SW3220901_Soils/Geotechnical Report_20220914

PRELIMINARY SUBSURFACE GEOTECHNICAL
EVALUATION REPORT
G:
Proposed Blythe Mill Townhomes
Waxhaw, North Carolina
GTSI-GE0202006-167
August 17, 2020
Prepared for:
Eastwood Homes
Charlotte, North Carolina
�H CA -,
0P i
_ 1.
SEAS
031005
,gyp .</v OJQ
/�1�11111141 ��,
Prepared By:
Ground Technological Services, Inc.
2067 North Highway 16
Denver, North Carolina 28037
[phone]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................3
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................3
2.1 General.........................................................................................
3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES.......................................................................................3
3.1 General...................................................................................3
3.2 General Subsurface Conditions...................................................................3
3.3 Measured Groundwater Levels........................................................................4
3.4 Measured Rock........................................................................
3.5 Seismic Site Classification..............................................................4
4.0 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RE COMMENDATIONS........4
4.1 General...................................................................................4
4.2 Stripping and Proofrolling..............................................................4
4.3 Structural Fill Material..................................................................5
4.4 ical Paved Areas.....................................................................5
5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................6
5.1 Foundation...............................................................................6
5.2 Slab on Grade............................................................................6
5.3 Pavement.................................................................................6
6.0 QUALITY CONTROL........................................................................................................7
7.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................7
APPENDIX
1. Association of Soils and Foundation Engineers (ASFE) Publication
2, Boring Location Plan, Figure 1
3, Report of Soil Profile
2

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Ground Technological Services, Inc. (GTSI) has completed the preliminary subsurface
geotechnical evaluation for the proposed residential project. The proposed project site is located on
the north side of the intersection of Blythe Mill Road and N Providence Street in Waxhaw, NC.
GTSI herein submits the subsurface data accompanied by our comments and recommendations. The
Appendix contains an Association of Soils and Foundation Engineers (ASFE) Publication, a test pit
location plan (Figure 1) and a report of Test Pit Evaluation.
The purpose of this preliminary subsurface investigation is to obtain general information regarding
the subsurface soil conditions for the proposed development. GTSI attempted to obtain the
subsurface information from test pits located across the site.
This report does not include any environmental assessment of the site.
There are important limitations to this and all geotechnical studies and some of these limitations are
discussed in the Association of Soil and Foundation Engineers (ASFE) publication, which is
included in the Appendix.
2.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Site General
The subject +/-20.49-acre site is mainly open with some wooded areas. The surrounding area in
general is comprised of residential to rural residential land use.
3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
3.1 General Procedures
As requested, ten (10) ten -foot test pits were excavated at select locations across the site with a
Track Excavator. Visual observations only were performed to classify the excavated soils.
The test pit locations were field determined by GTSI using GPS and random selection.
3.2 General Subsurface Conditions
All test pits generally encountered silty soils with trace clay overlain by minimal topsoil
(< .25").
3

A more detailed description of the soils encountered is attached for your review. The excavated soil
layers were classified in the field by trained soil technicians. Soil types are indicated in the attached
test pit logs. Based on the test pits performed, it appears in general the soils are suitable for the
development of the project proposed.
The results of the field exploration test pit logs are summarized in the report in the Appendix. The
stratifications as presented in the soil descriptions represent our interpretation of the soils
encountered during the performance of the excavation. The stratification lines represent the
approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transitions may be more gradual than implied.
Please refer to the attached report for additional detail located in the Appendix.
3.3 Measured Groundwater Levels
At test pit termination depths, no groundwater was encountered in any of the test pits with dry soils
at termination.
Measured Rock
GTSI did not encounter rock during the advancement of the test pits.
3.5 Seismic Site Classification
Based on previous extensive site evaluations within the general planned project area, and according
to Section 1615.1.1 of the IBC (International Building Code), GTSI assigns a Class D site
classification.
4.0 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 General
It is GTSI's opinion that the planned development area is acceptable for its proposed use based on
the following recommendations which in our opinion best match the anticipated construction to the
existing soil conditions. The recommendations are made as a guide for the design engineer and/or
architects. The site grading plan has not been provided to GTSI at this time. Based on previous
work performed in the area these soils are typically silty sands and suitable for use as structural fill.
4.2 Stripping and Proofrollin
All vegetation, organic laden soil, debris and any otherwise unsuitable materials must be stripped
from all areas of proposed construction including areas extending at least fifteen feet beyond the
limits of the proposed buildings and five feet beyond the limits of proposed pavements, unless
noted otherwise. Objectionable materials should be removed off -site or stockpiled in a designated
area on -site to prevent their incorporation into any engineered fill.
4

Once all the unsuitable materials have been removed, a GTSI registered Engineer or his
representative should be contacted to observe proofroll testing. Proofrolling is performed to locate
any unforeseen soft areas or unsuitable surface or near surface soils, and prepare the surface for
addition of the fill Soils. Those areas not requiring undercutting procedures would require proof
rolling of the building pad consisting of at least two passes in each direction of a compactor capable
of delivering a minimum force of 30,000 to 35,000 pounds per drum or similar loaded pneumatic
vehicle. Each pass should overlap the preceding pass by 30 percent to ensure complete coverage.
In areas that continue to "yield", all deleterious material should be removed and replaced with a
clean, granular structural fill. The proofroll should occur after cutting and prior to filling. The
proofroll should produce a surface devoid of deflection, pumping, rutting or other visual indications
of soft or deleterious soils. Additional passes and/or undercutting may be required to produce
optimal conditions.
4.3 Structural Fill Material
All structural fill material, if required, should be free of organic materials, such as roots and
vegetation. As a general guide to the contractor, we recommend using 3 to 12 percent by dry weight
of soil passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve size. Structural fill should have a Plasticity Index
(PI) of less than 30 (preferably less than 15). In no circumstance shall highly plastic clays be
utilized as structural fill. Oversized rock (greater than 6.0 inches in diameter) should be properly
buried in non-structural fill areas, removed from the building site, or used for landscaping.
All general structural fill should be placed in level lifts not to exceed 12 inches in uncompacted
thickness. Each lift should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D-
698) maximum dry density value except as noted in section 4.4. The filling and compaction
operations should continue in lifts until the design elevation(s) is achieved with final subgradc
elevation compacted to 100% for both building and asphalt areas.
Due to the consistency of the onsite generally silty sandy soils, the surfaces of the compacted
subgrade or residual soil can deteriorate rapidly and lose its support capabilities when exposed to
drying, periods of inclement weather conditions and construction traffic. Subgrade surfaces subject
to deterioration should be proof -rolled and if required, replaced with suitable compatible soils
immediately prior to concrete placement or installation of pavement.
4.4 Typical Paved Areas
GTSI has not been provided with detailed information concerning probable traffic loading, but we
assume that the pavement areas will be used periodically for heavy-duty traffic such as delivery
vehicles in addition to the light duty traffic. All areas to be paved should be stripped of loose soils
disturbed during construction. The subgrade should then be compacted to achieve a density of
100% of the standard proctor (ASTM D-698) maximum density for the following depths.
5

1. 24 inches for light -duty traffic; and
2. 24 inches for heavy-duty traffic.
5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Foundations
GTSI has not been provided with structural loading information due to the preliminary nature of the
project. We understand that the area of investigation will be single family homes with pertinent
asphalt roadways. GTSI's opinion is that structural support can be provided by means of shallow,
individual and continuous footings bearing upon a competent combination of undisturbed natural
soil and engineered fill. Based on the observed conditions as encountered in the field exploration,
we would anticipate 2500 pounds er s uare foot OLsD allowable soil bearing pressure. However a
re-evaluation of the soils should be considered based on final design and loading requirements of
the planned structures.
All bearing wall and column foundation designs should be in accordance with all state and local
building codes. Minimum soil coverage of 18 inches should be maintained from the bottom of the
exterior foundations to the adjacent outside finished grades for frost heave protection.
5.2 Slab -On -Grade
A properly constructed slab -on -grade is expected to perform satisfactorily. The slab design should
incorporate a minimum four -inch thickness of positively drained, granular base material.
Compaction beneath all floor slabs should meet 100 percent criteria (Standard Proctor, ASTM D-
698).
Precautions should be taken during the slab construction to minimize moisture entry from the
underlying subgrade soils. This can be achieved through the installation of an impervious
membrane (vapor barrier) between the subgrade soils and floor slab. A 6mil thick polyethylene film
is commonly used for this purpose. Care should be exercised when placing the reinforcing steel (or
mesh) and slab concrete to assure that the membrane is not punctured.
The slab -on -grade should be isolated from building columns and walls. If interior columns are
isolated from the floor slab, isolation joints should be provided around the columns and sealed with
a waterproof sealant.
5.3 Pavement
In the design of the pavement, the total thickness includes the asphaltic concrete, base course and
stabilized subbase. This flexible pavement evaluation is based on an estimated California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) value of 4 for the representative on -site soils and the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), "Design of Pavement Structures."

Light Duty Pavement:
SF9.5A or S9.513 Surface Course 2.0 inches
Aggregate Base Course (ABC) 6.0 inches
Heavy Duty Pavement:
SF9.5A or S9.5B Surface Course 3.0 inches
Aggregate Base Course (ABC) 8.0 inches
Materials and placement procedures shall be in accordance with NCDOT Standard Specifications
for Roads and Structures, January, 2018.
Actual pavement section thickness should be provided by the design civil engineer based upon
traffic, volume, and owner's design life requirements. The above recommendations represent
minimum thickness representative of typical, local construction practices and maintenance should
be anticipated.
6.0 QUALITY CONTROL
We recommend establishing a comprehensive quality control program so that all site preparation,
foundation, and pavement construction is conducted in accordance with the appropriate plans and
specifications. If required, Ground Technological Services, Inc., Denver office, can provide
materials testing and inspection services.
7.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS
These preliminary analyses and recommendations submitted herein are based upon the data
obtained from the soil borings presented on the attached logs and the assumed loading conditions.
This report does not reflect any soil variations, which may occur between the borings presented on
Figure 1, Test Pit Location Plan. The nature and extent of the variations between the borings may
not become evident until or after construction commences. If variations then appear evident, the
characteristics of the variations should be evaluated, and it will be necessary to re-evaluate the
recommendations presented in this report.
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation
engineering practices. In the event any changes occur in the design, nature, or location of the
proposed facilities, Ground Technological Services, Inc. should review the applicability of
conclusions and recommendations in this report. We also recommend a review of any design
modifications to the final design and specifications by our office to ensure that earthwork and
foundation recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented in the design specifications.
7

APPENDIX
1. Association of Soil and Foundation Engineers (ASFE) Publication
2. Test Pit Location Plan, Figure 1
3. Report of Soil Profile

AA�AA�Mi AI �MlilNAAMNM#i 11ANAi�>�
r— 1iI�I tIIIIIII1�I1�I IIIII KI�IIII111 -- —
UMUIUMMU1 UPHINIUU1 111isM 11UUUI L
■
Geotechnical Sepvices Ape Performed fop
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geolechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of
their clients. A geolechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi-
neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer, Because each geolechnical engineering study is unique, each
geolechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No
one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report wilheul
lirst ccn€erring wilh Ilia geolechnical engineer who prepared it. And rro one
-- not even YOU ---should apply the report for any purpose or project
except the one originally conlemp€tiled.
Read the Full Repopt
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geolechnical
• elevation, configuration, location, orionlation, or weight of the
proposed structure,
• composition of the design team, or
a project oviflership.
As a general rule, alwaysinfarm your geolechnical engineer of project
changes —even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impact.
Geolectinical engineers cannot accepl respoasibilfly or liability for problems
that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which
they were rtol informed.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geolechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at
the lime the study was performed. Do not rely on a geolechnical engineer -
engineering repoil did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary, ing wpofl whose adequacy may have been alfecled by: [lie passage of
Do not read selected elements only, lime; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;
A Geotechnical ingineeNno Report Is Rased on
A Unique Set of Project-Sjj:ceiftc Facteps
GeoNchnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac-
lors when eslablishing the. scope of a study. typical faclors include: the
clients goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general
nature of the slructure involved, its site, 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
geolechnical engifleer who conducted the study specifically indicates olh-
envise, do not rely ofl a geolechnical engineering report that was:
a not prepared for you,
not prepared for your projecl,
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
engiriesrfng 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 plan[
to a rat, igerated warehouse,
or by natural events, such as floods, earlhquakes, or ground,vater flucitia-
liofls. Always conlac[ the geolechnical engineer before applying the report
to dclermine it it is still reliable. A minor amouni of additionat lasting or
analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Ape Ppefessional
Opinions
Site exploration idenlifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi•
neers 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 signilicantly—
from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geolechnical engineer
who developed your report to provide construction obseivalion is the
most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated
conditions.
A Re>pept`s Recommendations Ariz Not final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your
report. Those recommendations are not final, because geolechnical engi-
neers develop lhem principally from judgment afld opinion. Geolechnical
engineers can iinalize their recommendations only by observing actual

subsurface condilions revealed during construction. The geolechnical
engineer who developed your report cannot assume responslbility or
liabilily for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform
construction observation.
A Geotechnical xngineeping Report is Subject to
Misinterpretation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering
reports has resulted in costly problems. lower that risk by having your geo-
lechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after
submitting the report. Also retain your geolechnical engineer to review perti-
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can
also misinterpret a geolechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by
having your geolechnical engineer participale in prebid and preconsiruclion
conferences, and by providing construction observation.
Do Not Redpaw 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 geolechnical engineering report should
never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
f ial separating logs from the report can elevate risk
Give Contractors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what
they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-
tractors the complete geotechnicai engineering report, butpreface it with a
clearly written letter of transmittal. In that lefler, advise contractors that the
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the
report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with [lie 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 conirac-
lors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you
be In a position to give contractors [lie best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the linancial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci-
plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that
have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geolechnical engineers commonly include a variety of
explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations"
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi-
bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities
and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geolechnical
engineer should respond fully and (rankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Coverer
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-
mentalstudy differ significantly from those used to perform a geolechnical
study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report hoes not usually
relale any geoenvironmeniat 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 geoen-
vironmental information, ask your geolechnical consultant for risk man-
agement 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, construclion,
operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from
growing on Indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be
devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, Integrated into a com-
prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional
mold prevention consul tanl, Because just a small amount of water or
moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num-
ber of mold prevention strategies focus on loping building surfaces dry.
While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been
addressed as part of the geolechnical engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geolechnical engineer in charge of this
project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per-
formed In connection with the geolechnical engineer's study
were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-
tion. Proper Implementation of the recommendations conveyed
in this report will not of Itself he sufficient to prevent mold from
growing In or on the structure Involved.
Rely, on Your ASH -Member Geotechncial
Engineer for Additional Assistance
Membership in ASFE/fhe Best People on Earth exposes geolechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of
genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer
with you ASFE-member gootechnical engineer for more information.
ASFE
The Best People en Earth
8811 Golesville (load/Suite G 10G, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone:[phone] Famimile:301/589-2017
e-mail: intagasfe.org wvm.asfe.org
Copyright 2004 by ASFF, Inc. DoplIcaticr,, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in parr, by any means whatsoever. fs strictly prohrbfled, except with ASFE'
specific written pemmission. Excerpring. quoting, or otherwise extracting hording from this document is permitted oniv with the express written permission of ASFE and only for
purposes of scholarly research or book review only members ofASFF may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any 01her
firm, individual. or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresenlatron.
11GER06045,0M

i
,
11
------ ---- .....
1 + + 'fee� r
l ..
j
a_ �� — ♦ t t�'1j
V 1a �
`� '' \ �. -• `' 1 U7 q t
it
��� ti•� '� �� ' q \ i , 4 I1'I
�,'����// '�\ `'` '' ; l 1 .,t� Y•� � �\ � •�} � .� `I � � } i � I i r ,;,J�r,#' � ''�yE��,_ —_ ''� -J t (i
• r
f : � �` � , ! ,� `i _.f �// r.�"� -�� . --� ti�t'�/fit �; ''F } \ •\e ,� 1 1 '�`\
� // , Ili ' � F} 1 ,� , ` ���� \� � �#1t1�1; r11� '_--� ti � \♦ `a � F r ,�
--- SCALE: N.T.S. BLYTHE MULL TOWNHOMES
TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN
DRAWN BY: A.M.T. WAXHAW, NC - UNION COUNTY
FOR:
DATE: 08.13.2020 EASTWOOD HOMES
GTSI-GE0202006-167
O ROUND
T ECHNOLOGICAL
S ERVICES
1 NC.

BLYTHE MILL TOWNHOMES
WAXHAW, NORTH CAROLINA
TEST PIT SOIL EVALUATION
GTSI PROJECT NUMBER: GE0202006-167
PAGE 1 OF 4
DATE
BORING
STRATUM
SOIL, DESCRIPTION
TEST
LOCATION
DEPTH
DEPTH (ft)
08/07/2020
TEST PIT 1
1/4" TOPSOIL
SG
TAN SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-1
TAN SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-2
TAN SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-3
TAN SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-4
TAN SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-5
TAN/BLACK SILT W/ TRACE MICA/CLAY/PWR*
-6
TANBLACK SILT W/ TRACE MICA/CLAY/PWR*
-7
TAN/BLACK SILT W/ TRACE MICA/CLAY/PWR*
-8
TAN/BLACK SILT W/ TRACE MICA/CLAY/PWR*
-9
TAN/BLACKMMTE SILT W/ TRACE
MICA/CLAY/PWR*
-10
*PWR = PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK*
08/07/2020
TEST PIT 2
1" TOPSOIL
SG
RED/BROWN SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-1
BROWN SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-2
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-3
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-4
RED/BROWN SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-5
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-6
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-7
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-8
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-9
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-10
*PWR =PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK*
08/07/2020
TEST PIT 3
-2" TOPSOIL
SG
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-1
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-2
RED/ORANGE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-3
RED/ORANGE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-4
RED/ORANGE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-5
RED/ORANGE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-6

BLYTHE MILL TOWNHOMES
WAXHAW, NORTH CAROLINA
TEST PIT SOIL EVALUATION
GTSI PROTECT NUMBER: GE0202006-167
PAGE 2 OF 4
DATE
BORING
STRATUM
SOIL DESCRIPTION
TEST
LOCATION
DEPTH
DEPTH (it)
08/07/2020
TEST PIT 3
RED/ORANGE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-7
CONTINUED
RED/PURPLE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-8
RED/PURPLE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-9
RED/PURPLE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-10
*PWR = PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK*
08/07/2020
TEST PIT 4
1" TOPSOIL
SG
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-1
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-2
RED/ORANGE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-3
RED/ORANGE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-4
RED/ORANGE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-5
RED/ORANGE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-6
RED/BROWN SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-7
RED/BROWN SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-8
RED/BROWN SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-9
ORANGE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-10
*PWR = PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK*
08/07/2020
TEST PIT 5
1/2" TOPSOIL
SG
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-1
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-2
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-3
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-4
RED/ORANGE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-5
RED/ORANGE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-6
ORANGE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-7
ORANGE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-8
LIGHT ORANGE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-9
LIGHT ORANGE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-10
*PWR = PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK*
08/07/2020
TEST PIT 6
1" TOPSOIL
SG
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-1
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-2
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-3

BLYTHE MILL TOWNHOMES
WAXHAW, NORTH CAROLINA
TEST PIT SOIL EVALUATION
GTSI PROJECT NUMBER: GE0202006-167
PAGE 3 OF 4
DATE
BORING
STRATUM
SOIL DESCRIPTION
TEST
LOCATION
DEPTH
DEPTH (ft)
08/07/2020
TEST PIT 6
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-4
CONTINUED
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-5
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-6
DARK RED/YELLOW SILT WI TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-7
DARK RED/YELLOW SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-8
DARK RED/YELLOW SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-9
DARK RED/YELLOW SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-10
*PWR = PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK'S .
08/08/2020
TEST PIT 7
1.5" TOPSOIL
SG
TAN/ORANGE SILT ILL GRASSROOTS
-1
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-2
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-3
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-4
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-5
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-6
RED/YELLOW SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-7
RED/YELLOW SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-8
RED/YELLOW SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-9
RED/YELLOW SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & PWR*
-10
*PWR.= PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK*
08/08/2020
TEST PIT 8
1" TOPSOIL.
SG
RED/LIGHT ORANGE SILT (FML) GRASSROOTS
-1
RED/LIGHT ORANGE SILT ILL GRASS ROOTS
-2
DARK RED CLAY W/ SILT
-3
RED CLAY SILT
-4
RED CLAY SILT
-5
RED CLAY SILT
-6
RED/ORANGE/YELLOW SILT W/ TRACE CLAY &
P,"X
-7
RED/ORANGE/YELLOW SILT W/ TRACE CLAY &
PWR*
-8
RED/ORANGE/YELLOW SILT W/ TRACE CLAY &
PWR*
-9

BLYTHE MILL TOWNHOMES
WAXHAW, NORTH CAROLINA
TEST PIT SOIL EVALUATION
GTSI PROTECT NUNIBER: GE0202006-167
PAGE 4OF4
DATE
BORING
STRATUM
SOIL DESCRIPTION
TEST
LOCATION
DEPTH
DEPTH (ft)
08/08/2020
TEST PIT 8
CONTINUED
RED/ORANGE/YELLOW SILT W/ TRACE CLAY &
PWR*
-10
*PWR = PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK*
08/08/2020
TEST PIT 9
1" TOPSOIL
SG
RED/ORANGE SILT ILL GRASSROOTS
-1
RED/ORANGE SILT ILL GRASS ROOTS
-2
DARK RED CLAY SILT
-3
RED CLAY SILT
-4
RED CLAY SILT
-5
RED CLAY SILT
-6
RED CLAY SILT W/ SAPROLITE(QUARTZ ROCK
-7
RED/ORANGE/YELLOW SILT W/ TRACE CLAY &
PWR*
-8
RED/ORANGE/YELLOW SILT W/ TRACE CLAY &
PWR*
-9
RED/ORANGE/YELLOW SILT W/ TRACE CLAY &
PWR*
-10
*PWR = PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK*
08/08/2020
TEST PIT 10
1' TOPSOIL W/ TREE ROOTS ORGANIC
SG
RED SILT W/ TRACE CLAY & TREE ROOTS
ORGANIC
-1
RED/ORANGE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-2
RED/ORANGE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-3
RED/ORANGE SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-4
ORANGE/YELLOW SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-5
ORANGE/YELLOW SILT W/ TRACE CLAY
-6
LIGHT ORANGE/YELLOW SfLT W/ CLAY
-7
LIGHT TAN/WHUE CLAY SILT
-8
LIGHT TAN/WHITE CLAY SILT
-9
WHITE CLAY SILT
-10