist in
the selection of the foundation system once more detailed drawings are available.
8.0 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION
The project site is located within a municipality that employs the 2015 International Building
Code® (IBC). As part of this Code, the design of structures must consider dynamic forces
resulting from seismic events. These forces are dependent upon the magnitude of the
8
u

Waxhaw Downtown Central Park UES Project No.: 2530.2100003.0000
Waxhaw, North Carolina March 22. 2021
earthquake event, as well as the properties of the soils that underlie the site. As part of the
procedure to evaluate seismic forces, the Code requires the evaluation of the Seismic Site
Class, which categorizes the site based upon the characteristics of the subsurface profile within
the upper 100 feet of the ground surface.
To define the Site Class for this project, we first interpreted the results of SPT soil borings drilled
within the project site and estimated appropriate soil properties below the base of the borings to
a depth of 100 feet, as permitted by Section 1615.1.1 of the Code. The estimated soil
properties were based upon our experience with subsurface conditions in the general site area.
Based upon the SPT N-values recorded during the field exploration, the subsurface conditions
within the site are consistent with the characteristics of a Site Class "D" as defined in Table
1613.5.2 of the Code.
9.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 GENERAL
The following recommendations are made based upon our understanding of the proposed
construction, and experience with similar projects and subsurface conditions. The applicability of
geotechnical recommendations is very dependent upon project characteristics such as
improvement locations, and grade alterations. UES must review the final site and grading plans
to validate all recommendations rendered herein.
Additionally, if subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, which were not
encountered in the borings, report those conditions immediately to us for observation and
recommendations.
In general, if soft and/or unsuitable soils (i.e. organic debris, etc.) are present, we recommend
complete removal and replacement with suitable compacted structural fill. The selection of an
adequate remediation method will greatly depend on weather conditions prior to and during
construction. Remediation methods may include, but are not limited to, selective undercut,
moisture conditioning, variable lift thicknesses, an increase of compaction requirements or
complete removal and replacement with properly compacted structural fill.
9.2 ALLOWABLE NET SOIL BEARING PRESSURE
The finished floor elevations of the proposed commercial structure were not provided at the time
of this report. Localized undercutting of foundations and slabs -on -grade may be required where
soft/loose and/or wet soils were encountered in our borings. Undercutting may also be required
if unsuitable material not encountered in this geotechnical exploration is encountered during
foundation excavation and slab -on -grade construction. We recommend all slab subgrade and
footing excavations be thoroughly evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to concrete
placement at the time of construction.
Provided our suggested site preparation procedures are followed, we recommend designing
shallow footing foundations for a maximum allowable net soil bearing pressure of 3,000
pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable net bearing pressure is that pressure that may be
transmitted to the soil in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure. The
allowable bearing pressure should include dead load plus sustained live load.
e✓
u

Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
UES Project No.: 2530.2100003.0000
March 22, 2021
9.3 FOUNDATION SIZE
For continuous wall foundations, the minimum footing width should comply with the current local
building code, but under no circumstances should be less than 12 inches. The minimum width
recommended for an isolated column footing is 24 inches. Even though the maximum allowable
soil bearing pressure may not be achieved, these width recommendations should control the
size of the foundations.
9.4 BEARING DEPTH
The bottom of all foundations should bear at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest
adjacent final ground surface or deeper as required by the governing building code for frost
penetration, protective embedment, and resistance to seasonal moisture changes. We
recommend stormwater and surface water be diverted away from the building exterior, both
during and after construction, to reduce the possibility of erosion beneath the exterior footings.
9.5 BEARING MATERIAL
Foundations of structures not associated with the bridge%ulvert at the creek crossing
should bear on newly placed and tested fill or residual on -site soils. The bearing level soils
should be of a suitable moisture content, unfrozen, free of organics and debris or loose material
If undercutting is required during project construction, the newly over -excavated area should be
backfilled using a crushed stone fully encapsulated with geotextile fabric (Mirafi 140N or
similarly approved fabric), flowable fill, or lean concrete if deemed to be unsuitable for bearing
as determined by the foundation inspection at the time of construction. This inspection should
include the use of the dynamic cone penetrometer test for assessing the strength of bearing
conditions.
Foundation concrete should be placed as soon as possible after excavation. If foundation
excavations must be left open overnight, or exposed to inclement weather, the base of the
excavation should be protected with a mat a couple of inches of lean concrete. Footing
excavations should be protected from surface water run-off and freezing. If water is allowed to
accumulate within a footing excavation and soften the bearing soils, or if the bearing soils are
allowed to freeze, the deficient soils should be removed from the excavation prior to concrete
placement.
9.6 SETTLEMENT ESTIMATES
Post -construction settlement of the structures will be influenced by several interrelated factors,
such as (1) subsurface stratification and strength/compressibility characteristics of the bearing
soils to a depth of approximately twice the width of the footing; (2) footing size, bearing level,
applied loads, and resulting bearing pressures beneath the foundation; (3) site preparation and
earthwork construction techniques used by the contractor, and (4) external factors, including but
not limited to vibration from off -site sources and groundwater fluctuations beyond those normally
anticipated for the naturally -occurring site and soil conditions which are present.
Our settlement estimates for the structures are based upon adherence to our recommended site
preparation procedures presented in this report. Any deviation from these recommendations
could result in an increase in the estimated post -construction settlement of the structures.
Furthermore, should building loads change from those assumed by us, greater settlements may
be expected.
10
u

Waxhaw Downtown Central Park LIES Project No.: 2530.2100003.0000
Waxhaw, North Carolina March 22, 2021
Due to the moderate to low plasticity nature of the surficial soils following the compaction
operations, we expect the majority of settlement to be elastic in nature and occur relatively
quickly, on application of the loads, during and immediately following construction. Using the
recommended maximum allowable bearing pressure, the assumed maximum structural loads,
and the field and laboratory test data which we have correlated into the strength and
compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils, we estimate the total vertical
settlement of the proposed structure to be on the order of 1 inch or less.
Differential settlement results from differences in applied bearing pressures and the variations in
the compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils. Assuming our site preparation
recommendations are followed, we anticipate differential settlement of less than inch.
10.0 Slabs -On -Grade
Structural loading information was not available at the time of this report. We therefore have
assumed a floor load of 150 pounds per square -foot (psf).
The near surface existing fill and residual moisture sensitive soils encountered in all borings are
generally comprised Lean CLAY [CL], Elastic SILT [MH] and Sandy SILT [ML] soils with N-
values ranging from 1 to 14 bpf. These soils, in their current state, generally appear suitable for
support of slabs -on -grade and pavements. However, due to variability of the near surface N-
values across the site, some reworking and/or undercut of the near surface soils is warranted to
reduce the risk of differential settlement of the slabs -on -grade and/or pavement sections.
Additionally, the near surface soils throughout the site are generally considered to be moisture
sensitive and can be difficult to work with when wet and can lose strength when exposed to
moisture intrusion and repeated construction traffic. Depending on final site grades, we
anticipate that moisture modification and some undercutting of these soils will be necessary
during construction. The depth and extent of undercut required will depend on the prevailing
weather conditions and construction practices. We recommend proof -rolling these soils in the
manner outlined in Site Preparation section of this report during construction, and prior to fill
placement, to determine their suitability to remain in place. Additional recommendations for
remediation of any unstable soils observed during construction can be provided in the field by a
qualified engineer from Universal during construction.
Conventional floor slabs may be supported upon on -site soils approved by the Geotechnical
Engineer or recently placed fill compacted to the guidelines outlined in this report. The floor
slabs should be structurally isolated from other foundation elements or adequately reinforced to
prevent distress due to differential movements. For the slab design, we recommend using a
subgrade modulus (k) of 100 pounds per cubic inch, which can be achieved by compacting the
subgrade soils as recommended in this report.
A polyethylene vapor retarding membrane of at least 6-mil with joints lapped a minimum of 6
inches is required between the base course or subgrade by the North Carolina Building Code
(NCBC) for structures not meeting the exceptions listed in Section 1907.1 of the NCBC.
However, we recommend a vapor retarding membrane of 10-mil thickness or more with joints
lapped a minimum of 12 inches.
11
u

Waxhaw Downtown Central Park LIES Project No.: 2530.2100003.0000
Waxhaw, North Carolina March 22, 2021
In order to provide uniform support beneath any proposed floor slab -on -grade, we recommend
that floor slabs be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of compacted aggregate base course
material. The aggregate base course material should be compacted to at least 100 percent of
its modified Proctor maximum dry density. Open -graded crushed stone, such as No. 57 stone
may also be used; however, it is our experience that open graded crushed stone can collect
water during periods of rain and cause saturation and softening of the subgrade soils prior to
placement of the floor slab concrete. Therefore, construction sequencing/timing, and the
season in which the stone is placed, should be taken into consideration.
The crushed rock is intended to provide a capillary break to limit migration of moisture through
the slab. If additional protection against moisture vapor is desired, a vapor retarding membrane
may also be incorporated into the design; however, specific conditions that mandate its use vary
between municipalities, building codes and site conditions. Factors such as cost, special
considerations for construction, and the floor coverings suggest that decisions on the use of
vapor retarding membranes be made by the architect and owner. Based on the subsurface
materials and the intended use of the structure, we recommend the use of a vapor retarding
membrane. Vapor retarders, if used, should be installed in accordance with ACI 302.1, Chapter
3.
The precautions listed below should be closely followed for construction of slabs -on -grade.
These details will not prevent the amount of slab movement, but are intended to reduce
potential damage should some settlement of the supporting subgrade take place.
Cracking of slabs -on -grade is normal and should be expected. Cracking can occur not only as
a result of heaving or compression of the supporting soil, but also as a result of concrete curing
stresses. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks, and problems associated with concrete
curing may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the water to cement ratio of the concrete,
proper concrete placement, finishing, and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at
frequent intervals, particularly, where re-entrant slab corners occur. The American Concrete
Institute (ACI) recommends a maximum panel size (in feet) equal to approximately three times
the thickness of the slab (in inches) in both directions. For example, joints are recommended at
a maximum spacing of 12 feet assuming a four -inch thick slab. We also recommend that
control joints be scored three feet in from and parallel to all foundation walls. Using fiber
reinforcement in the concrete can also control shrinkage cracking.
Some increase in moisture content is inevitable as a result of development and associated
landscaping; however, extreme moisture content increases can be largely controlled by proper
and responsible site drainage, building maintenance and irrigation practices.
All backfill in areas supporting slabs should be moisture conditioned and compacted as
described earlier in this report. Backfill in all interior and exterior utility line trenches should be
carefully compacted.
Exterior slabs should be isolated from the building. These slabs should be reinforced to function
as independent units. Movement of these slabs should not be transmitted to the building
foundation or superstructure.
12
u

Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
LIES Project No.: 2530.2100003.0000
March 22, 2021
11.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
11.1 GENERAL
We understand that a combination of flexible asphaltic and rigid concrete pavement sections will
be used on this project. Traffic loading data was not provided at the time of this report.
Therefore, we have prepared the following pavement design based on our experience with
similar soils and projects, and an assumed CBR value of 3 percent. Design procedures are
based on the AASHTO "Guide for Design of Pavement Structures" and associated literature.
The materials recommended for the pavement design are referenced to the North Carolina
Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) January 4, 2019 Pavement Design Procedure —
AASHTO 1993 Method. Based on the subsurface conditions, and assuming our grading
recommendations are implemented as specified, the following presents our recommendations
regarding typical pavement sections and materials.
11.2 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE PREPARATION
Site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase. Subsequently as
construction proceeds the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations, construction
traffic, desiccation, and rainfall. Therefore, we recommend proof -rolling and re -compacting (as
required) the upper 1-foot of subgrade immediately prior to placement of the Aggregate Base
Course (ABC) base course. If unstable soils are encountered which cannot be adequately
densified in place, such soils should be removed and replaced with structural fill or additional
ABC stone.
Prevention of infiltration of water into the subgrade is essential for the successful long-term
performance of any pavement. Both the subgrade and the pavement surface should be sloped
to promote surface drainage away from the pavement structure. Additionally, all vertical
surfaces to be in contact with asphalt should be tack -coated prior to paving.
11.3 ASPHALT "FLEXIBLE" PAVEMENTS
The following pavement sections as listed in Table III are based on a 20-year design life for
100,000 equivalent single -axle loads (ESALs) 18 kips and are based on a variety of vehicle
configurations including passenger vehicles, tractor -trailers, garbage trucks and HS-20 fire
trucks. If anticipated traffic information is changed from the previously outlined design criteria,
additional pavement section calculations should be performed to develop the new design
sections.
TABLE III
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Service Level
Material Thickness (inches)
Aggregate Base
Coarse Stone
NCDOT ABC)
Hot Mixed Asphalt
Intermediate Course
(NCDOT 119.00
Hot Mixed Asphalt
Surface Course
S9.5
Light Duty
6
---
3
Heavy Duty
8
2
2
13
u

Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
LIES Project No.: 2530.2100003.0000
March 22, 2021
11.4 CONCRETE "RIGID" PAVEMENTS
The use of concrete for paving has become more prevalent in recent years due to the long-term
maintenance cost benefits of concrete compared to asphaltic pavements. Proper finishing of
concrete pavements requires the use of appropriate construction joints to reduce the potential
for cracking. Construction joints should be designed in accordance with current Portland
Cement Association guidelines. Joints should be sealed to reduce the potential for water
infiltration into pavement joints and subsequent infiltration into the supporting soils. The
concrete should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi at 28 days and a 28-day
flexural strength of no less than 550 psi. The concrete should also be designed with 5 ± 1
percent entrained air to improve workability and durability. All pavement materials and
construction procedures should conform to NCDOT or appropriate city and/or county
requirements. Specimens to verify the compressive strength of the pavement concrete should
be obtained for at least every 50 cubic yards, or at least once for each day's placement,
whichever is greater.
Concrete pavement may be used in the loading dock areas, driveway entrance aprons, truck
turn -around or high truck traffic areas. Additionally it is recommended to be used underneath
and at least 10 feet in front of the dumpster pad enclosure. Large front -loading trash collection
trucks and loaded tractor -trailer trucks frequently impose concentrated front -wheel loads on
pavements during trash removal and/or turning. This typically results in rutting of, and
ultimately the failure of, the pavement system in these high traffic areas. Therefore, we
recommend that the pavement in trash collection areas, at least 10 feet in front of the dumpster
pad enclosure, and any areas to receive sustained loaded truck traffic consist of a Heavy Duty
rigid pavement section as described in Table IV below.
TABLE IV
RIGID PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Service Level
Graded Aggregate Base (GAB)
Minimum Pavement Thickness
Heavy Duty
6 inches
7 Inches
11.4 PAVEMENT MATERIALS
The aggregate base course should consist of ABC stone meeting the gradation specification of
NCDOT. This base course should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the maximum dry
density, as determined by the Standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D698, Method C). To
confirm that the base course has been uniformly compacted, in -place field density tests should
be performed by a qualified engineering technician, and the area should be methodically proof -
rolled under his evaluation. In addition, all asphalt material and paving operations should meet
applicable specifications of the Asphalt Institute and NCDOT Roadway Design Manual.
All materials and workmanship should meet the requirements of NCDOT Construction Manual.
Also, sufficient tests and inspections should be performed during pavement installation to
confirm that the required thickness, density, and quality requirements of the specifications are
followed.
14
u

Waxhaw Downtown Central Park UES Project No.: 2530.2100003.0000
Waxhaw, North Carolina March 22, 2021
11.5 PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
Our experience indicates that an overlay may be needed in approximately 8 to 10 years due to
normal weathering of the asphaltic concrete. Additionally, some areas could require repair and
maintenance in a shorter time period. The performance of the flexible and rigid pavements will
be influenced by a number of factors including the actual condition of subgrade soils at the time
of pavement installation, installed thicknesses and compaction, and drainage. The subgrade
soils should be re-evaluated by thorough proof -rolling immediately prior to base placement and
paving and any unstable areas undercut or repaired as required to achieve stable soils. This
recommendation is very important to the long-term performance of the pavements and slabs.
Areas adjacent to pavements (embankments, landscaped island, ditching, etc.) which can drain
water (rainwater or sprinklers) should be designed so that water does not seep below the
pavements. This may require the use of french drains or swales.
Use of extruded curb or elimination of curb entirely, can allow lateral migration of irrigation water
from the abutting landscape areas into the base and/or interface between the asphaltic concrete
and base. This migration of water may cause base saturation and failure and/or separation of
the asphaltic concrete wearing surface from the base with subsequent rippling and pavement
deterioration. For extruded curbing, we recommend that an underdrain be installed behind the
curb wherever anticipated storm, surface, or irrigation waters may collect. In addition, landscape
islands should be drained of excess water buildup using an underdrain system. Alternatively, we
recommend that curbing around the landscape sections adjacent to the parking lots be
constructed using full depth curb sections.
Light duty roadways and incomplete pavement sections will not perform satisfactorily under
construction traffic loadings. We recommend that construction traffic (construction equipment,
concrete trucks, sod trucks, garbage trucks, dump trucks, forklifts, etc.) be re-routed away from
these roadways or that the pavement section be designed for these loadings and thickened in
order to provide acceptable performance throughout the lifecycle of the pavement section.
12.0 Site Preparation
12.1 GENERAL
After required erosion control measures have been put in place and site clearing/stripping
operations have been completed, strip/demolish the proposed construction limits of surface
vegetation, topsoil, and other deleterious materials within and 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the
proposed building and pavement areas. Demolition should include complete removal of all
above and below grade foundations and other improvements.
Existing underground utility lines within the construction area should be located moved as
necessary. Provisions should be made to relocate interfering utilities to appropriate locations. It
should be noted that if underground pipes are not properly removed or plugged, they may serve
as conduits for subsurface erosion which may lead to excessive settlement of overlying
structures.
The site should be graded to direct surface water runoff away from the construction areas.
Positive drainage of improved areas should be maintained during construction and throughout
the design life of the project.
15
u

Waxhaw Downtown Central Park UES Project No.: 2530.2100003.0000
Waxhaw, North Carolina March 22, 2021
Proof -roll the subgrade using a heavily loaded, rubber -tired vehicle (i.e. fully loaded dump truck)
making a minimum of 8 passes in each of two perpendicular directions under the observation of
a qualified Geotechnical Engineer of their representative. Proof -rolling will help locate any
isolated zones of especially loose or soft soils. Any areas that deflect excessively under proof -
rolling or that are deemed soft/loose or wet should be undercut, as directed by a geotechnical
engineer or their representative, and backfilled with a select fill or stone. Material for
replacement of loose, soft, organic, or wet soils is typically a graded aggregate base, No. 57
sized crushed stone, compacted structural fill, or geogrid. All undercutting should be observed
by the Geotechnical Engineer to confirm that all unsuitable materials are removed and to
prevent unnecessary undercutting of suitable materials.
If site preparation work is performed during the rainy season, special care should be taken to
maintain positive drainage from the building pad and paved areas to drains or ditches around
the site. Unexpected wet periods can also occur in North Carolina during the "dry" season. Such
events can raise water tables to levels above seasonal highs without the associated high
temperatures to evaporate ponded water. Therefore, the contractor should practice wet weather
means and methods for earthwork during the "dry" season as well. Groundwater and surface
water control, use of granular fill material and aeration are the normal means to accommodate
wet weather construction. All fill materials that are excavated from below the water table should
be stockpiled for a sufficiently long period to allow drainage.
12.2 STRUCTURAL FILL
Once the site has been stripped and prepared, place fill material as required to meet finished
grades. The recommended criteria for soil fill characteristics (both on -site and imported
materials) and compaction procedures are listed below. The project design documents should
include the following recommendations to address proper placement and compaction of project
fill materials. Earthwork operations should not begin until representative samples are collected
and tested (allow 3 to 4 days for sampling and testing). The maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content should be determined.
12.3 ACCEPTABLE FILL
• Imported fill and on -site material satisfactory for structural fill should include clean soil
material with USCS classifications of (GW, GM, SW, SP, SC, some ML, some CL). The fill
material should have a Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) Maximum Dry Density of at least
100 pcf, a maximum Liquid Limit (LL) of 40 and a Plasticity Index (PI) of 20 or less.
• Imported fill and on -site material with a Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) Maximum Dry
Density of less than 100 pcf will be subject to higher compaction requirements.
• Organic content or other foreign matter (debris) should be no greater than 3 percent by
weight, and no large roots (greater than'/4 inch in diameter) should be allowed.
• Material utilized as fill should not contain rocks greater than 3 inches in diameter or greater
than 30 percent retained on the %-inch sieve.
• Based on the results of our soil test borings, the onsite fill and residual soils can generally
be reused as structural fill in their present state. The near surface very clayey SILT (MH)
soils are sensitive to moisture and are generally difficult to work with during the wetter
16
u

Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
UES Project No.: 2530.2100003.0000
March 22. 2021
months of the year. If these soils are wet, they may exhibit longer than normal drying
times. During wet months, care should be taken to "seal off' the soils prior to any
significant rain fall. We recommend that the contractor be equipped to control moisture by
both wetting and drying the soils. In addition, heavy construction equipment (trucks, lifts,
lulls) with large tires may significantly deteriorate the consistency of onsite soils if operated
during wet soil conditions. Care should be taken to prevent deterioration as best as
possible. Additionally, variations in soil types of the existing fill should be anticipated.
12.4 COMPACTION RECOMMENDATIONS
• Maximum loose lift thickness — 8 inches, mass fill. Loose lifts of 4 to 6 inches in trenches
and other confined spaces where hand operated equipment is used. Loose lifts of up to 12
inches are permitted for mass fill if full sized rollers such as a CAT 815 compactor are use.
• The grading contractor is responsible for managing lift thickness and uniformity of
compaction.
• Compaction requirements — 95 percent of the maximum dry density and 98 percent within
the upper 12 inches as determined by the Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) compaction
test.
• Soils with a Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) Maximum Dry Density of less than 100 pcf
should be compacted to 98% or more of its Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) Maximum Dry
Density.
• Soil moisture content — within ±2 percent of the optimum moisture content to obtain
minimum compaction level.
12.5 EXCAVATED SLOPES AND FILL EMBANKMENTS
All fill placed in embankments should be uniformly compacted to a similar requirement as
discussed previously. It is difficult to compact soil at the face of slopes. Therefore, it will be
necessary to construct the slopes outside their design limits, and then cut them back; leaving
the exposed face well compacted. This is very important to the performance of the slopes and
we advise special care be used. Also, existing grade that will underlie new fill embankments
should be benched in order for soil compaction to be accomplished in a horizontal plane. The
benching will tie the new fill into the existing grade and reduce the potential for slippage or slope
stability failure at the interface of existing grade and new fill embankment.
We recommend that the face of slopes and embankments be protected by establishing
vegetation or mulching as soon as practical after grading. Rainwater runoff should be diverted
away from the crest of slopes. It is very important that all factors associated with slopes be
constructed in accordance with plans and specifications.
Construction of the slopes should be monitored by the Geotechnical Engineer through daily field
reports for the slopes. All slopes should be constructed at a minimum ratio of 3(H):1(V) unless
a global stability analysis has been performed. UES has not been informed of any such
conditions.
12.6 EXCAVATIONS
Excavations should be sloped as necessary to prevent slope failure and to allow backfilling. As
a minimum, temporary excavations greater than 4 feet depth should be sloped in accordance
17
u

Waxhaw Downtown Central Park LIES Project No.: 2530.2100003.0000
Waxhaw, North Carolina March 22. 2021
with OSHA regulations (29 CFR Part 1926) dated October 31, 1989. Where lateral confinement
will not permit slopes to be laid back, the excavation should be shored in accordance with
OSHA requirements. During excavation, excavated material should not be stockpiled at the top
of the slope within a horizontal distance equal to the excavation depth. Provisions for
maintaining workman safety within excavations is the sole responsibility of the contractor.
13.0 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
Basement walls and earth retaining walls must be capable of resisting the lateral earth
pressures that will be imposed on them. Shear strength testing was not performed on the soils
sampled during this exploration. However, based on the material types and our experience, the
earth pressure coefficients detailed below are recommended. Walls that will be laterally
restrained and not free to deflect or rotate (i.e., basement walls or loading dock walls tied into
existing slabs on grade) should be designed using the "at -rest" (Ko) earth pressure condition. In
addition, tank walls that would be damaged by movement should also be designed for at -rest
pressures. Walls that are not restrained (retaining walls) and can tolerate the required
movement can be designed using the "active" (Ka) earth pressure condition. A third condition,
the "passive state" (Kp) 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. The earth pressure coefficients used in the design will depend upon the type of
backfill used.
Imported No. 57 stone or approved free draining granular soil typically is suitable for use as
backfill within the "active" zone of basement walls. Soils with Plasticity Index values greater
than 10 (PI>10) should not be used for backfill behind the walls within the "active" zone.
Additionally, soils with high mica content should not be considered for use as backfill behind the
walls within the "active" zone. The active zone is typically modeled by an area extending
rearward one foot from the base of the wall footing and then extending upward toward the
ground surface at an inclination of 45 degrees plus one-half of the internal angle of friction (450
+ 0/2).
Based on the results of our geotechnical exploration, we recommend the lateral earth pressure
coefficients listed in Table V be used for design purposes.
TABLE V
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE PARAMETERS (Level Backfill)
Internal
Moist Unit
Earth Pressure Coefficients
Friction
Weight,
At -
Material Group Symbol
Angle
y
Active
Rest
Passive
(pcf)
Ka
Ko
Kp
Silty SANDs (SM)
28
115
0.36
0.53
2.77
Sandy SILTs (ML)
No. 57 Stone
36
120
0.26
0.41
3.85
18
u

Waxhaw Downtown Central Park LIES Project No.: 2530.2100003.0000
Waxhaw, North Carolina March 22, 2021
Passive earth pressure of the soil adjacent to the footing, as well as soil friction at the footing
base, may be used to resist sliding. Because significant wall movements are required to
develop the "passive" earth pressure, the total calculated "passive" pressure may be reduced by
one-half to two-thirds for design purposes. A coefficient of 0.35 could be reasonably assumed
for evaluating allowable frictional resistance to sliding at the foundation (concrete) -soil contact.
The design bearing pressure for the retaining wall foundations should correspond to the value
provided earlier in this report.
The recommended earth pressure coefficients assume horizontal backfill and that constantly
functioning drainage systems are installed between walls and soil backfill to prevent the build-up
of hydrostatic pressures and lateral stresses in excess of those stated. Even though
groundwater was not encountered, wall drainage is very important because of the potential for
infiltration of surface water and water from other sources (leaks, irrigation, etc.). In addition,
damp proofing should be applied to the outside of below grade walls. If a sufficient drainage
system is not installed, the lateral earth pressures should be computed using the buoyant
weight of the soil and the hydrostatic pressure due to the water must be added to the earth
pressure to estimate the lateral earth pressure for design. A water collection system consisting
of 4 to 6-inch diameter, slotted, corrugated polyethylene tubing per ASTM F405 (Standard
Specification for Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe and Fittings), surrounded by at least 12 inches
of No. 57 stone can be used. Completely encapsulate the aggregate with drainage geotextile
such as Mirafi® 140N or equivalent. These pipes should then discharge by gravity to a lower
lying area of the site beyond the building and pavement limits, or to a sump with a pump.
Special care should be taken while compacting the backfill behind below grade and/or retaining
walls. Over -compaction of backfill behind retaining walls may result in the buildup of excessive
lateral pressures, and potential structural distress. To avoid over -compaction of the backfill
behind walls, we recommend that the backfill within 5 feet of the wall be compacted with small
hand operated equipment to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density of the standard
Proctor as determined by ASTM D698. Heavy compactors and large pieces of construction
equipment should not operate within 5 feet of the embedded wall to avoid the buildup of
excessive lateral pressures unless the walls have been designed to accommodate these forces.
We recommend that the retaining walls be backfilled with materials deemed suitable by the
retaining wall designer. Typically, sandy soils found in this region have been used satisfactorily
as retaining wall fill. The majority of the soils near the surface at this site may not be acceptable
for backfill for MSE retaining walls due to the percentage of fines appearing to be greater than
35%. Once soils to be used as retaining wall backfill have been identified, we recommend that
testing of the soils be performed as specified by the retaining wall designer prior to
commencement of wall construction.
13.0 CLOSURE
Our interpretation of the site soil and groundwater conditions is based on our general knowledge
of the area and the subsurface borings performed. As we currently understand it, using
conventional construction practices and standard methods of surficial stripping and removal of
surface materials and topsoil, excavation, proof -rolling, compaction, selective undercut and
replacement with the structural fill should adequately prepare the site.
19
u

Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
LIES Project No.: 2530.2100003.0000
March 22, 2021
An important aspect of the success of the construction process is the transfer of information
between all concerned parties to start of any activities on -site. As such, UES strongly
recommends that a pre -construction meeting be held with the following representatives in
attendance at a minimum: General contractor, site (earthwork) contractor, civil and structural
engineer, underground utility contractor, a geotechnical engineer and materials testing
technician. At this meeting, UES would describe in detail the geotechnical considerations that
would impact the construction process and future serviceability of the improvements.
20
u

ENGINEERING SCIENCES

0 3 � mRoad
a<
s 9n[i ° Z de°ee4
a � \
` Spanish oaks
m \\ QatpwaY
,3o NC 16 S\axnavJ
!
r
r
h
r
Da
r
f•
r
n� a�parkway Waxhaw i a
�nOrive �a�
a 3
1
l �
ale R.
Wisackola d 4
Park r ne \ 61y ne Mi11 Road Soothcliff Drive
22 F
o h\ o Southbrook
WaxhGw
g
a, a Meadows
z -
o , 1 P�Orrp
haw.ryarVi^ °J `'° N
Road '�
apace Street^ price Street
° Howie Mine Road —' v
Monroe Subdivision
l
.Waxhaw-
est North Main Siree .�. union ce a_xhaw Highway
x� NC75
Monroe Suhdivision � � cafdwell streeta d, m
A dkema^�s �
axhaw-H19hWay o �Givens5ireet hP ,rl
Mills Street, ef,^P � °�'
0 0
o "°� %
tynn street A
P
a � h
Q D P
o
r
F H9h ROc P
O 5ta on Drive grbor Drive
SITE LOCATION es"ee`
rOrNe \,,\ �poad a
_rp�anP ti� � St`a o da - A
n KaY
\\ a
Southern
Estates
q
Waxhaw Farms Road m
O
W`x+Qo
hH� o
a
m
7
a s �
a
O
O 1
BASEMAP: Open Street Map 2020 5, m'Roaa
� f J
UNIVERSAL
ENGINEERING SCIENCES
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Givens Street
Waxhaw, North Carolina
SITE LOCATION PLAN
REFERENCE: Open Street Map 2020
DRAWN BY: RB
DATE: 3/22/2021
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
SCALE: NTS
PROJECT NO: 2530.2100003.0000
REPORT NO: 1850597
FIGURE N0: A-1

ENGINEERING SCIENCES

�-v_.LJI n Os rwJa/ 1M'prrwJ6�� yIL�
2 30,5E
JI - • 57ri — NA7
vv —NW3
(FW rM A4� Y
es n/>n
4
O B-02 2
f+xv"^.' sass \` /.
1 g B-06 3
_ -----
N J�
B-09
_Nw oa xr- 6
ia✓ of I 0 z �s ,wsJ
B-04
l ' ❑ � i0 � w " � I
26• �b i
B-07 B-03 27
AT ND 7 d4W1 i — I 24
_„o�i�£�•.N ro„n _ ., 7 23 �•y, � Bs.ti`,,„ 1 � 0
r.t �r 3a l"1dr6
.s,r.•a J,froVTmJ � I � •--` r r" .roroln � LL
=B10 2
—2
B-08 21 1 �'
f 20 19o- \ f° —
°rs,5e 17B-11�
ssw„
— - O?1"
9B 05 <,,
--- 10 t
15ar�� °' - wr
60PU`BLIC
B-13�ERVIP85�
ar mara.r.. I Q?a',onrar `I •.-
xc.nrers.K+wsa+ I 4's-toady 'JV
12
Tot
� 1
"
lAr Y.rr,I6YY LEI
k4
kc2aF fTC
LEGEND
49
Jc/ij. +x
/"' ..NNW P4 FdtNFRYY,.
xSN CM R f,MUY. FnGf '
OB B66/]J
Mama
APPROXIMATE STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST BORING LOCATION
�BASEMAP: Master Plan Update 1.12.2021, Alfred Benesch & Company
UNIVERSAL
ENGINEERING SCIENCES
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Givens Street
Waxhaw, North Carolina
BORING LOCATION PLAN
REFERENCE: Master Plan Update 1.12.2021
Alfred Benesch & Company
DRAWN BY: RB
DATE: 3/18/2021
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
SCALE: 1:150
PROJECT NO: 2530.2100003.0000
REPORT NO: 1850597
FIGURE No: B-1

GENERALIZED
SUB -SURFACE
PROFILE
B-01
B-02
B-03
B-04
B-05
B-06
B-07
0
MC% Depth
N-Value
MC% Depth
N-Value
MC% Depth
N-Value
MC% Depth
N-Value
MC% Depth
N-Value
MC% Depth
N-Value
MC% Depth
N-Value
0
0.3
0.3
0.5
- i
0.5
-
0.5
-
0.3
0.3
20.3%
12
25.1%
8
20.9%
8
19.9%
9
20.3%
4
22.3%
9
24.4%
7
CL
ML
CL
CL
MH
CL
2
2.0
z
2.0
2.0
>00
2.0
z
2.0
2.0
2
MH
28.2%
10
17.0%
MH
6
29.6%
MH
14
39.0%
CL
11
19.3%
MH
2
30.7%
9
31.4%
MH
11
4
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4
28.8%
ML
9
36.9%
CH
5
27.1%
MH
14
30.5%
MH
7
21.0%
6
28.5%
MH
8
26.2%
MH
12
6
6.0
6.0
6.0
MH
6.0
6.0
6
34.2%
9
37.6%
MH
5
28.1%
17
33.7%
4
27.3%
12
30.4%
ML
11
23.8%
ML
10
$
8.0
8.0
ML
8.0
8.0
8.0
$
33.0%
8
34.7%
4
31.0%
23
36.7%
MH
5
39.4%
8
32.5%
ML
12
23.2%
ML
8
10
ML
ML
10.0
10.0
10.0
10
Explanation:
_
BT
BT
BT
2
H
0_
ML
LU
0 12
12.0
12.0
12.0
12
B-01 Boring Number
Borehole
ML
Lithology
N (Blows
14
13
7
6
7
14
MC%
Per Ft.)
ML
ML
15.0
15.0
R = Auger Refusal
BT
BT
BT Boring Terminated
16
16
<24HR Water Level Reading
17.0
17.0
1 +24HR Water Level Reading
18
18
ML
ML
11
6
20
20.09
20.0
20
BT
BT
Topsoil
® Fat CLAY
Lithology Graphics
IN SILT
ISMS
NOTE:
This subsurface profile is provided for graphical representation of
the boring logs only. Actual horizontal and vertical stratigraphy may
be more gradual than indicated on this subsurface profile.
Vertical Scale: AS SHOWN
Horizontal Scale: NOT TO SCALE
Universal Engineering Sciences, LLC
2520 Whitehall Park Drive, Suite 250
Charlotte, North Carolina
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
PROFILE NO:1
PAGE NO: B-2
JOB NUMBER REPORT NUMBER
2530.2100003.0000 1850597

LU
0
C
1 C
2C
2t
3C
B-08
B-09
B-1 0
B-1 1
B-1 2
B-1 3
MC% Depth
N-Value
MC% Depth
N-Value
MC% Depth
N-Value
MC% Depth
N-Value
MC% Depth
N-Value
MC% Depth
N-Value
0.5 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3
0.3
24.1%
6
27.5%
8
26.8%
5
18.5%
3
37.0%
2
34.0%
/M
/cL/
2.0
2.0
2.0
M//
M1
MH
2.5ft.
29.9%
8
35.9%
1!M
10
24.4%
8
29.0%
9
53.4%
4
44.1%
9
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.1ft.
/CL�
/MCL/T
27.9%
ML
10
31.5%
11
27.7%
7
27.1%
1
19.0%
6
15.5%
5
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
29.8% 7 46.1% 9 27.8% M, 8 40.6% 13 21.3%
6 23.6%
12
ML
ML
8.0
/M1
8.0
32.7%
44.9%
it
29.2%
M
7
39.8%
11
22.2%
25
28.2%
11
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
BT
BT
BT
BT
12.0
21
1
3
17.0
17.0
50/2"
50/4"
SM
22.0
sm
50/4"
50/11,
SM
27.0
27.0
�pKi
50/2"
snn
50/2"
30.0
30.0
BT
BT
Lithology Graphics
FA7,�
Topsoil Elastic SILT IN SILT
Silty SAND Partially Weathered Rock
GENERALIZED
SUB -SURFACE
PROFILE
0
im
15 1 Explanation:
B-08 - Boring Number
Borehole _� N (Blows
20 Lithology
MC% Per Ft.)
AR - Auger Refusal
BT = Boring Terminated
<24HR Water Level Reading
25 1 +24HR Water Level Reading
ce
NOTE:
This subsurface profile is provided for graphical representation of
the boring logs only. Actual horizontal and vertical stratigraphy may
be more gradual than indicated on this subsurface profile.
Vertical Scale: AS SHOWN
Horizontal Scale: NOT TO SCALE
Universal Engineering Sciences, LLC
2520 Whitehall Park Drive, Suite 250
Charlotte, North Carolina
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
PROFILE NO:2
PAGE NO: B-3
JOB NUMBER REPORT NUMBER
2530.2100003.0000 1850597

C
c
C
I
c
cc
qj
PROJECT NO.: 2530.2100003.0000
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 1850597
PROJECT:
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
CLIENT:
Alfred Benesch & Company
LOCATION:
SEE ATTACHED BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B-01
SHEET: 1 of 1
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
* <24HR WATER TABLE (ft):
i >24HR WATER TABLE (ft):
DATE OF READING:
DATE STARTED:
3/11/21
DATE FINISHED:
3/11/21
DRILLED BY:
CG2 Drilling
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
ASTM D 1586
DEPTH
(FT.)
S
A
M
P
E
BLOWS
PER 6"
INCREMENT
N
(BLOWS/
FT.)
W.T.
S
Y
M
BO
L
DESCRIPTION
200
0
(1/0(1/0LL
MC
0
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
K
(FT./
DAY)
POCKET
PEN.
(tsf)
pI
0
TOPSOIL 3"
5-6-6-7
12
20.3
FILL - Stiff Black And Red LEAN CLAY With
_x
Trace Organics And Topsoil
CL 2.
3-5-5-7
10
28.2
RESIDUUM -Stiff Red And Tan SILT With Trace
Mica
_x
ML
5
_x
2-4-5-6.......9..
28:8..
.....
3-4-5-7
9
34.2
_x
RESIDUUM -Firm Red And Gray SILT
3-3-5-6
8
ML
33.0
10
RESIDUUM -Stiff Tan, Red And Black SILT
WITH SAND
_x
ML
5-7-6
13
15
...........
.......
...
......... .................. ......... ...............
........
....................
.....
........................
17.12
RESIDUUM -Stiff Black And Brown SILT WITH
SAND
_x
ML
3-5-6
11
20
___________________�4
Boring Terminated
No Groundwater Encountered

C
C
C
I
C
cc
qj
PROJECT NO.: 2530.2100003.0000
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 1850597
PROJECT:
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
BORING DESIGNATION:
B-02
Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
SHEET:
1 Of 1
Waxhaw, North Carolina
CLIENT:
Alfred Benesch & Company
G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED:
3/11/21
LOCATION:
SEE ATTACHED BORING LOCATION PLAN
a <24HR WATER TABLE (ft): DATE FINISHED:
3/11/21
REMARKS:
i >24HR WATER TABLE (ft): DRILLED BY:
CG2 Drilling
DATE OF READING: TYPE OF SAMPLING:
Mud rotary, SPT
DEPTH
(FT.)
S
A
M
P
E
BLOWS
PER 6"
INCREMENT
N
(BLOWS/
FT.)
W.T.
S
Y
M
BO
L
DESCRIPTION
200
0
(1/0(1/0LL
MC
0
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
K
(FT./
DAY)
POCKET
PEN.
(tsf)
pI
0
TOPSOIL 3"
4-4-4-4
8
1
25.1
FILL -Firm Red And Black SANDY SILT With
Trace Trace Organics And Rock Fragments And_x 2
Topsoil
ML
3-3-3-5
6
17.0
FILL -Firm Reddish -Brown ELASTIC SILT
_x
MH 4.
RESIDUUM -Firm Tan And Red FAT CLAY With
5
2-2-3-4
5
Sand
83.4
36:9
73
39
_x
CH
6.0
RESIDUUM -Firm Tan And Red SANDY SILT
2-2-3-2
5
MH
37.6
_x
80
RESIDUUM -Soft Orange And Tan SANDY SILT
2-2-2-2
4
ML
34.7
10
RESIDUUM -Firm Tan, Orange And Black
SANDY SILT
_x
ML
3-3-4
7
15
...........
.......
...
......... .................. ......... ...............
........
....................
.....
........................
RESIDUUM -Firm Tan SANDY SILT
ML
_x
2-3-3
6
20
Boring Terminated
No Groundwater Encountered

9 UNIVERSAL
3 ENGINEERING SCIENCES
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
No. of Blows of a 140-lb. Weight Falling 30
N-Value
Inches Required to Drive a Standard Spoon
1 Foot
WOR
Weight of Drill Rods
WOH
Weight of Drill Rods and Hammer
Sample from Auger Cuttings
Standard Penetration Test Sample
Thin -wall Shelby Tube Sample
(Undisturbed Sampler Used)
RQD
Rock Quality Designation
Stabilized Groundwater Level
Groundwater Level at time of Drilling
NE
Not Encountered
GNE
Groundwater Not Encountered
BT
Boring Terminated
-200 (%)
Fines Content or % Passing No. 200 Sieve
MC (%)
Moisture Content
LL
Liquid Limit (Atterberg Limits Test)
PI
Plasticity Index (Atterberg Limits Test)
NP
Non -Plastic (Atterberg Limits Test)
K
Coefficient of Permeability
Org. Cont.
Organic Content
G.S. Elevation
Ground Surface Elevation
RELATIVE DENSITY
(Sands and Gravels)
Very loose — Less than 4 Blow/Foot
Loose — 4 to 10 Blows/Foot
Medium Dense — 11 to 30 Blows/Foot
Dense — 31 to 50 Blows/Foot
Very Dense — More than 50 Blows/Foot
CONSISTENCY
(Silts and Clays)
Very Soft — Less than 2 Blows/Foot
Soft — 2 to 4 Blows/Foot
Firm — 5 to 8 Blows/Foot
Stiff — 9 to 15 Blows/Foot
Very Stiff— 16 to 30 Blows/Foot
Hard — More than 30 Blows/Foot
RELATIVE HARDNESS
(Limestone)
Soft — 100 Blows for more than 2 Inches
Hard — 100 Blows for less than 2 Inches
KEY TO BORING LOGS
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GROUP
TYPICAL NAMES
SYMBOLS
GW
Well -graded gravels and gravel-
N
GRAVELS
CLEAN
sand mixtures, little or no fines
Poorly graded gravels and
w
50% or
GRAVELS
omore
of
GP
gravel -sand mixtures, little or no
6n N
J
coarse
fines
GM
Silty gravels and gravel -sand-
fractionO
) (D
retained on
GRAVELS
silt mixtures
0 :E-
No. 4 sieve
WITH FINES
Clayey and
Z_ ,
GC
gravels gravel-
0
Q -a
sand -clay mixtures
c
CLEAN
SW**
Well -graded sands and gravelly
m
SANDS
SANDS
sands, little or no fines
U
5% or less
SP**
Poorly graded sands and
Qo
More than
passing No.
C'
50% of
200 sieve
gravelly sands, little or no fines
U
coarse
M
fraction
SANDS with
**
SM
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures
passes No.
12% or more
4 sieve
passing No.
O
200 sieve
SC**
Clayey sands, sand -clay
mixtures
Inorganic silts, very fine sands,
M L
rock flour, silty or clayey fine
sands
x
NSILTS
AND CLAYS
Inorganic clays of low to
.N
Liquid limit
CL
medium plasticity, gravelly
p
50% or less
clays, sandy clays, lean clays
U) o
QL
Organic silts and organic silty
J N
O O
Z
clays of low plasticity
0 a)
W «
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
Z_ w
MH
diamicaceous fine sands or
Q rOii
silts, elastic silts
lY
�
c� Q
W O
Z 0
SILTS AND CLAYS
CH
Inorganic clays or clays of high
plasticity, fat clays
LL E
Liquid limit
greater than 50%
o
OH
Organic clays of medium to
o
high plasticity
o
Ln
PT
Peat, muck and other highly
organic soils
'Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75 mm) sieve
** Use dual symbol (such as SP-SM and SP-SC) for soils with more
than 5% but less than 12% passing the No. 200 sieve
PLASTICITY CHART
60
50
CH or OH
x 40
w
30
g OH or MH
a 20
CL rOL
10
ML or OL
6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100
LIQUID LIMIT

C
C
C
It
C
cc
qj
PROJECT NO.: 2530.2100003.0000
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 1850597
PROJECT:
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
BORING DESIGNATION:
B-03
Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
SHEET:
1 of 1
Waxhaw, North Carolina
CLIENT:
Alfred Benesch & Company
G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED:
3/11/21
LOCATION:
SEE ATTACHED BORING LOCATION PLAN
a <24HR WATER TABLE (ft): DATE FINISHED:
3/11/21
REMARKS:
i >24HR WATER TABLE (ft): DRILLED BY:
CG2 Drilling
DATE OF READING: TYPE OF SAMPLING:
Mud rotary, SPT
S
S
A
BLOWS
N
Y
ATTERBERG
K
POCKET
DEPTH
M
PER 6"
(BLOWS/
W.T.
M
BO
DESCRIPTION
200
0
MC
0
LIMITS
(FT./
PEN.
(FT.)
P
INCREMENT
FT.)
(1/0(1/0LL
DAY)
(tsf)
E
L
PI
0
TOPSOIL 6"
FILL -Firm Reddish -Brown SANDY LEAN CLAY
2-3-5-4
8
83.7
20.9
34
16
With Trace Organics
_x
CL 2.
Stiff Reddish -Brown ELASTIC SILT
_x
4-6-8-9
14
MH
4.0
29.6
RESIDUUM -Stiff Red And Tan ELASTIC SILT
5
6-6-8-8.......14.
...
MH........ .................. ......... ...............
27:1..
.....
_x
6.0
RESIDUUM -Very Stiff Red, Tan And Black
4-7-10-10
17
SILT
28.1
_x
ML
_x
10-13-10-11
23
31.0
10
Boring Terminated
No Groundwater Encountered

C
C
C
It
C
cc
qj
PROJECT NO.: 2530.2100003.0000
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 1850597
PROJECT:
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
CLIENT:
Alfred Benesch & Company
LOCATION:
SEE ATTACHED BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B-04
SHEET: 1 of 1
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
* <24HR WATER TABLE (ft):
i >24HR WATER TABLE (ft):
DATE OF READING:
DATE STARTED:
3/11/21
DATE FINISHED:
3/11/21
DRILLED BY:
CG2 Drilling
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
ASTM D 1586
DEPTH
(FT.)
S
A
M
P
E
BLOWS
PER 6"
INCREMENT
N
(BLOWS/
FT.)
W.T.
S
Y
M
BO
L
DESCRIPTION
200
0
(1/0(1/0LL
MC
0
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
K
(FT./
DAY)
POCKET
PEN.
(tsf)
PI
0
TOPSOIL 6"
RESIDUUM -Stiff Brown And Gray LEAN CLAY
2-3-6-7
9
19.9
_x
CL
RESIDUUM -Stiff Black, Gray And White LEAN
7-6-5-4
11
CLAY With Gravel
39.0
_x
CL
40
RESIDUUM -Firm Gray ELASTIC SILT
5
2-34-5.....7..
MH........ .................. ......... ...............
30:5........
.....
_x
RESIDUUM -Soft Gray And Orange ELASTIC
2-2-2-4
4
SILT
33.7
_x
MH
2-2-3-4
5
36.7
10
RESIDUUM -Firm Gray SILT
ML
2-3-3
6
15
...........
.......
...
-.-.--.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. 1.5
Boring Terminated
........
....................
.....
........................
No Groundwater Encountered

C
C
C
It
C
cc
qj
PROJECT NO.: 2530.2100003.0000
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 1850597
PROJECT:
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
CLIENT:
Alfred Benesch & Company
LOCATION:
SEE ATTACHED BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B-05
SHEET: 1 of 1
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
* <24HR WATER TABLE (ft):
i >24HR WATER TABLE (ft):
DATE OF READING:
DATE STARTED:
3/11/21
DATE FINISHED:
3/11/21
DRILLED BY:
CG2 Drilling
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
ASTM D 1586
DEPTH
(FT.)
S
A
M
P
E
BLOWS
PER 6"
INCREMENT
N
(BLOWS/
FT.)
W.T.
S
Y
M
BO
L
DESCRIPTION
200
0
(1/0(1/0LL
MC
0
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
K
(FT./
DAY)
POCKET
PEN.
(tsf)
PI
0V,
TOPSOIL 6"
2-2-2-2
4
RESIDUUM -Soft Reddish -Brown ELASTIC
20.3
_x
SILT With Trace Organics
MH 2.
1-1-1-3
2
19.3
RESIDUUM -Very Soft Reddish -Brown And
Black SANDY ELASTIC SILT
_x
MH 4.
RESIDUUM -Firm Red ELASTIC SILT With
5
1-24-4
6
Trace Organics
21:0
_x
MH
5-6-6-7
12
27.3
_x
RESIDUUM -Firm Red And Orange SILT
2-4-4-5
8
ML
39.4
10
2-3-4
7
15
...........
.......
...
—.—.——.—.—.—.—.—.—.—.—.—.—.—.—.—.—.—. 1.5
Boring Terminated
........
....................
.....
........................
No Groundwater Encountered

C
C
C
It
C
cc
qj
PROJECT NO.: 2530.2100003.0000
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 1850597
PROJECT:
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
CLIENT:
Alfred Benesch & Company
LOCATION:
SEE ATTACHED BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B-06
SHEET: 1 of 1
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
* <24HR WATER TABLE (ft):
i >24HR WATER TABLE (ft):
DATE OF READING:
DATE STARTED:
3/11/21
DATE FINISHED:
3/11/21
DRILLED BY:
CG2 Drilling
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
ASTM D 1586
DEPTH
(FT.)
S
A
M
P
E
BLOWS
PER 6"
INCREMENT
N
(BLOWS/
FT.)
W.T.
S
Y
M
BO
L
DESCRIPTION
200
0
(1/0(1/0LL
MC
0
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
K
(FT./
DAY)
POCKET
PEN.
(tsf)
PI
0
TOPSOIL 3"
3-4-5-8
9
22.3
FILL -Stiff Reddish -Brown ELASTIC SILT With
_x
Trace Organics
MH
3-4-5-7
9
30.7
_x
T1
A n
RESIDUUM -Firm Red, Brown And Tan
5
2-3-5-6
8
ELASTIC.SILT WITH SAND. With Trace Mica.....
28:5
_x
MH
60
RESIDUUM -Stiff Tan And Red SILT WITH
3-5-6-7
11
SAND With Trace Mica
30.4
_x
ML
8.0
RESIDUUM -Stiff Tan, Black And Red SILT
3-5-7-7
12
WITH SAND
32.5
ML
10
Boring Terminated
No Groundwater Encountered

C
C
C
It
C
cc
qj
PROJECT NO.: 2530.2100003.0000
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 1850597
PROJECT:
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
CLIENT:
Alfred Benesch & Company
LOCATION:
SEE ATTACHED BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B-07
SHEET: 1 of 1
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
* <24HR WATER TABLE (ft):
i >24HR WATER TABLE (ft):
DATE OF READING:
DATE STARTED:
3/15/21
DATE FINISHED:
3/11/21
DRILLED BY:
CG2 Drilling
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
ASTM D 1586
S
S
DEPTH
A
M
BLOWS
N
Y
M
200
MC
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
K
POCKET
(FT.)
PER 6"
(BLOWS/
W.T.
BO
DESCRIPTION
0
(1/0(1/0LL
0
(FT./
PEN.
P
INCREMENT
FT.)
DAY)
(tsf)
E
L
PI
0
TOPSOIL 4"
2-3-4-5
7
24.4
RESIDUUM -Firm Reddish -Brown And Black
LEAN CLAY With Trace Organics And Rock
_x
Fragments 2.
CL
6-4-7-14
11
31.4
RESIDUUM -Stiff Red And Black ELASTIC SILT
With Trace Organics 4
.
MH
5
4-5-7-10
12
26:2
RESIDUUM -Stiff Red ELASTIC SILT
_x
MH
6.0
RESIDUUM -Stiff Tan And Orange SILT WITH
3-5-5-7
10
SAND
23.8
_x
ML
80
RESIDUUM -Firm Tan, Orange And Red SILT
3-3-5-7
8
WITH SAND
23.2
ML
10
Boring Terminated
No Groundwater Encountered

C
C
C
It
C
cc
qj
PROJECT NO.: 2530.2100003.0000
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 1850597
PROJECT:
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
CLIENT:
Alfred Benesch & Company
LOCATION:
SEE ATTACHED BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B-08
SHEET: 1 of 1
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
* <24HR WATER TABLE (ft):
i >24HR WATER TABLE (ft):
DATE OF READING:
DATE STARTED:
3/11/21
DATE FINISHED:
3/11/21
DRILLED BY:
CG2 Drilling
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
ASTM D 1586
DEPTH
(FT.)
S
A
M
P
E
BLOWS
PER 6"
INCREMENT
N
(BLOWS/
FT.)
W.T.
S
Y
M
BO
L
DESCRIPTION
200
0
(1/0(1/0LL
MC
0
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
K
(FT./
DAY)
POCKET
PEN.
(tsf)
PI
0V,
TOPSOIL 6"
2-3-3-6
6
RESIDUUM -Firm Reddish -Brown ELASTIC
24.1
_x
SILT With Trace Organics
MH
3-4-4-7
8
29.9
_x
4.0
RESIDUUM -Stiff Tan And Orange SILT
5
2-4-6-8.......10.
...
ML........ .................. ......... ...............
27:9...........
.....
........................
_x
60
RESIDUUM -Firm Red And Tan SILT
_x
2-3-4-6
7
ML
29.8
_x
3-3-5-7
8
32.7
10
H
Boring Terminated
No Groundwater Encountered

C
C
C
It
C
cc
qj
PROJECT NO.: 2530.2100003.0000
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 1850597
PROJECT:
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
CLIENT:
Alfred Benesch & Company
LOCATION:
SEE ATTACHED BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B-09
SHEET: 1 of 1
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
* <24HR WATER TABLE (ft):
i >24HR WATER TABLE (ft):
DATE OF READING:
DATE STARTED:
3/11/21
DATE FINISHED:
3/11/21
DRILLED BY:
CG2 Drilling
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
ASTM D 1586
S
S
A
BLOWS
N
Y
ATTERBERG
K
POCKET
DEPTH
M
PER 6"
(BLOWS/
W.T.
M
BO
DESCRIPTION
200
0
MC
0
LIMITS
(FT./
PEN.
(FT.)
P
INCREMENT
FT.)
(1/0(1/0LL
DAY)
(tsf)
E
L
pI
0
TOPSOIL 4"
3-4-4-7
8
27.5
RESIDUUM -Firm Red And Black ELASTIC
SILT With Trace Organics And Topsoil
MH 2.
-Stiff Red ELASTIC SILT
x
3-4-6-7
10
RESIDUUM
40
35.9
RESIDUUM -Stiff Red ELASTIC SILT
5
3-5-6-7.......11..
MH........ .................. ......... ...............
...90.0......31:5......62.....29..
.......
_x
6.0
RESIDUUM -Stiff Red, Tan And Black SILT
_x
3-4-5-7
9
ML
46.1
_x
3-5-6-7
11
44.9
10
Boring Terminated
No Groundwater Encountered

C
C
C
It
C
cc
qj
PROJECT NO.: 2530.2100003.0000
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 1850597
PROJECT:
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
CLIENT:
Alfred Benesch & Company
LOCATION:
SEE ATTACHED BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B-1 O
SHEET: 1 of 1
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
* <24HR WATER TABLE (ft):
i >24HR WATER TABLE (ft):
DATE OF READING:
DATE STARTED:
3/11/21
DATE FINISHED:
3/11/21
DRILLED BY:
CG2 Drilling
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
ASTM D 1586
DEPTH
(FT.)
S
A
M
P
E
BLOWS
PER 6"
INCREMENT
N
(BLOWS/
FT.)
W.T.
S
Y
M
BO
L
DESCRIPTION
200
0
(1/0(1/0LL
MC
0
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
K
(FT./
DAY)
POCKET
PEN.
(tsf)
PI
0V,
TOPSOIL 6"
2-2-3-4
5
RESIDUUM -Firm Red ELASTIC SILT With
26.8
_x
Trace Organics
MH
2-3-5-5
8
24.4
_x
4.0
RESIDUUM -Firm Red And Tan ELASTIC SILT
5
2-34-5.....7..
MH........ .................. ......... ...............
27:7..
.....
_x
60
RESIDUUM -Firm Tan SILT
3-3-5-6
8
ML
27.8
_x
8.0
RESIDUUM -Firm Tan, Red And Black SILT
3-3-4-6
7
ML
29.2
10
Boring Terminated
No Groundwater Encountered

C
C
C
It
C
cc
qj
PROJECT NO.: 2530.2100003.0000
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 1850597
PROJECT:
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
CLIENT:
Alfred Benesch & Company
LOCATION:
SEE ATTACHED BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B-1 1
SHEET: 1 of 1
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
* <24HR WATER TABLE (ft):
i >24HR WATER TABLE (ft):
DATE OF READING:
DATE STARTED:
3/11/21
DATE FINISHED:
3/11/21
DRILLED BY:
CG2 Drilling
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
ASTM D 1586
S
S
DEPTH
A
M
BLOWS
N
Y
M
200
MC
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
K
POCKET
(FT.)
PER 6"
(BLOWS/
W.T.
BO
DESCRIPTION
0
(1/0(1/0LL
0
(FT./
PEN.
P
INCREMENT
FT.)
DAY)
(tsf)
E
L
PI
0V,
TOPSOIL 6"
2-1-2-2
3
RESIDUUM -Soft Tan And Black SANDY
18.5
ELASTIC SILT With Trace Organics
_x
MH 2.
RESIDUUM -Stiff Gray And Black SANDY
3-4-5-6
9
ELASTIC SILT With Trace Organics
29.0
_x
MH 4.
RESIDUUM -Stiff Tan, Gray And Orange
5
4 5-6 7.......11..
SANDY ELASTIC SILT .... ......... ...............
27:1..
.....
MH
6C
_x
RESIDUUM -Stiff Brown, Tan And Orange
9-7-6-9
13
ELASTIC SILT
40.6
_x
MH
7-5-6-6
11
39.8
10
1.0
Boring Terminated
No Groundwater Encountered

c
C
I
C
cc
i
PROJECT NO.: 2530.2100003.0000
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 1850597
PROJECT: GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
CLIENT: Alfred Benesch & Company
LOCATION: SEE ATTACHED BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B-1 2
SHEET: 1 Of 1
G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 3/11/21
* <24HR WATER TABLE (ft): DATE FINISHED: 3/11/21
i >24HR WATER TABLE (ft): 4.1 DRILLED BY: CG2 Drilling
DATE OF READING: TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D 1586
S
S
A
BLOWS
N
Y
ATTERBERG
K
POCKET
DEPTH
M
PER 6"
(BLOWS/
W.T.
M
BO
DESCRIPTION
200
0
MC
0
LIMITS
(FT./
PEN.
(FT.)
P
INCREMENT
FT.)
(1/0(1/0LL
DAY)
(tsf)
E
L
pI
0
TOPSOIL 4"
1-1-1-1
2
37.0
RESIDUUM -Very Soft Gray And Black SANDY
_x
LEAN CLAY With Trace Organics
CL
2-1-3-4
4
53.4
_x
4.1
5
_x
2-24-4.......6..
72.9......19:0.......28......12..
.......
2-2-4-6
6
21.3
_x
RESIDUUM -Medium Dense Gray SILTY SAND
6-12-13-18
25
SM
22.2
10
RESIDUUM -Medium Dense Gray SILTY SAND
SM
6-7-14
21
15
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK- When
Sampled Becomes Gray SILTY SAND With
50/2"
50/2"
Gravel
SM
J
20
N J i
50/4"
50/4"
25
...........
..................
...
......... .................. ......... ...............
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK- When
Sampled Becomes Gray SILTY SAND With
`
Gravel
14-50/2"
50/2"
SM
30
J Y-
Boring Terminated

c
C
I
c
cc
i
PROJECT NO.: 2530.2100003.0000
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 1850597
PROJECT: GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Waxhaw Downtown Central Park
Waxhaw, North Carolina
CLIENT: Alfred Benesch & Company
LOCATION: SEE ATTACHED BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B-1 3
SHEET: 1 Of 1
G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 3/11/21
* <24HR WATER TABLE (ft): DATE FINISHED: 3/11/21
i >24HR WATER TABLE (ft): 2.5 DRILLED BY: CG2 Drilling
DATE OF READING: TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D 1586
S
S
DEPTH
A
M
BLOWS
N
Y
M
200
MC
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
K
POCKET
(FT.)
PER 6"
(BLOWS/
W.T.
BO
DESCRIPTION
0
(1/0(1/0LL
0
(FT./
PEN.
P
INCREMENT
FT.)
DAY)
(tsf)
E
L
PI
0
TOPSOIL 3"
2-1 -WO H
1
34.0
RESIDUUM -Very Soft Brown And Black
WOH
SANDY LEAN CLAY With Trace Organics
_x
CL 2.
1
RESIDUUM -Stiff Brown, Gray And Black
2-3-6-4
g
2.5
44.1
SANDY LEAN CLAY With Trace Organics
_x
CL
5
2-2-3-3.......5..
15:5........
RESIDUUM -Medium Dense Gray SILTY SAND
4-6-6-8
12
SM
23.6
3-5-6-9
11
28.2
10
_x
3-5-8
13
15
...........
.......
..........:....
......... .................. ......... ...............
17.0
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK -Very Dense
Gray SILTY SAND With Gravel
50/4"
50/4"
SM
J
20
N J i
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK -Very Dense
Gray SILTY SAND With Gravel
50/1"
50/1"
SM
J v
25
...........
.......
...
r�
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK -Very Dense
Gray SILTY SAND With Gravel
50/2"
50/2"
SM
30
J Y-
Boring Terminated

ENGINEERING SCIENCES

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

problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical
engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team
after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical
engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's
plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret
a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and
preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical
construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs
based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory
data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a
geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn
for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only
photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but
recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they
can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface
conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation.
To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the
complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with
a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise
constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes
of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited;
encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer
who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/
or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of
information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also
be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform
additional study. Only then might you be in a position to
give constructors the best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial
responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to
recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than
other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding
has created unrealistic expectations that have led to
disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include
a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes
labeled "limitations; many of these provisions indicate where
geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help
others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read
these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical
engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform
an environmental study differ significantly from those used to
perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical-
engineering report does not usually relate any environmental
findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about
the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks
or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental
problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not
yet obtained your own environmental information,
ask your geotechnical consultant for risk -management
guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
someone else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal
with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design,
construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent
significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.
To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for
the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a
comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a
professional mold -prevention consultant. Because just a small
amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of
severe mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategies
focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater,
water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed
as part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in
charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant;
none of the services performed in connection with the
geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for
the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the
recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be
sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure
involved.
Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer
for Additional Assistance
Membership in the Geotechnical Business Council of the
Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk -confrontation techniques
that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with
a construction project. Confer with you GBC-Member
geotechnical engineer for more information.
GErmGEOTECHNICAL
BUSINESS COUNCIL
41
oftheGeolmnfe imalBmin—A..s iatian
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone:[phone] Facsimile:301/589-2017
e-mail: [e-mail] wwwgeoprofessional.org
Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part,
by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document
is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use
this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without
being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

CONSTRAINTS & RESTRICTIONS
The intent of this document is to bring to your attention the potential concerns and the basic limitations of a typical geotechnical report.
WARRANTY
Universal Engineering Sciences has prepared this report for our client
for his exclusive use, in accordance with generally accepted soil and
foundation engineering practices, and makes no other warranty either
expressed or implied as to the professional advice provided in the
report.
UNANTICIPATED SOIL CONDITIONS
The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based
upon the data obtained from soil borings performed at the locations
indicated on the Boring Location Plan. This report does not reflect any
variations which may occur between these borings.
The nature and extent of variations between borings may not become
known until excavation begins. If variations appear, we may have to
re-evaluate our recommendations after performing on -site
observations and noting the characteristics of any variations.
CHANGED CONDITIONS
We recommend that the specifications for the project require that the
contractor immediately notify Universal Engineering Sciences, as well
as the owner, when subsurface conditions are encountered that are
different from those present in this report.
No claim by the contractor for any conditions differing from those
anticipated in the plans, specifications, and those found in this report,
should be allowed unless the contractor notifies the owner and
Universal Engineering Sciences of such changed conditions. Further,
we recommend that all foundation work and site improvements be
observed by a representative of Universal Engineering Sciences to
monitor field conditions and changes, to verify design assumptions
and to evaluate and recommend any appropriate modifications to this
report.
MISINTERPRETATION OF SOIL ENGINEERING REPORT
Universal Engineering Sciences is responsible for the conclusions and
opinions contained within this report based upon the data relating only
to the specific project and location discussed herein. If the
conclusions or recommendations based upon the data presented are
made by others, those conclusions or recommendations are not the
responsibility of Universal Engineering Sciences.
CHANGED STRUCTURE OR LOCATION
This report was prepared in order to aid in the evaluation of this
project and to assist the architect or engineer in the design of this
project. If any changes in the design or location of the structure as
outlined in this report are planned, or if any structures are included or
added that are not discussed in the report, the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered
valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions modified
or approved by Universal Engineering Sciences.
USE OF REPORT BY BIDDERS
Bidders who are examining the report prior to submission of a bid are
cautioned that this report was prepared as an aid to the designers of
the project and it may affect actual construction operations.
Bidders are urged to make their own soil borings, test pits, test
caissons or other investigations to determine those conditions that
may affect construction operations. Universal Engineering Sciences
cannot be responsible for any interpretations made from this report or
the attached boring logs with regard to their adequacy in reflecting
subsurface conditions which will affect construction operations.
STRATA CHANGES
Strata changes are indicated by a definite line on the boring logs
which accompany this report. However, the actual change in the
ground may be more gradual. Where changes occur between soil
samples, the location of the change must necessarily be estimated
using all available information and may not be shown at the exact
depth.
OBSERVATIONS DURING DRILLING
Attempts are made to detect and/or identify occurrences during drilling
and sampling, such as: water level, boulders, zones of lost circulation,
relative ease or resistance to drilling progress, unusual sample
recovery, variation of driving resistance, obstructions, etc.; however,
lack of mention does not preclude their presence.
WATER LEVELS
Water level readings have been made in the drill holes during drilling
and they indicate normally occurring conditions. Water levels may not
have been stabilized at the last reading. This data has been reviewed
and interpretations made in this report. However, it must be noted
that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to
variations in rainfall, temperature, tides, and other factors not evident
at the time measurements were made and reported. Since the
probability of such variations is anticipated, design drawings and
specifications should accommodate such possibilities and construction
planning should be based upon such assumptions of variations.
LOCATION OF BURIED OBJECTS
All users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for
Universal Engineering Sciences to attempt to locate any man-made
buried objects during the course of this exploration and that no
attempt was made by Universal Engineering Sciences to locate any
such buried objects. Universal Engineering Sciences cannot be
responsible for any buried man-made objects which are subsequently
encountered during construction that are not discussed within the text
of this report.
TIME
This report reflects the soil conditions at the time of exploration. If the
report is not used in a reasonable amount of time, significant changes
to the site may occur and additional reviews may be required.
ENGINEERING, SCIENCES