SW6221202_Soils/Geotechnical Report_20221214

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
HOLIDAY INN & SUITES
EASTOVER, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TM
PREPARED FOR:
MR. P. SINGH SANDHU
ALL TYPE CONSTRUCTION & MANAGEMENT, INC.
3229 S. COLLEGE ROAD
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28412
ECS PROJECT NUMBER 33:3711
June 22, 2016

ECS CAROLINAS, 9 LLP "Setting the Standard for Service"
Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental • Facilities NC Registered Engineering Firm F-1078
June 22, 2016
Mr. P. Singh Sandhu
All Type Construction & Management
3229 S. College Road
Wilmington, NC 28412
RE: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Services
Holiday Inn & Suites
Eastover, Cumberland County, North Carolina
ECS Project Number 33:3711
Dear Mr. Sandhu:
As authorized by your acceptance of ECS Proposal 33:2770 dated May 16, 2016, ECS has
completed the subsurface exploration and geotechnical services for the above -referenced
project.
This report presents the findings of our subsurface exploration and our evaluations, as well as
recommendations, regarding geotechnical-related design and construction considerations for
the site.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. We would also at this time like to
express our interest in providing a project -specific field construction testing and observation
services required during the construction phase of this project.
Should you have questions or if we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Respectfully Submitted,
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
Michael M. Ellis, El
Staff Professional
Winslow E. Goins, PE
Principal Engineer
NC PE License No. 033751
r
'7S'i W
*//22/1r6/•�
4+y 4 e
i•l�j�S`�,N\
726 Ramsey Street, Suite 3, Fayetteville, NC 28301 • T: 910-401-3288 • F: 910-323-0539 • www.ecslimited.com
ECS Carolinas, LLP • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLC • ECS Texas, LLP

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................1
2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW.........................................................................................................2
2.1 Project Information...........................................................................................................2
2.2 Scope of Work.................................................................................................................2
2.3 Purpose of Exploration.....................................................................................................2
3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES..........................................................................................3
3.1 Subsurface Exploration Procedures.................................................................................3
3.2 Laboratory Testing Program............................................................................................3
4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION...........................................................................................4
4.1 Site Conditions.................................................................................................................4
4.2 Regional Geology............................................................................................................4
4.3 Soil Conditions.................................................................................................................4
4.4 Groundwater Conditions..................................................................................................5
4.5 Laboratory Test results....................................................................................................5
5.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
..............................................................................6
5.1
Subgrade Preparation......................................................................................................6
5.2
Groundwater Control........................................................................................................6
5.3
Engineered Fill Placement...............................................................................................7
5.4
Foundations.....................................................................................................................8
5.5
Slab-on-Grade..............................................................................................................10
5.6
Pavement Design Considerations.................................................................................11
5.7
Site Drainage.................................................................................................................12
5.8
Construction Considerations..........................................................................................12
6.0 CLOSING...........................................................................................................................13
APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Boring Logs
Appendix C Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D General Conditions
Appendix E Procedures Regarding Field Logs, Laboratory Testing, and Samples

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services June 22, 2016
Holiday Inn & Suites
Eastover, Cumberland County, North Carolina
ECS Project Number 33:3711
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ECS Carolinas, LLP (ECS) has completed a subsurface exploration and geotechnical
engineering services for the proposed site located in Eastover, Cumberland County, North
Carolina. This summary should not be considered apart from the entire text of the report with
all the qualifications and conditions mentioned herein. Once the site plans are developed,
additional site -specific geotechnical exploration should be conducted.
The soil test borings encountered organic topsoil at the initial ground surface with thicknesses
of approximately 2 inches. Underlying the organic topsoil to approximately 10 feet, soils
consisting of stiff to very stiff, fat clay (CH), very soft to very stiff, sandy lean clay (CL), very
loose to dense, clayey and silty sand (SC, SM) were encountered in the borings. From 10 feet
to termination depths ranging from about 15 to 20 feet, borings B-1 through B-6 typically
encountered stiff, sandy lean clay (CL) and very loose to medium dense, clayey, silty, and clean
sand (SC, SM, SP).
The on -site sandy soils (SC, SM, SP) should be appropriate for use as backfill material for this
project, provided their moisture contents are within the acceptable range outlined in this report.
We anticipate that minor cuts and fills on the order of 3 feet or less will be incorporated into the
development of the site, with greater fill depths being anticipated for existing ditches at the site.
A perched groundwater condition may exist on the site and temporary groundwater control
measures may be necessary on the perimeter of the site.
Provided the site preparation recommendations in this report are followed, proposed lightly to
moderately loaded structures (column loads up to 150 kips and wall loads up to 5 kips per foot)
may be supported on conventional shallow foundations. For footings supported on firm natural
soil materials or new -engineered fill materials over firm natural soils, an allowable bearing
pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) is recommended. In order to achieve adequate
bearing and reduce the potential for post construction settlements of the structures, the
loose/soft near -surface soils encountered in the vicinity of boring B-2 may require localized
undercutting and replacement or other appropriate remedial activities if they exist at the
foundation subgrade elevation in building areas. Aggregate pier systems and driven timber
piles are alternative options that can be used for the foundation of the building instead of
undercutting the soft soils. Further details describing the foundation options are provided in
section 5.3 "Foundations Recommendations" of this report.
Based on the boring data, site conditions are suitable for a typical slab -on -grade section.
Therefore, we recommend supporting the floor slab as a slab -on -grade over existing natural
soils and new compacted structural fill that are stable when proofrolled.
Based on the boring data, site conditions are suitable for support of asphaltic or Portland
cement concrete pavement sections according to the criteria outlined in this report.
Based on the boring data, difficult excavations are not anticipated for shallow foundation or
utility excavations.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services June 22, 2016
Holiday Inn & Suites
Eastover, Cumberland County, North Carolina
ECS Project Number 33:3711
2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
2.1 Project Information
The project consists of the construction of a multi -story hotel along with associated parking and
driveways. The site is located near the intersection of Pembroke Lane and Goldsboro Road in
Eastover, Cumberland County, North Carolina. No additional project information including
structural information was available at the time of this report.
2.2 Scope of Work
The site was explored by drilling eight soil test borings (Borings B-1 through B-8) and sampling
the soils to termination and refusal depths ranging from approximately 10 to 20 feet below
existing site grades. The boring locations were located in the field by ECS personnel using
handheld GPS equipment and existing site features as reference. The locations shown should
be considered approximate given the methods used. A Site Location Plan and Boring Location
Diagram are provided in Appendix A of this report.
2.3 Purposes of Exploration
The purpose of this exploration program was to determine the soil and groundwater conditions
at the site and to develop engineering recommendations to assist in the design and
construction of the proposed project. We accomplished these objectives as follows:
• Performing a site reconnaissance to evaluate the existing site conditions,
• Performing soil test borings to explore the subsurface soil and groundwater
conditions,
• Performing laboratory tests on selected representative soil samples from the borings
to evaluate pertinent engineering properties; and,
• Analyzing the field and laboratory data to develop appropriate geotechnical
engineering design and construction recommendations.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services June 22, 2016
Holiday Inn & Suites
Eastover, Cumberland County, North Carolina
ECS Project Number 33:3711
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION
3.1 Exploration Procedures
The soil borings were performed with a drill rig, which utilized hollow stem augers (HSA) to
advance the boreholes.
Representative soil samples were obtained by means of the split -barrel sampling procedure in
general accordance with ASTM Specification D-1586. In this procedure, a 2-inch O. D. split -
barrel sampler is driven into the soil a distance of 18 inches by a 140 pound hammer with a free
fall of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through the final 12-inch
interval is termed the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-value and is indicated for each
sample on the boring logs.
The SPT N-value can be used to provide a qualitative indication of the in -place relative density
of cohesionless soils. In a less reliable way, SPT N-values provide an indication of consistency
for cohesive soils. These indications of relative density and consistency are qualitative, since
many factors can significantly affect the SPT N-value and prevent a direct correlation between
drill crews, drill rigs, drilling procedures, and hammer -rod -sampler assemblies.
Field logs of the soils encountered in the borings were maintained by the drill crew. The soil
samples obtained from the drilling operations were sealed in containers and were brought to
ECS' laboratory for visual classification.
3.2 Laboratory Testing Program
Representative soil samples obtained during our field exploration were selected and tested in
our laboratory to check field classifications and to determine pertinent engineering properties.
The laboratory testing program included:
• visual classifications of soil according to ASTM D 2487;
index property testing included natural moisture content determinations (ASTM D 2216),
grain size analyses (ASTM D 1140), and Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318).
Data obtained from the laboratory tests are included on the Laboratory Testing Summary and in
Appendix C of this report.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services June 22, 2016
Holiday Inn & Suites
Eastover, Cumberland County, North Carolina
ECS Project Number 33:3711
4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
4.1 Site Conditions
The site is located near the intersection of Pembroke Lane and Goldsboro Road in Eastover,
Cumberland County, North Carolina. The site is relatively level, cleared to moderately wooded,
and slopes upward from west to east with approximate site elevations ranging from 128 to 134
feet.
4.2 Site Geology
The site is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of North Carolina. The Coastal
Plain is composed of seven terraces, each representing a former level of the Atlantic Ocean.
Soils in this area generally consist of sedimentary materials transported from other areas by the
ocean or rivers. These deposits vary in thickness from a thin veneer along the western edge of
the region to more than 10,000 feet near the coast. The sedimentary deposits of the Coastal
Plain rest upon consolidated rocks similar to those underlying the Piedmont and Mountain
Physiographic Provinces. In general, shallow unconfined groundwater movement within the
overlying soils is largely controlled by topographic gradients. Recharge occurs primarily by
infiltration along higher elevations and typically discharges into streams or other surface water
bodies. The elevation of the shallow water table is transient and can vary greatly with seasonal
fluctuations in precipitation.
4.3 Soil Conditions
The soil conditions at each boring location are noted on the individual boring logs presented in
Appendix B. A general description is provided below and a summary of the soil stratigraphy is
shown on the Generalized Subsurface Profile in Appendix A. Subsurface conditions should be
expected to vary between boring locations.
The soil test borings encountered organic topsoil at the initial ground surface with thicknesses
of approximately 2 inches. The topsoil thicknesses reported on the logs was based on driller
observations and should be considered approximate. It should be noted that topsoil depths are
expected to vary throughout the site.
Underlying the organic topsoil to approximately 10 feet, soils consisting of stiff to very stiff, fat
clay (CH), very soft to very stiff, sandy lean clay (CL), very loose to dense, clayey and silty sand
(SC, SM) were encountered in the borings. The SPT resistance values (N-values) in the soils
ranged from weight of hammer (W.O.H) to 37 blows per foot (bpf).
From 10 feet to auger refusal depths ranging from about 15 to 20 feet, borings B-1 through B-6
typically encountered stiff, sandy lean clay (CL) and very loose to medium dense, clayey, silty,
and clean sand (SC, SM, SP) with N-values ranging from 3 to 11 bpf.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services June 22, 2016

4.4 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered at approximate depths ranging from 1 to 8 feet below existing
grades at borings B-1, B-2, B-5, and B-6. At borings B-3, B-4, B-7, and B-8 groundwater was
not encountered, however, cave in depths were observed to range from 6.5 to 8 feet. Cave in
depths can sometimes be indicative of groundwater. Based on the groundwater measurements
and our experience in the area, the groundwater readings are indicative of a perched water
table.
The highest groundwater observations are normally encountered in the late winter and early
spring. Variations in the location of the long-term water table may occur as a result of changes
in precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff, and other factors not immediately apparent at
the time of this exploration. Extended monitoring of the groundwater using wells would be
required to determine the fluctuation of the groundwater level over time.
4.5 Laboratory Test Results
The moisture contents in the tested samples ranged from 14.0 to 24.5 percent.
In the tested samples, the percent passing the No. 200 sieve ranged from 21.1 to 48.0 percent.
The Atterberg Limit tests resulted in liquid limits (LL) ranging from 40 to 56 and plastic limits
(PL) ranging from 20 to 25 in the tested samples, respectively.
Specific laboratory test results are provided in Appendix C of this report.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services June 22, 2016
Holiday Inn & Suites
Eastover, Cumberland County, North Carolina
ECS Project Number 33:3711
5.0 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following preliminary design and construction recommendations are based on our above -
stated understanding of the proposed potential development and on the data obtained from the
field exploration, visual soil classification, and laboratory results. The following preliminary
recommendations are for preliminary design purposes. Once preliminary structural loading,
geometry, and location of the structure are developed, we request the opportunity to review our
recommendations in light of the new information and revise them as necessary.
5.1 Subgrade Preparation
The first step in preparing the site for the proposed construction should be to remove
vegetation, rootmat, topsoil, debris, deleterious materials and other soft or unsuitable materials
from the existing ground surface. These operations should extend at least 10 feet, where
possible, beyond the planned limits of the proposed structures and pavements.
The exposed subgrade soils in structural and pavement areas should be proofrolled using a
loaded dump truck, prior to placing any new fill to raise the grade. The subgrade soils in cut
areas should also be proofrolled. The loaded dump truck should have an axle weight of at least
10 tons. Proofrolling should be observed by an experienced geotechnical engineer, or their
personnel, at the time of construction to aid in identifying areas with soft or unsuitable materials.
Soft or unsuitable materials encountered during proofrolling should be removed and replaced
with an approved backfill compacted to the criteria given in Section 5.3 Fill Placement and Soil
Compaction. Undercutting should be anticipated due to the presence of soft clays/loose sands
in the upper three feet.
Site subgrade conditions will be significantly influenced by weather conditions.
Subgrades that are evaluated after periods of rainfall will not respond as well to proofrolling as
subgrades that are evaluated after periods of more favorable weather. We strongly
recommend that rubber tire equipment not be used if subgrade conditions exhibit elevated
moisture conditions. The contractor should use tracked equipment to minimize the degradation
of marginally stable subgrades.
The preparation of fill subgrades, as well as proposed building subgrades, should be observed
on a full-time basis by ECS personnel. These observations should be performed by a
geotechnical engineer, or his representative, to ensure that the unsuitable materials have been
removed and that the prepared subgrade is suitable for support of the proposed construction
and/or fills.
5.2 Groundwater Control
Temporary groundwater control measures may be necessary around the perimeter of the
building pad and pavement areas to address the perched groundwater condition.
Groundwater control is the purposeful drawdown of groundwater below subgrades, foundations,
slabs, or pavements to facilitate construction and to mitigate long term problems associated
with groundwater. It is the contractor's responsibility to plan for and budget for temporary
groundwater control. The means and methods of lowering the groundwater are at the
contractor's discretion. Temporary groundwater control measures typically consist of gravity
ditches, well points, sump pumps, pumping from gravel lined and cased sumps, or other

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services June 22, 2016
Holiday Inn & Suites
Eastover, Cumberland County, North Carolina
ECS Project Number 33:3711
suitable methods. Whatever method used, the groundwater control should be in place and
operating continuously (around the clock) to achieve and maintain the desired drawdown in
advance of excavation, proofrolling, compaction or other construction. Permanent groundwater
control measures typically consist of French drain systems and/or permanent sumps/pumps.
5.3 Engineered Fill Placement
Following the removal of deleterious surface and subsurface materials, and after achieving a
stable subgrade, engineered fills can be placed and compacted to achieve the desired site
grades. Fill for support of the proposed construction and for backfill of utility lines within
expanded building and pavement limits should consist of an approved material, free of organic
matter and debris and cobbles greater than 3 inches, and have a Liquid Limit (LL) and Plasticity
Index (PI) less than 40 and 20, respectively. We also recommend that fills within structural
areas have a modified Proctor (ASTM D 1557) maximum dry density of at least 100 pounds per
cubic foot (pcf).
Unsuitable fill materials include topsoil, organic materials (OH, OL), and high plasticity clays
and silts (CH, MH). Such materials removed during grading operations should be either
stockpiled for later use in landscape fills, or placed in approved on or off -site disposal areas.
Existing soils containing significant amounts of organic matter will not be suitable for re -use as
engineered fill. As such, the organic content of the near surface soils should be evaluated to
determine if some of these soils will be suitable for re -use as engineered fill. Natural fine-
grained soils classified as clays or silts (CL, ML) with LL and PI greater than 40 and 20,
respectively, should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction to
determine their suitability for use as engineered fill.
Prior to the commencement of fill operations and/or utilization of any off -site borrow materials,
the contractor should provide representative samples of the proposed fill soils to the
geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer can determine the material's suitability for
use as an engineered fill and develop moisture -density relationships in accordance with the
recommendations provided herein. Samples should be provided to the geotechnical engineer
at least 3 to 5 days prior to their use in the field to allow for the appropriate laboratory testing to
be performed.
Fill materials placed within the building and pavement areas should be placed in lifts not
exceeding 8 inches in loose lift thickness and moisture conditioned to within their working range
of optimum moisture content. The fills should then be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent
of the soil's modified Proctor (ASTM D 1577) maximum dry density. The typical working range
of optimum moisture for the natural Coastal Plain soils at the site is expected to be within
approximately 3 percent of the optimum moisture content. Care should also be taken to provide
a smooth, gently sloping ground surface at the end of each day's earthwork activities to help
reduce the potential for ponding and absorption of surface water.
Grade controls should also be maintained throughout the filling operations. Filling operations
should be observed on a full-time basis by a qualified representative of ECS to determine that
the required degrees of compaction are being achieved. We recommend that a minimum of
one compaction test per 2,500-square-foot area be performed for each lift of controlled fill.
Within trench or other localized excavations at least one test shall be performed for each 200
7

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services June 22, 2016
Holiday Inn & Suites
Eastover, Cumberland County, North Carolina
ECS Project Number 33:3711
linear feet of each lift of fill. The elevation and location of the tests should be clearly identified
at the time of fill placement. Areas which fail to achieve the required degree of compaction
should be re -worked until the specified degree of compaction is achieved. Failing test areas
may require moisture adjustments or other suitable remedial activities in order to achieve the
required compaction.
Fill materials should not be placed on frozen, frost -heaved, and/or soils which have been
recently subjected to precipitation. Wet or frozen soils should be removed prior to the
continuation of site grading and fill placement. Borrow fill materials, if required, should not
contain excessively wet or frozen materials at the time of placement. Additionally, if grading
operations occur during the winter months, frost -heaved soils should be removed prior to
placement of engineered fill, granular sub -base materials, foundation or slab concrete, and
asphalt pavement materials.
If problems are encountered during the site grading operations, or if the actual site conditions
differ from those encountered during our subsurface exploration, the geotechnical engineer
should be notified immediately.
5.4 Foundations
Shallow Foundations- Provided that the subgrade preparation and earthwork operations are
completed in strict accordance with the recommendations of this report, the proposed
residential structures can be supported on conventional shallow foundations bearing on
approved natural materials and/or properly compacted fill. We recommend a maximum net
allowable design soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf for proportioning shallow foundations. To
reduce the possibility of foundation bearing failure and excessive settlement due to local shear
or "punching" failures, we recommend that continuous footings have a minimum width of 18
inches and that isolated column footings have a minimum lateral dimension of 30 inches.
Furthermore, footings should bear at a depth to provide adequate frost cover protection. For
this region, we recommend the bearing elevation be a minimum depth of 18 inches below the
finished exterior grade or in accordance with the local building code requirements.
Undercutting of up to 8 feet may be required in the vicinity of Boring B-2 due to the presence of
very loose/very soft soils. Once structural loads and site grades are finalized, ECS requests the
opportunity to review and revise our recommendations, if necessary.
The settlement of a structure is a function of the compressibility of the bearing materials,
bearing pressure, actual structural loads, fill depths, and the bearing elevation of footings with
respect to the final ground surface elevation. Estimates of settlement for foundations bearing
on engineered or non -engineered fills are strongly dependent on the quality of fill placed.
Factors which may affect the quality of fill include maximum loose lift thickness of the fills
placed and the amount of compactive effort placed on each lift. Provided that the
recommendations outlined in this report are strictly adhered to, we expect that total settlements
for the proposed construction are expected to be in the range of 1 inch or less, while the
differential settlement will be approximately'/2 of the anticipated total settlement. This analysis
is based on our engineering experience and assumed structural loadings for this type of
structure, and is intended to aid the structural engineer with his design.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services June 22, 2016
Holiday Inn & Suites
Eastover, Cumberland County, North Carolina
ECS Project Number 33:3711
The net allowable soil bearing pressure refers to that pressure which may be transmitted to the
foundation bearing soils in excess of the final minimum surrounding overburden pressure. The
final footing elevation should be evaluated by ECS personnel to verify that the bearing soils are
capable of supporting the recommended net allowable bearing pressure and suitable for
foundation construction. These evaluations should include visual observations, hand rod
probing, and dynamic cone penetrometer (ASTM STP 399) testing, or other methods deemed
appropriate by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction.
If unsuitable materials are encountered at the base of a foundation excavation, it will be
necessary to lower the base of the footing through the unsuitable materials or to undercut the
unsuitable soils and to restore original bearing levels by placing compacted engineered fill
materials, compacted graded aggregate base, No. 57 stone, or concrete. These evaluations
should be performed within each column footing excavation and at intervals not greater than 50
feet in continuous footing excavations.
Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the foundation bearing level if the
foundation excavations remain exposed during periods of inclement weather. This is especially
true for the fine-grained soils at the site. Therefore, foundation concrete should be placed the
same day that proper excavation is achieved and the design bearing pressure is verified. If the
bearing soils are softened by surface water absorption or exposure to the environment, the
softened soils must be removed from the foundation excavation bottom immediately prior to
placement of concrete. If the foundation excavation must remain open overnight, or if rainfall is
imminent while the bearing soils are exposed, we recommend that a 2 to 3-inch thick "mud mat"
of "lean" concrete be placed over the exposed bearing soils before the placement of reinforcing
steel.
Aggregate Pier System: A ground improvement system, such as an aggregate pier system
combined with conventional shallow foundations can be utilized to support the proposed
structure. An aggregate pier system is a ground improvement method used to improve shallow
to intermediate, soft clay, loose silt, and loose sand soil for support of shallow foundations.
Aggregate piers improve soft soil and fill by vibration, compaction, and ramming of thin lifts of
crushed rock into a drilled hole. Soft soil is removed from the ground and then very dense, high
quality crushed rock is compacted into the drilled hole which expands the hole into the adjacent
soil. The cavity expansion effects increase the strength and stiffness of adjacent soil. The
compaction and ramming of thin lifts of crushed rock increases the strength and stiffness,
increases soil bearing capacity, and reduces soil compressibility. Aggregate piers can allow the
soil to support heavier loads on conventional shallow spread and strip footings with reduced
settlement.
If an aggregate pier system is selected for support of foundations, we recommend that the
following issues be considered prior to construction:
• Specifications for the aggregate pier system for support of foundations should be
prepared by a qualified specialty contractor.
One demonstration pier should be installed with the aggregate pier installer's standard
procedures and then load -tested to determine the modulus. The load testing setup and
procedures should be selected by the aggregate pier installer and submitted for review
to the project geotechnical engineers. The demonstration pier should be installed at the
foundation grade level.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services June 22, 2016
Holiday Inn & Suites
Eastover, Cumberland County, North Carolina
ECS Project Number 33:3711
The aggregate pier element installation operations should be conducted under the
continuous observation of the geotechnical engineer's representative. This observation
is conducted to reduce the potential for short aggregate pier element installations and
excessive aggregate lift thicknesses.
Driven Timber Piles: The structure can be supported on a deep foundation system consisting
of driven timber piles. The allowable capacities and embedment depths for an 8-inch square
timber pile are presented in the summary table below.
Embedment
Depth (ft)
Axial
(kips)
Uplift
(kips)
Lateral
(kips)
13-15
20
2
1
Pile capacity analyses were performed assuming a free head condition and the provided
compression and tension capacities are based on a factor of safety of 2.0 and 3.0, respectively.
We recommend that the pile driving hammer used to install each timber pile have a minimum
rated energy blow of 8,000 foot-pounds. Driving criteria and bearing elevations should be
established prior to driving piles.
It is suggested that several over length piles be driven prior to the start of production pile
driving, to establish the driving criteria, pile lengths to be ordered and to determine if auger
"pilot' holes are justified. Production piles should not be ordered until the pile lengths can be
determined. A minimum of two over length piles are recommended for the structure.
The over length piles could be driven in production pile locations. Pile installation operations
and load tests, if necessary, should be monitored by a senior soil technician working under the
supervision of a Licensed Engineer. ECS would be pleased to develop driving criteria for the
project, once the method of installation and the contractor has been selected.
5.5 Slabs -on -Grade
Slabs -on -grade can be adequately supported on undisturbed, low -plasticity soils or on newly -
placed engineered fill provided the site preparation and fill recommendations outlined herein are
implemented. For a properly prepared site, a modulus of subgrade reaction (ks) for the soil of
150 pounds per cubic inch for the soil can be used. This value is representative of a 1-ft square
loaded area and may need to be adjusted depending on the size and shape of the loaded area
depending on the method of structural analysis.
We recommend the slabs -on -grade be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of granular material
having a maximum aggregate size of 1'/2 inches and no more than 2 percent fines. Prior to
placing the granular material, the floor subgrade soil should be properly compacted, proofrolled,
and free of standing water, mud, and frozen soil. A properly designed and constructed capillary
break layer can often eliminate the need for a moisture retarder and can assist in more uniform
curing of concrete. If a vapor retarder is considered to provide additional moisture protection,
special attention should be given to the surface curing of the slabs to minimize uneven drying of
`us

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services June 22, 2016
Holiday Inn & Suites
Eastover, Cumberland County, North Carolina
ECS Project Number 33:3711
the slabs and associated cracking and/or slab curling. The use of a blotter or cushion layer
above the vapor retarder can also be considered for project specific reasons.
Please refer to ACI 302.1 R96 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction and ASTM E
1643 Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or
Granular Fill under Concrete Slabs for additional guidance on this issue.
In order to minimize the crack width of shrinkage cracks that may develop near the surface of
the slab, we recommend mesh reinforcement as a minimum be included in the design of the
floor slab. For maximum effectiveness, temperature and shrinkage reinforcements in slabs on
ground should be positioned in the upper third of the slab thickness. The Wire Reinforcement
Institute recommends the mesh reinforcement be placed within 2 inches below the slab surface
or within upper one-third of slab thickness, whichever is closer to the surface.
Adequate construction joints, contraction joints and isolation joints should also be provided in
the slab to reduce the impacts of cracking and shrinkage. Please refer to ACI 302.1 R96 Guide
for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction for additional information regarding concrete slab joint
design.
5.6 Pavement Design Considerations
For the design and construction of exterior pavements, the subgrades should be prepared in
strict accordance with the recommendations in the "Subgrade Preparation" and "Engineered Fill
Placement" sections of this report. An important consideration with the design and construction
of pavements is surface and subsurface drainage. Where standing water develops, either on
the pavement surface or within the base course layer, softening of the subgrade and other
problems related to the deterioration of the pavement can be expected. Furthermore, good
drainage should minimize the possibility of the subgrade materials becoming saturated during
the normal service period of the pavement.
Actual traffic conditions were not provided to ECS. However, based on our experience for light
duty traffic for similar projects, a light duty flexible pavement section may consist of 2 inches of
surface SF9.5 mix overlying at least 6 inches of compacted ABC stone in the parking and drive
aisle areas. Similarly, a heavy duty flexible pavement section may consist of 3 inches of
surface SF9.5 mix overlying at least 8 inches of compacted graded aggregate base in the
roadway areas. For a rigid pavement section, we recommend 6 inches of 450 psi flexible
strength concrete overlying at least 6 inches of compacted ABC stone in the roadway areas.
Regardless of the section and type of construction utilized, saturation of the subgrade materials
and asphalt pavement areas results in a softening of the subgrade material and shortened life
span for the pavement. Therefore, we recommend that both the surface and subsurface
materials for the pavement be properly graded to enhance surface and subgrade drainage. By
quickly removing surface and subsurface water, softening of the subgrade can be reduced and
the performance of the parking area can be improved. Site preparation for the parking areas
should be similar to that for the building area including stripping, proofrolling, and the placement
of compacted structural fill.
Please note that large, front -loading trash dumpsters frequently impose concentrated front -
wheel loads on pavements during loading. This type of loading typically results in rutting of
M

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services June 22, 2016
Holiday Inn & Suites
Eastover, Cumberland County, North Carolina
ECS Project Number 33:3711
bituminous pavements and ultimately pavement failures and costly repairs. Consequently, we
recommend the use of an 8 inch thick, mesh reinforced concrete slab that extends the entire
length of the truck. Concrete pavements should be properly jointed and reinforced as needed to
help reduce the potential for cracking and to permit proper load transfer.
5.7 Site Drainage
Positive drainage should be provided around the perimeter of the pavement to minimize the
potential for moisture infiltration into the subgrade soils. We recommend that landscaped areas
adjacent to the pavements be sloped away from the construction and maintain a fall of at least
6 inches for the first 10 feet outward from the structure. The parking lots, sidewalks, and other
paved areas should also be sloped to divert surface water away from the proposed pavement.
The proper diversion of surface water during site grading and construction will help reduce the
potential for delays associated with periods of inclement weather. The proper diversion of
surface water is especially critical since portions of the site soils are expected to be moisture
sensitive. Based upon our past experience, the use of "crowning" large areas of exposed soils
should be useful to help divert surface water from the prepared subgrades.
5.8 Construction Considerations
It is imperative to maintain good site drainage during earthwork operations to help maintain the
integrity of the surface soils. The surface of the site should be kept properly graded to enhance
drainage of surface water away from the proposed construction areas during the earthwork
phase of this project. We recommend that surface drainage be diverted away from the
proposed pavements areas without significantly interrupting its flow. Other practices would
involve crowning and sealing the exposed soils daily with a smooth -drum roller at the end of the
day's work to reduce the potential for infiltration of surface water into the exposed soils.
The key to minimizing disturbance problems with the soils is to have proper control of the
earthwork operations. Specifically, it should be the earthwork contractor's responsibility to
maintain the site soils within a workable moisture content range to obtain the required in -place
density and maintain a stable subgrade. Scarifying and drying operations should be included in
the contractor's price and not be considered an extra to the contract. In addition, construction
equipment cannot be permitted to randomly travel across the site, especially once the desired
final grades have been established. Construction equipment should be limited to designated
lanes and areas, especially during wet periods to minimize disturbance of the site subgrades. It
will likely be necessary to utilize tracked equipment during grading operations particularly if the
subgrade soils exhibit elevated moisture conditions.
12

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services June 22, 2016
Holiday Inn & Suites
Eastover, Cumberland County, North Carolina
ECS Project Number 33:3711
6.0 CLOSING
Our geotechnical analysis of the site has been based on our understanding of the site, the
project information provided to us, and the data obtained during our exploration. The general
subsurface conditions utilized in our analyses have been based on interpolation of subsurface
data between the borings. If the project information provided to us is changed, please contact
us so that our recommendations can be reviewed and appropriate revisions provided, if
necessary. The discovery of any site or subsurface conditions during construction which
deviate from the data outlined in this exploration should be reported to us for our review,
analysis and revision of our recommendations, if necessary. The assessment of site
environmental conditions for the presence of pollutants in the soil and groundwater of the site is
beyond the scope of this geotechnical exploration.
13

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

■
I
�'; - .
0
�. 1 1
•dkh
4p
*•
VL
APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION
ITEVICI VICINITY MAP _ Holit#a Inn Suites
WEE errs
.-CEnMME MO- 33.3711
Source: Coogle Maps Eastover, North Carolina 1
DATE
fi1200)1 fi

WE
NO.
r
0
0
00
Z ;u
v_z
G?
G?

ASSHOWN
4
1 -omo- DENOTES APPROXIMATE
60TT2�16
LDDATIDN ill= DIL TETBORIN
. r
Am, ILU� Arm 16 fift6 imb--

SOIL CLASSIFICATION LEGEND
ST- SHELBY WOE
0.L-ROCK LORE
PM - PRESSURE METER .-FIlL
.-POSSIBLE FILL .-PROBABLE FILL
SURFACE MATERIALS
ROCK TYPES
SYMBOL LEGEND
WATER LEVEL DURING DRILLING/SAMPLING
%GW-WEU.-DEDGRAVEL ®GO-CLAYEYGRAVEL
®0.- LOW PLASTICITY RAY
SP- POORLY GRADED SAND
®OH
-HIGH PLASTICITY ORGANIC B.-AND CLAYS
®WR
- WEATHERED ROCK �DO-DECOMPOSED ROCK
TO-
CONCRETE
IGNEOUS
V WATER LEVEL- SEASONAL, HIGH WATER
GM - SILTY GRAVEL Ej SW -WELL GRADED SAND
® MH- HIGH PLASTICITY 5ILT
SL-0.AYEY SAND
®
OL- LOW PLASTICITY ORGANIC SILTS AND--
Fq
PWR- PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROOK
. ASPHALT
❑ VOID
❑ METAMORPHIC
N6P4OORLY6RADEDGRAVEL ®ML-LOWPLASTICITYSILT
SM -SILTY SAND
®CN-HIGH PLASTICITY-1
PT -PEAT
ElNWR-HIGHLY
WEATHERED ROCK
0GRAVEL
❑SEDIMENTARYWATER
WATER LEVEL AFTER CASING REMOVAL
LEVEL AMR 24 HOURS
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4 B-5
B-6
0
0
5-
10-
Ol
LL
E
s
a
d
Q 15-
Termir
20 -
25 -
9
0
rn'
13Z
5
6�Ax
11
;;
SM
—
-
Sc
CL
CL
9
CL 0
21
25
33
17
Sc
11
0
13
. : ,
28
13
16
CL
Sc
CL
5
5
9
13
• .'.:
12
...:.
12
SM
SP
5
6
6
12
::
11
7
'
CL
ted due to heaving szTerminated due to heaving sand
SM
SM
@ 15' @ 15'
Sc
3
4
3
6
Terminated due to heaving szTerminated due to heaving szTerminated due to heaving szTerminated due to heaving sand
@ 20' @ 20' @ 20' @ 20'

:,
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE
SOIL PROFILE
-5
-10
- 20
- 25

SOIL CLASSIFICATION LEGEND
ST- SHELBY WOE
®0.- LOW PLASTICITY RAY
0.C-ROCK CORE
SP- POORLY GRADED SAND
PM - PRESSURE METER .-FIlL
®OH -HIGH PLASTICITY ORGANIC B.-AND CLAYS
®WR
.-POSSIBLE FILL
- WEATHERED ROCK
.-PROBABLE FILL
�DO- DECOMPOSED ROCK
SURFACE MATERIALS
ROCK TYPES
SYMBOL LEGEND
Q WATER LEVEL DURING DRILLING/SAMPLING
V WATER LEVEL- SEASONAL, HIGH WATER
TO- CONCRETE
%GW-WEU.-DEDGRAVEL ®GO-CLAYEYGRAVEL
IGNEOUS
GM - SILTY GRAVEL
N6P4OORLY6RADEDGRAVEL
Ej SW -WELL GRADED SAND
®ML-LOWPLASTICITYSILT
® MH- HIGH PLASTICITY 5ILT
SM-SILTY SAND
SL-0.AYEY SAND
® CN HIGH PLASTICITY-1
® OL- LOW PLASTICITY ORGANIC SILTS AND--
PT -PEAT
Fq
ElNWR-HIGHLY
PWR- PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROOK
WEATHERED ROCK
. ASPHALT
GRAVEL
❑ VOID
❑ METAMORPHIC
SEDIMENTARY
V_ WATER LEVEL AFTER CASING REMOVAL
WATER LEVEL -AFTER 24 HOURS
o B-7 B-8
5-
30-
Ol
LL
E
s
m
d
Q 15-
20 -
25 -
6
15
CL
CL
SC
26
28
15
16
CH
37
::
SM
11
END OF BORING
END OF BORING
@ 10'
@ 10'
NOTES:
1 SEE INDIVIDUAL BORING LOG AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
2 PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT (ASTM 01586).

,
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE
SOIL PROFILE
-0
-5
-10
- 20
- 25

APPENDIX B
BORING LOGS

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2487)
Major Divisions
Group
Symbols
Typical Names
Laboratory Classification Criteria
Well -graded gravels, gravel-
w
w
GW
sand mixtures, little or no fines
o
Cu = D60/D10 greater than 4
N
_
C� = (D30)2/(D1oxD60) between 1 and 3
w
m o
�
o
N
Poorly graded gravels, gravel-
0
m `O
dj 0
m .N
°' °'
'
GP
sand mixtures, little or no fines
.5
Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
fn
U
m
a� >
U 0) d)
U
N ;n
N
;
°
d
0
C.)
m o b
O
w
,
in
e
GMa
Silty gravels, gravel -sand
.N
Atterberg limits below "A" line
00
E
mixtures
or P.I. less than 4
Above "A" line with P.I.
N
.3 a�
u
.N
between 4 and 7 are
o
p o 9w
borderline cases requiring
zs
w
g
(
N �°
use of dual symbols
GC
Clayey gravels, gravel -sand-
Atterberg limits below "A" line
— m
Q
6 E
> w
°'
clay mixtures
�
or P.I. less than 7
c
(D .m
u, c
SW
Well -graded sands, gravelly
CU E D
Cu = D60/D10 greater than 6
a�
c
sands, little or no fines
C� = (D30)z/(D1oxD6o) between 1 and 3
O N
U E
N
(6 O
w c
i d
CU.o UU
U
SP
Poorly graded sands, gravelly
meeting all gradation requirements for SW
O N
O
(n N
O C.)Not
.
sands, little or no fines
Cn a v
O
�
N
_
O -6
�
N
�
'O U
c O
o
d
(D (D O
(D m
m z
U w c
w
c o
SMa
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures
c
Atterberg limits above "A" line
c
E
Q 2 o C.)P
or P.I. less than 4
Limits plotting in CL-ML
(0
a� a
u
o a5
N c w
zone with P.I. between 4
w
c-N (DE
�_ o w Lo i
and 7 are borderline cases
c
`o-
rn c Q
requiring use of dual
in
` c :w �� N
symbols
FSC
Clayey sands, sand -clay
Q w N o
Atterberg limits above "A" line
mixtures
0 0 ° J
with P.I. greater than 7
Inorganic silts and very fine
ML
sands, rock flour, silty or
Plasticity Chart
w
clayey fine sands, or clayey
o
Y
silts with slight plasticity
Inorganic clays of low to
" "
60
CL
medium plasticity, gravelly
Nclays,
sandy clays, silty clays,
"A"
line
lean clays
50
Organic silts and organic silty
z°
v
OL
clays of low plasticity
40
CH
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
N a�
�
CL
E
MH
diatomaceous fine sandy or
30
U
silty soils, elastic silts
(6 fn
tl! CU
5 y
�p
o °3
�C
20
H and
OH
m
c
CH
Inorganic clays of high
E
m °
plasticity, fat clays
10
U)
CL-
L
OH
Organic clays of medium to
0
L an
I OL
high plasticity, organic silts
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
c .N
rn w
Pt
Peat and other highly organic
Liquid Limit
= O
soils
a Division of GM and SM groups into subdivisions of d and u are for roads and airfields only. Subdivision is based on Atterberg limits; suffix d used when L.L.
is 28 or less and the P.I. is 6 or less; the suffix u used when L.L. is greater than 28.
b Borderline classifications, used for soils possessing characteristics of two groups, are designated by combinations of group symbols. For example: GW-
GC,well-graded gravel -sand mixture with clay binder. (From Table 2.16 - Winterkorn and Fang, 1975)

REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS
Drilling Sampling Symbols
SS
Split Spoon Sampler
ST
Shelby Tube Sampler
RC
Rock Core, NX, BX, AX
PM
Pressuremeter
DC
Dutch Cone Penetrometer
RD
Rock Bit Drilling
BS
Bulk Sample of Cuttings
PA
Power Auger (no sample)
HSA
Hollow Stem Auger
WS
Wash sample
REC
Rock Sample Recovery %
RQD
Rock Quality Designation %
Correlation of Penetration Resistances to Soil Properties
Standard Penetration (blows/ft) refers to the blows per foot of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches on a
2-inch OD split -spoon sampler, as specified in ASTM D 1586. The blow count is commonly referred
to as the N-value.
A. Non -Cohesive Soils (Silt, Sand, Gravel and Combinations)
Density Relative Properties
0 to 4 blows/ft Very Loose Adjective Form 12% to 49%
5 to 10 blows/ft Loose With 5% to 12%
11 to 30 blows/ft Medium Dense
31 to 50 blows/ft Dense
Over 51 blows/ft Very Dense
Particle Size Identification
Boulders
12 inches or larger
Cobbles
3 inches to 12 inches
Gravel
Coarse
3/4 inch to 3 inches
Fine
4.75 mm to 3/4 inch
Sand
Coarse
2.00 mm to 4.75 mm
Medium
0.425 mm to 2.00 mm
Fine
0.075 mm to 0.425 mm
Silt and Clay
Less than 0.075 mm
B. Cohesive Soils (Clay, Silt, and Combinations)
Unconfined
Degree of
Plasticity
Blows/ft
Consistency
Comp. Strength
Plasticity
Index
Qp (ts0
0 to 2
Very Soft
Under 0.25
None to slight
0-4
3 to 4
Soft
0.25-0.49
Slight
5-7
5 to 8
Medium Stiff
0.50-0.99
Medium
8 — 22
9 to 15
Stiff
1.00-1.99
High to Very High
Over 22
16 to 30
Very Stiff
2.00-3.99
31 to 50
Hard
4.00-8.00
Over 50
Very Hard
Over 8.00
Water Level Measurement Symbols
WL Water Level BCR Before Casing Removal DCI Dry Cave -In
WS While Sampling ACR After Casing Removal WCI Wet Cave -In
WD While Drilling 0 Groundwater Level at Time of Drilling
8 GWT Day After Drilling
The water levels are those levels actually measured in the borehole at the times indicated by the
symbol. The measurements are relatively reliable when augering, without adding fluids, in a granular
soil. In clay and plastic silts, the accurate determination of water levels may require several days for
the water level to stabilize. In such cases, additional methods of measurement are generally applied.

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING #
SHEET
All Type Construction & Manaciement, Inc.
3711
13-1
1 OF 1
�-

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
"
z
U LL
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
w
IL
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION U
w
u n
LL
o
J O
O
SURFACE ELEVATION
=
J
IL
J
IL
J
IL
LU
i
OU
CC
H w
3O
® STANDARD PENETRATION
IL
o
U)
U)
U)
¢
w
m
BLOWS/FT
D
To soil Depth 2.00"
(CL) SILTY LEAN CLAY, Red/Gray/Tan, Wet,
2
S-1
SS
18
18
Stiff
4
9
5
4
S-2
SS
18
18
4
9
5
5
3
S-3
SS
18
18
4
11
7
(SM) SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, Orange/
S4
SS
18
18
Tan, Saturated, Loose
2
3
5
10
2
3
S-5
SS
18
18
2
5
15
3
AUGER REFUSAL @ 15'
20
25
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
4 WL 2.5 WS❑ WDO
BORING STARTED 06/07/16
CAVE IN DEPTH @ 6,0'
WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 06/07/16
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG ATV FOREMAN Jake
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING #
SHEET
All Type Construction & Manaciement, Inc.
3711
13-2
1 OF 1
�-
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
z
U LL
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
w
IL
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION U
w
u n
LL
o
J O
O
SURFACE ELEVATION
=
J
IL
J
IL
J
IL
LU
i
OU
CC
H w
3O
® STANDARD PENETRATION
IL
o
U)
U)
U)
¢
w
m
BLOWS/FT
D
To soil Depth 2.00"
(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, Dark Gray,
=
WOH
S-1
SS
18
18
Saturated, Very Loose
wo
WOH
WOH
S 2
SS
18
18
wo
5
WOH
(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, Tan/Light Gray/
S 3
SS
18
18
Orange, Saturated, Very Soft to Medium Stiff
WO
WOH
WOH
S-4
SS
18
18
2 5
10
3
(SP) MEDIUM SAND, Orange/Tan, Wet, Loose
4
S-5
SS
18
18
4 6
15
2
AUGER REFUSAL @ 15'
20
25
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
4 WL 1 .0 WS❑ WDO
BORING STARTED 06/07/16
CAVE IN DEPTH @ 4.5'
WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 06/07/16
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG ATV FOREMAN Jake
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING #
SHEET
All Type Construction & Manaciement, Inc.
3711
13-3
1 OF 1
�-
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
"
z
U LL
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
w
IL
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION U
w
u n
LL
o
J O
O
SURFACE ELEVATION
=
J
IL
J
IL
J
IL
LU
i
OU
CC
H w
3O
® STANDARD PENETRATION
IL
o
U)
U)
U)
¢
w
m
BLOWS/FT
D
To soil Depth 2.00"
(SC) CLAYEY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, Tan/
5
S-1
SS
18
18
Red/Orange, Moist to Saturated, Medium
5
1INN
Dense to Very Loose
—
8
15
S-2
SS
18
18
11
21
5
ix
10
S-3
SS
18
18
7
13
6
3
S-4
SS
18
18
4
9
10
5
2
S-5
SS
18
18
3
6
15
3
2
S-6
SS
18
18
1
3 i
20
2
AUGER REFUSAL @ 20'
25
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
4 WL 2.0 WS❑ WDO
BORING STARTED 06/07/16
CAVE IN DEPTH @ 6.5'
WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 06/07/16
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG ATV FOREMAN Jake
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING #
SHEET
All Type Construction & Manaciement, Inc.
3711
13-4
1 OF 1
�-
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
"
z
U LL
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
w
IL
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION U
w
u n
LL
o
J O
O
SURFACE ELEVATION
=
IL
J
IL
J
IL
J
IL
LU
i
OU
CC
H w
3O
® STANDARD PENETRATION
o
U)
U)
U)
¢
w
m
BLOWS/FT
D
To soil Depth 2.00"
(CL) SILTY LEAN CLAY, Brown/Tan/Red,
2
S-1
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Stiff to Very Stiff
2
3
5
6
25
S-2
SS
18
18
10
5
15
(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, Orange/Red/Gray,
S-3
SS
18
18
Wet, Medium Dense
11
14
i 28
14
4
S-4
SS
18
18
6
10
7
1
(SM) SILTY FINE SAND, Orange, Wet, Medium
Dense to Very Loose
3
S-5
SS
18
18
4
12;
15
8
3
S-6
SS
18
18
2
4 i
20
2
AUGER REFUSAL @ 20'
25
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL WS ❑ WD O
BORING STARTED 06/07/16
CAVE IN DEPTH @ 8'
WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 06/07/16
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG ATV FOREMAN Jake
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING #
SHEET
All Type Construction & Manaciement, Inc.
3711
13-5
1 OF 1
�-
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
"
z
U LL
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
w
IL
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION U
w
u n
LL
o
J O
O
SURFACE ELEVATION
=
IL
J
IL
J
IL
J
IL
LU
i
OU
CC
H w
3O
® STANDARD PENETRATION
o
U)
U)
U)
¢
w
m
BLOWS/FT
D
To soil Depth 2.00"
(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, Brown/Red, Moist,
2
S-1
SS
18
18
Medium Stiff to Hard
2
4
6
8
S-2
SS
18
18
16
5
1
i 33
—
13 — 56
(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, Red/Tan, Moist,
S 38
SS
18
18
Medium Dense
s
2a5
5
S-4
SS
18
18
5
12;
10
(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, Red/Gray/Orange,
Wet, Stiff
4
S-5
SS
18
18
4
11
15
7
(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, Tan, Wet, Very
Loose
2
S-6
SS
18
18
1
3 i
20
2
AUGER REFUSAL @ 20'
25
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
4 WL 8 WS❑ WDO
BORING STARTED 06/07/16
CAVE IN DEPTH @ 9'
WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 06/07/16
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG ATV FOREMAN Jake
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING #
SHEET
All Type Construction & Manaciement, Inc.
3711
13-6
1 OF 1
�-
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
"
z
U LL
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
w
IL
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION U
w
u n
LL
o
J O
O
SURFACE ELEVATION
=
IL
J
IL
J
IL
J
IL
LU
i
OU
CC
H w
3O
® STANDARD PENETRATION
o
U)
U)
U)
¢
w
m
BLOWS/FT
D
To soil Depth 2.00"
(SM) SILTY FINE SAND, Tan, Moist, Medium
2
S-1
SS
18
18
Dense, With Tree Roots
3
11
8
(SM) SILTY FINE SAND, Brown/ Black, Moist,
S-2
SS
18
18
Medium Dense
4
8
i 17
5
9
(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, Gray, Moist to Wet,
S-3
SS
18
18
Very Stiff to Stiff
7
16
9
4
S-4
SS
18
18
5
12;
10
(SM) SILTY MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND, Tan,
Saturated, Loose
WOH
S-5
SS
18
18
3
7
15
4
2
S 6
SS
18
18
3
6
20
3
AUGER REFUSAL @ 20'
25
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
4 WL 8 WS❑ WDO
BORING STARTED 06/07/16
CAVE IN DEPTH @ 11'
WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 06/07/16
HAMMER TYPE Manual
WL
RIG ATV FOREMAN Jake
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING #
SHEET
All Type Construction & Manaciement, Inc.
3711
13-7
1 OF 1
�-
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
"
z
U LL
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
w
IL
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION U
w
u n
LL
o
J O
O
SURFACE ELEVATION
=
IL
J
IL
J
IL
J
IL
LU
i
OU
CC
H w
3O
® STANDARD PENETRATION
o
U)
U)
U)
¢
w
m
BLOWS/FT
o
To soil Depth 2.00"
(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, Tan/Red, Moist,
1
S-1
SS
18
18
Medium Stiff to Very Stiff
3
3
6
6
26 i
S-2
SS
18
18
13
5
13
(CL) SILTY LEAN CLAY, Gray/Red, Moist, Stiff
5
S-3
SS
18
18
6
15
9
(SM) SILTY FINE SAND, Tan/ Orange/ Red,
S-4
SS
18
18
Moist, Dense
7
20
10
17
END OF BORING @ 10'
15
20
25
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL WS ❑ WD O
BORING STARTED 06/07/16
CAVE IN DEPTH @ 7'
WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 06/07/16
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG ATV FOREMAN Jake
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING #
SHEET
All Type Construction & Manaciement, Inc.
3711
13-8
1 OF 1
�-
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
ROD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
"
z
U LL
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
w
IL
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION U
w
u n
LL
o
J O
O
SURFACE ELEVATION
=
IL
J
IL
J
IL
J
IL
LU
i
OU
CC
H w
3O
® STANDARD PENETRATION
o
U)
U)
U)
¢
w
m
BLOWS/FT
o
To soil Depth 2.00"
(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, Brown, Moist, Stiff
4
S-1
SS
18
18
6
15
9
1aa♦ — Sao
(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, Red/Tan, Moist,
2157
S-2
SS
18
18
Medium Dense
13
zo 28
5
15
(CH) SILTY FAT CLAY, Gray, Moist, Very Stiff
S-3
SS
18
18
to Stiff
5
7
? 16
9
5
S-4
SS
18
18
5
10
6
END OF BORING @ 10'
15
20
25
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL WS ❑ WD O
BORING STARTED 06/07/16
CAVE IN DEPTH @ 7'
WL(SHW) 1 WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 06/07/16
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG ATV FOREMAN Jake
DRILLING METHOD HSA

APPENDIX C
LABORATORY RESULTS

Laboratory Testing Summary Page 1 of 1
Sample
Source
Sample
Number
Depth
(feet)
MC1
M
Soil
Type'
Atterberg Limits3
Percent
Passing
No.200
Sieve
Moisture - Densi Corr. 5
CBR
Value6
Other
LL
PL
PI
Maximum
Density
c
Optimum
Moisture
B-5
2158
6.0-7.5
24.5
SC
56
25
31
48.0
B-8
2157
3.5-5.0
14.0
SC
40
20
20
21.1
Notes: 1. ASTM D 2216, 2. ASTM D 2487, 3. ASTM D 4318, 4. ASTM D 1140, 5. See test reports for test method, 6. See test reports for test method
Definitions: MC: Moisture Content, Soil Type: AASHTO, LL: Liquid Limit, PL: Plastic Limit, PI: Plasticity Index, CBR: California Bearing Ratio, OC: Organic Content
Project No. 33.3711
Project Name: Holiday Inn and Suites
PM: Mike Ellis
PE: Winslow E. Goins
Printed On: 6/20/16
ECS Carolinas, LLP
6714 Netherlands Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone]

APPENDIX D
GENERAL CONDITIONS
The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the
exploration previously outlined and the data collected at the points shown on the attached
location plan. This report does not reflect specific variations that may occur between test
locations. The borings were located where site conditions permitted and where it is believed
representative conditions occur, but the full nature and extent of variations between borings and
of subsurface conditions not encountered by any boring may not become evident until the
course of construction. If variations become evident at any time before or during the course of
construction, it will be necessary to make a re-evaluation of the conclusions and
recommendations of this report and further exploration, observation, and/or testing may be
required.
This preliminary report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and
foundation engineering practices and makes no other warranties, either express or implied, as
to the professional advice under the terms of our agreement and included in this report. The
recommendations contained herein are made with the understanding that the contract
documents between the owner and foundation or earthwork contractor or between the owner
and the general contractor and the caisson, foundation, excavating and earthwork
subcontractors, if any, shall require that the contractor certify that all work in connection with
foundations, piles, caissons, compacted fills and other elements of the foundation or other
support components are in place at the locations, with proper dimensions and plumb, as shown
on the plans and specifications for the project.
Further, it is understood the contract documents will specify that the contractor will, upon
becoming aware of apparent or latent subsurface conditions differing from those disclosed by
the original soil exploration work, promptly notify the owner, both verbally to permit immediate
verification of the change, and in writing, as to the nature and extent of the differing conditions
and that no claim by the contractor for any conditions differing from those anticipated in the
plans and specifications and disclosed by the soil explorations will be allowed under the
contract unless the contractor has so notified the owner both verbally and in writing, as required
above, of such changed conditions. The owner will, in turn, promptly notify ECS of the
existence of such unanticipated conditions and will authorize such further exploration as may be
required to properly evaluate these conditions.
Further, it is understood that any specific recommendations made in this report as to on -site
construction review by ECS will be authorized and funds and facilities for such review will be
provided at the times recommended if we are to be held responsible for the design
recommendations.

APPENDIX E
PROCEDURES REGARDING FIELD LOGS, LABORATORY TESTING AND SAMPLES
In the process of obtaining and testing samples and preparing this report, procedures are
followed that represent reasonable and accepted practice in the field of soil and foundation
engineering.
Specifically, field logs are prepared during performance of the drilling and sampling operations,
which are intended to portray, in the driller's judgment: field occurrences, sampling locations,
and other information.
Samples obtained in the field are frequently subjected to testing and reclassification in the
laboratory by more experienced soil engineers, and differences between the field logs and the
final logs exist. The engineer preparing the report reviews the field logs, lab classifications, and
test data. Using his judgment in interpreting this data, he may make further changes.
Samples taken in the field are retained in our laboratory for sixty days and are then discarded,
unless special disposition is requested by our client. Samples retained over a long period of
time, even if sealed in jars, are subject to moisture loss which changes the apparent strength of
cohesive soil generally increasing the strength from what was originally encountered in the field.
Since they are then no longer representative of the moisture conditions initially encountered, an
inspection of these samples should recognize this factor.

0
0
Geolechnical Engineering Repopt
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 construction contractor or even another civil
engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geo-
technical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyforthe client. No one
except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first
conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one - not
even you - should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one
originally contemplated.
Read the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical
engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.
Do not read selected elements only.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on
A Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of 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 engi-
neer 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 alight industrial plant
to a refrigerated warehouse,
• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
proposed structure,
• composition of the design team, or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes - even minor ones - and request an assessment of their impact.
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 study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering
reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by
man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natu-
ral events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always
contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it
is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent
major problems.
Most 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 indi-
cated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your
report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of
managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.
A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your re-
port. Those 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 engi-
neer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for
the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction
observation.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to
Misinterpretation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineer-
ing reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower 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. Contractors
can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction
conferences, and by providing 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 Contractors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what
they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-
tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, butpreface it with a
clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's
accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer
who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct ad-
ditional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer.
A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient
timeto perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give
contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at
least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unantici-
pated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not 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.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-
mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical
study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually re-
late any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g.,
about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated
contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous
project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenviron mental in-
formation, 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, op-
eration, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from grow-
ing 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, a number of mold prevention
strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, wa-
ter 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
he sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the struc-
ture involved.
Rely on Your ASFE-Member Geotechnical
Engineer For Additional Assistance
Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engi-
neers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine
benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your
ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
ASFE
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone:' 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail: [e-mail] www.asfe.org
Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFB specific
written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes
of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE 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 anASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
IIGER06045.0M