SWA000216_Soils/Geotechnical Report_20230801

V N I V E R S A L iiVchFL
ENGINEERING SCIENCES • Fort Myers,FL
• Fort Pierce,FL
Consultants In:Geotechnical Engineering•Environmental Sciences • Gainesville,FL
Geophysical Services•Construction Materials Testing•Threshold Inspection • Hagerstown,MD
• Jacksonville,FL
Building Inspection•Plan Review•Building Code Administration • Miami,FL
• Ocala,FL
November 16, 2022 • Orlando, (Headquarters)
• Palm Coast,FL
• Panama City,FL
• Pensacola,FL
Circle K Stores- Southeast& Costal Carolina Division • Rockledge,FL
• Sarasota,FL
2550 West Tyvola Road Suite 200 • St.Petersburg,FL
Charlotte, NC 28217 • Tampa,FL
• Tifton,GA
• West Palm Beach,FL
Attention: Andy Priolo
[e-mail]
Reference: Geotechnical Exploration
Circle K
Old US Hwy 52 & Hickory Tree Rd
Winston-Salem, NC
UES Project No. 0730.0922.00020
UES Report No. 8382.G0205
Dear Andy Priolo:
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (UES) has completed a geotechnical exploration at the above
referenced site in Winston-Salem, NC. The scope of our exploration was planned in conjunction with
a "Conceptual Site-Plan" drawing prepared by Timmons Group dated September 7, 2022, along with
Circle K Geotechnical Report Standards for the minimum number and location of soil test borings.
This exploration was performed in general accordance with UES Opportunity No. 0730.0922.00020
dated September 12, 2022 and generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other
warranty, express or implied, is made.
The following report presents the results of our field exploration with a geotechnical engineering
interpretation of those results with respect to the project characteristics as provided to us. The site
was found to be generally suitable for the proposed development construction following typical site
preparation procedures presented in this report.
We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you on this project and look forward to a continued
association. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you should have any questions, or if we may further
assist you as your plans proceed. \\\\ ti �ARo,,//%�
Respectfully Submitted, �� •`� /�%
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC.
QQ q�•.•
Certificate of Authorization No. 549 SEAL
052284
CQ •
L. Brian Cantrell, P.E. Christian Payne
Geotechnical Department Manager Assistant Project Manager
Summit Engineering - UES Summit Engineering - UES
3532 Maggie Blvd. • Orlando, Florida 32811 • [phone] • Fax [phone]
www.UniversalEngineering.com

‘ P
/ 1
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING
SCIENCES
r GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
CIRCLE K
OLD US HWY 52 & HICKORY TREE RD
WINSTON-SALEM, NC
UES PROJECT No. 0730.0922.00020
UES REPORT No. 8382.G0205
PREPARED FOR:
Circle K Stores- Southeast & Costal Carolina Division
2550 West Tyvola Road Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28217
PREPARED BY:
Universal Engineering Sciences
3532 Maggie Boulevard
Orlando, Florida 32811
[phone]
November 16, 2022
Consultants in: Geotechnical Engineering•Environmental Sciences•Construction Materials Testing•Threshold Inspection
Offices in:Orlando(Headquarters)•Atlanta,GA•Chantilly,VA•Daytona Beach,FL•Fort Myers,FL•Fort Pierce,FL•Gainesville,FL•Hagerstown,MD•Jacksonville,FL•
Miami,FL•Ocala,FL•Palm Coast,FL•Panama City,FL•Pensacola,FL•Rockledge,FL•Sarasota,FL•St.Petersburg,FL•Tampa,FL•Tifton,GA•West Palm Beach,FL
♦

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
2.0 PURPOSE 1
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 1
3.1 SOIL SURVEY 2
3.2 TOPOGRAPHY 2
4.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 2
5.0 FIELD EXPLORATION 3
6.0 LABORATORY TESTING 3
7.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3
8.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 4
8.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER LEVEL 4
9.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 4
9.1 STRUCTURAL AND GRADING INFORMATION 4
9.2 ANALYSIS 4
9.3 BEARING PRESSURE 5
9.4 FOUNDATION SIZE 5
9.5 BEARING DEPTH 5
9.6 BEARING MATERIAL 5
9.7 SETTLEMENT ESTIMATES 6
9.8 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION 7
10.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 7
10.1 GENERAL 7
10.2 ASPHALTIC PAVEMENTS 8
10.3 CONCRETE "RIGID" PAVEMENTS 8
11.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 10
12.0 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES 12
13.0 SITE PREPARATION 14
14.0 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES 17
15.0 LIMITATIONS 17
LIST OF TABLES
Table I: Summary of Published Soil Data 2
Table II: Summary of Existing Fill 4
Table III: Minimum Flexible Pavement Sections 10

Table IV: Minimum Rigid Pavement Sections 11
Table V: Lateral Earth Pressure Design Parameters 15
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Site Location Map A-1
APPENDIX B
Boring Location Plan B-1
Boring Profile B-2
Boring Logs B-3
Key to Boring Logs Sheet B-4
Laboratory Sheet(s) B-5
APPENDIX C
GBC Document C-1
Constraints and Restrictions C-2
ii u

Circle K UES Project No. 0730.0922.00020
Winston-Salem, North Carolina UES Report No. 8382.G0205
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
UES understands that the proposed project consists of the development of a fuel canopy,
associate paved entrance, drives and parking areas. The subject site has not been developed.
Site specific structural loading information for the proposed structure was not provided at the time
of this report, however, based on experience with similar construction, we have assumed that
structural loads will be by exterior load bearing walls (maximum loading of 3 klf) and isolated
interior columns (maximum loading of 50 kips/column).
Should any of the above information or assumptions made by UES be inconsistent with the
planned development and construction, we request that you contact us immediately to allow us
the opportunity to review the new information in conjunction with our report and revise or modify
our engineering recommendations accordingly, as needed.
No site or project facilities/improvements, other than those described herein, should be designed
using the soil information presented in this report. Moreover, UES will not be responsible for the
performance of any site improvement so designed and constructed.
2.0 PURPOSE
The purposes of this exploration were:
• to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site with special attention to
potential problems that may impact the proposed development,
• to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundation design, pavement
design, and site preparation.
This report presents an evaluation of site conditions on the basis of geotechnical procedures for
site characterization. The recovered samples were not examined, either visually or analytically,
for chemical composition or environmental hazards. We would be glad to provide you with a
proposal for these services at your request.
Our exploration was not designed to specifically address the potential for surface expression of
deep geological conditions, such as sinkhole development related to karst activity. This evaluation
requires a more extensive range of field services than those performed in this study. We would
be pleased to conduct an exploration to evaluate the probable effect of the regional geology upon
the proposed construction, if you so desire.
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located at Old US Hwy 52 & Hickory Tree Rd in Winston-Salem, NC and is further
identified as being approximately 2.7 acres consisting of Davidson Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
6830-02-79-7500.
1

Circle K UES Project No. 0730.0922.00020
Winston-Salem, North Carolina UES Report No. 8382.G0205
3.1 SOIL SURVEY
The subject site is located within an undeveloped area. There are two (2) native soil types
mapped within the site area according to the USDA Web Soil Survey of Davidson County— North
Carolina. A brief summary of the mapped surficial (native) soil type(s) is presented in Table I.
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF PUBLISHED SOIL DATA
Depth of
Soil Soil Type Hydrologic Drainage Published
Symbol Group Characteristics Seasonal High
GWT (inches)
PaB Pacolet sandy loam - 2 to 8 B Well Drained >80
percent slopes
PaD Pacolet sandy loam - 8 to 15 B Well Drained >80
percent slopes
In general, the site is located within an urban area that has not had previous site development.
Please note that the soil survey data is based on pre-developmental conditions. The native
subsurface conditions depicted on the soil survey may been altered during previous development
of the site and are not necessarily representative of the current subsurface conditions
encountered during our exploration.
3.2 TOPOGRAPHY
According to information obtained from the United States Geologic Survey(USGS) North Carolina
quadrangle map, the native ground surface elevation across the site area is approximately +890
feet above sea level.
4.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The services conducted by UES during our geotechnical exploration were as follows:
• Drilled four (4) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings within the proposed canopy (B-3)
and pavement area (B-1, B-2, and B-4 )to depths of ten (10)to twenty(20)feet below existing
ground surface (bgs).
• Secured samples of representative soils encountered in the soil borings for review, laboratory
analysis and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer.
• Measured the existing site groundwater levels at the boring locations.
• Conducted laboratory testing on selected soil samples obtained in the field to determine their
engineering properties.
• Assessed the existing soil conditions with respect to the proposed construction.
2

Circle K UES Project No. 0730.0922.00020
Winston-Salem, North Carolina UES Report No. 8382.G0205
• Prepared a report which documents the results of our exploration and analysis with
geotechnical engineering recommendations.
5.0 FIELD EXPLORATION
The SPT soil borings were performed with a track 7822 DT Geoprobe drill rig. Horizontal and
vertical survey control was not provided for the test locations prior to our field exploration program.
UES located the test borings by using the provided site plan, measuring from existing on-site
landmarks shown on an aerial photograph, and by using handheld GPS devices. The indicated
test locations should be considered accurate to the degree of the methodologies used. The
approximate boring locations are shown in Appendix B.
The SPT borings, designated B-1 through B-4 on the attached Boring Location Plan in Appendix
B, were performed in general accordance with the procedures of ASTM D 1586 "Standard Method
for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils". SPT sampling was performed
continuously to 10 feet to detect variations in the near surface soil profile and on approximate 5
feet centers thereafter.
6.0 LABORATORY TESTING
The soil samples recovered from the test borings were returned to our laboratory and visually
classified in general accordance with ASTM D 2487 "Standard Classification of Soils for
Engineering Purposes" (Unified Soil Classification System). The soils encountered in borings for
this exploration were generally classified as non-plastic. Selected soil samples from each boring
were further chosen for laboratory testing for Atterberg (ASTM 4318), Grain Size (ASTM D422
w/o hydrometer), and moisture content (ASTM D2216). The laboratory tests corroborated visual
classification with 2 samples testing as sandy silts and 2 as silty sands.
7.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The results of our field exploration and laboratory analysis, together with pertinent information
obtained from the SPT borings, such as soil profiles, penetration resistance and groundwater
levels are shown on the boring logs included in Appendix B. The Key to Boring Logs, Soil
Classification Chart is also included in Appendix B. The soil profiles were prepared from field logs
after the recovered soil samples were examined by a Geotechnical Engineer. The stratification
lines shown on the boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and
may not depict exact subsurface soil conditions. The actual soil boundaries may be more
transitional than depicted. A generalized profile of the soils encountered at our boring locations is
presented in Table III. For detailed soil profiles, please refer to the attached boring logs.
Surface Materials: Four (4) of the soil borings (B-1 and B-4) were located on an
undeveloped area covered with grass that consisted of topsoil with an approximate thickness of
3 inches.
Residual Soils: Subjacent to the surface materials, residual soils of the Southcentral
Piedmont Province of North Carolina were encountered and extend to boring termination. These
soils generally classified as loose to medium dense Silty Sands (SM), Clayey Sands (SC), Elastic
Silts (MH), and firm to stiff Sandy Silts (ML) exhibiting N-values ranging from 5 to 11 bpf.
3

Circle K UES Project No. 0730.0922.00020
Winston-Salem, North Carolina UES Report No. 8382.G0205
8.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
8.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER LEVEL
We measured the water levels in the boreholes on October 21, 2022 during drilling operations.
Groundwater was not encountered in the soil borings for the exploration. Soils samples that were
moist to wet are noted on the boring logs. It should be noted that groundwater levels tend to
fluctuate with seasonal and climatic variations, as well as with some types of construction
operations. Therefore, water may be encountered during construction at depths not indicated in
the borings performed for this exploration.
9.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are made based upon a review of the attached soil test data, our
understanding of the proposed construction, and experience with similar projects and subsurface
conditions. The applicability of geotechnical recommendations is very dependent upon project
characteristics such as improvement locations, and grade alterations. UES must review the final
site and grading plans to validate all recommendations rendered herein.
Additionally, if subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, which were not
encountered in the borings, report those conditions immediately to us for observation and
recommendations.
9.1 STRUCTURAL AND GRADING INFORMATION
It is our understanding that the project will include the construction of one (1) new canopy and
parking. We have assumed that the maximum loadings for the proposed development will not
exceed 5 kips for wind and snow loading.
Prior to finalizing any design, the structural/grading information outlined above should be
confirmed by the project structural/civil engineer. This is crucial to our evaluation and estimates
of settlements. If any of this information is incorrect or if you anticipate any changes, please inform
UES immediately so that we may review and modify our recommendations as appropriate.
Support of the structure utilizing conventional shallow foundations directly on or above the
variable, existing fill soil poses a risk of excessive settlement of the proposed structure. If the
owner is not willing to accept the risk, then we recommend undercutting the existing fill soils and
replacing them with properly compacted structural fill.
9.2 ANALYSIS
Based on the results of the soil borings, the near surface soils within the proposed canopy area
appear to be firm to stiff Sandy Silts (ML) to a depth of 10 feet bgs. It is our opinion that proposed
structures can be supported on properly designed and constructed shallow foundation systems.
Provided that the site preparation recommendations outlined in this report are followed, the
parameters outlined below may be used for foundation design.
4

Circle K UES Project No. 0730.0922.00020
Winston-Salem, North Carolina UES Report No. 8382.G0205
9.3 BEARING PRESSURE
Provided our suggested site preparation procedures are followed, we recommend designing
shallow footing foundations bearing on the residual soils encountered or newly compacted fill soils
provided site preparation and compacted fill recommendations procedures outlined in this report
are implemented existing fill soils and soils with N-Values less than 6 bpf. A maximum allowable
net soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) can be used for design of
the foundations bearing on undisturbed residual soils, or on structural fill compacted to at
least 95 percent of its Standard Proctor maximum dry density. The allowable net bearing
pressure is that pressure that may be transmitted to the soil in excess of the minimum surrounding
overburden pressure. The allowable bearing pressure should include dead load plus sustained
live load. The foundations should be designed for the most unfavorable effects due to the
combinations of loads specified in the IBC code for the county and municipality of the project site.
It should be noted that while the existing fill soils encountered, where tested, exhibited SPT results
that indicated that the fill materials are suitable for support of the proposed residential
construction, there is a potential that soft or unsuitable fill may be present between the boring
locations.
Soil that exhibits SPT N-Values less than 6 bpf are considered not suitable for an allowable net
bearing pressure of 3,000 psf.
9.4 FOUNDATION SIZE
The minimum width recommended for an isolated column footing is 24 inches to comply with local
building codes. For continuous wall or slab on grade foundations, the minimum footing width
should be less than 12 inches. Even though the maximum allowable soil bearing pressure may
not be achieved, these width recommendations should control the size of the foundations.
9.5 BEARING DEPTH
The base of all foundations should bear at a minimum of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent
final ground surface or deeper as required by the governing local building code for frost
penetration, protective embedment, and resistance to seasonal moisture changes. We
recommend stormwater and surface water be diverted away from the development, both during
and after construction, to reduce the possibility of erosion beneath the exterior footings.
9.6 BEARING MATERIAL
The soils at the bearing elevation should be of a suitable moisture content, unfrozen, free of
organics and debris or loose material. The bearing level soils shall exhibit a density of at least 95
percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor)to a depth
of at least 2 feet below foundation level as described in this report. In addition to compaction,
the bearing soils must be unyielding and not exhibit "pumping" or "rutting" from any construction
equipment used.
Footing excavations should be evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record, or his
representative to determine that soils capable of supporting the recommended design bearing
pressures are present at and immediately below the bearing level. We recommend that the
5

Circle K UES Project No. 0730.0922.00020
Winston-Salem, North Carolina UES Report No. 8382.G0205
bearing soils at the bottom of and below the footing excavations be checked with a Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer(DCP)to assess the suitability of the soils. Footing evaluations should be performed
prior to reinforcement and concrete placement. If unsuitable bearing soils are encountered, these
soils will need to be removed. The foundations can then be established at the new, lower bearing
elevation, or the unsuitable material replaced with properly compacted fill, flowable fill, or lean
concrete. If compacted structural fill is used as backfill, the undercut excavations to remove
unsuitable materials should be centered beneath the footing and widened 1 foot for each foot of
undercut depth. If lean concrete or flowable fill is used as backfill, the foundation excavation need
not be widened.
Foundation concrete should be placed as soon as possible after excavation. If foundation
excavations must be left open overnight, or exposed to inclement weather, the base of the
excavation should be protected with a mat of lean concrete at least 2 inches thick. Footing
excavations should be protected from surface water run-off and freezing. If water is allowed to
accumulate within a footing excavation and soften the bearing soils, or if the bearing soils are
allowed to freeze, the deficient soils should be removed from the excavation prior to concrete
placement.
9.7 SETTLEMENT ESTIMATES
Post-construction settlement of the structures will be influenced by several interrelated factors,
such as (1) subsurface stratification and strength/compressibility characteristics of the bearing
soils to a depth of approximately twice the width of the footing; (2) footing size, bearing level,
applied loads, and resulting bearing pressures beneath the foundation; (3) site preparation and
earthwork construction techniques used by the contractor, and (4) external factors, including but
not limited to vibration from offsite sources and groundwater fluctuations beyond those normally
anticipated for the naturally-occurring site and soil conditions which are present.
Our settlement estimates for the structures are based upon adherence to our recommended site
preparation procedures presented in this report.Any deviation from these recommendations could
result in an increase in the estimated post-construction settlement of the structures. Furthermore,
should soil bearing loads change from those assumed by us, greater settlements may be
expected.
Due to the elastic nature of the surficial soils following the compaction operations, we expect the
majority of settlement to be elastic in nature and occur relatively quickly, on application of the
loads, during and immediately following construction. Using the recommended maximum
allowable bearing pressure, the assumed maximum structural loads, and the field and laboratory
test data which we have correlated into the strength and compressibility characteristics of the
subsurface soils, we estimate the total vertical settlement of the proposed structure to be
on the order of 1 inch or less.
Differential settlement results from differences in applied bearing pressures and the variations in
the compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils. Assuming our site preparation
recommendations are followed, we anticipate differential settlement of less than inch.
6

Circle K UES Project No. 0730.0922.00020
Winston-Salem, North Carolina UES Report No. 8382.G0205
9.8 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION
The project site is located within a municipality that employs the 2018 North Carolina Building
Code (NCBC), adopting with amendments the 2015 International Building Code° (IBC). As part
of this Code, the design of structures must consider dynamic forces resulting from seismic
events. These forces are dependent upon the magnitude of the earthquake event, as well as the
properties of the soils that underlie the site. As part of the procedure to evaluate seismic forces,
the 2018 NCBC Code requires the site to be classified as Site Class A, B, C, D, E or F as specified
in Chapter 20 of ASCE 7.
To define the Site Class for this project, we first interpreted the results of SPT soil borings drilled
within the project site and estimated appropriate soil properties below the base of the borings to
a depth of 100 feet, as permitted by ASCE 7. The estimated soil properties were based upon our
experience with subsurface conditions in the general site area.
Based upon the SPT N-values recorded during the field exploration, the subsurface conditions
within the site are consistent with the characteristics of a Site Class "E"as defined in Chapter
20 of ASCE 7.
10.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1 GENERAL
We understand that a combination of flexible asphaltic and rigid concrete pavement sections will
be used on this project. Anticipated traffic loading was assumed as based on previous project
gasoline station traffic volumes and AADT.
• Normal Duty Pavement = 375,000 ESALs
• Heavy Duty Pavement = 1,400,000 ESALs
• Expected Pavement Service Life = 20 years
In addition, the following assumptions have been made:
• Reliability of 85 percent
• Standard Deviation of 0.45
• CBR of 5
• Initial Serviceability of 4.5
• Terminal Serviceability of 2.5
Our recommendations for minimum section thicknesses and subgrade preparation for both
pavement types are listed in the following sections.
A CBR value of 5 was assumed for the on-site soils. Design procedures are based on the
AASHTO "Guide for Design of Pavement Structures" and associated literature. The materials
recommended for the pavement design are referenced to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's (NCDOT) January 4, 2019 Pavement Design Procedure — AASHTO 1993
Method. Based on the subsurface conditions, and assuming our grading recommendations will
7

Circle K UES Project No. 0730.0922.00020
Winston-Salem, North Carolina UES Report No. 8382.G0205
be implemented as specified, the following presents our recommendations regarding typical
pavement sections and materials.
Site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase. Subsequently as
construction proceeds the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations, construction
traffic, desiccation, and rainfall. As a result, the pavement subgrade may not be suitable for
pavement construction and corrective action will be required. We recommend proof-rolling and
recompacting the upper 1-foot of subgrade immediately prior to placement of the Aggregate Base
Course (ABC) base course. The exposed pavement subgrade should also be evaluated by a
representative of Universal immediately prior to placing ABC. If low consistency soils are
encountered which cannot be adequately densified in place, such soils should be removed and
replaced with well-compacted soil fill or crushed stone materials.
Prevention of infiltration of water into the subgrade is essential for the successful long-term
performance of any pavement. Both the subgrade and the pavement surface should be sloped
to promote surface drainage away from the pavement structure.
10.2 ASPHALTIC PAVEMENTS
Based on our experience with similar facilities and subgrade conditions typical for this region, we
recommend the preliminary pavement sections listed in Table Ill be considered.
TABLE III
MINIMUM FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Material Thickness (inches)
Service Graded Hot Mixed
Level Aggregate Asphalt Hot Mixed Asphalt
Base (GAB) Intermediate Surface Course
Course
Normal Duty 8 2.0 2.0
Heavy Duty 10 2.5 2.5
10.3 CONCRETE "RIGID" PAVEMENTS
Anticipated traffic loading was assumed as based on previous project gasoline station traffic
volumes as discussed in section 10.1.
• Normal/Light Duty = 375,000 ESALs
• Heavy Duty = 1,400,000 ESALs
• Expected Pavement Service Life = 20 years
In addition, the following assumptions have been made:
• Concrete Elastic Modulus of 4,000,000 psi
• Concrete Modulus of Rupture of 650 psi
8

Circle K UES Project No. 0730.0922.00020
Winston-Salem, North Carolina UES Report No. 8382.G0205
• Reliability of 85 percent
• Standard Deviation of 0.45
• Modulus of Subgrade Reaction of 100 pci
• Initial Serviceability of 4.5
• Terminal Serviceability of 2.5
The use of concrete for paving has become more prevalent in recent years due to the long-term
maintenance cost benefits of concrete compared to asphaltic pavements. Proper finishing of
concrete pavements requires the use of appropriate construction joints to reduce the potential for
cracking. Construction joints should be designed in accordance with current Portland Cement
Association guidelines. Joints should be sealed to reduce the potential for water infiltration into
pavement joints and subsequent infiltration into the supporting soils. The concrete should have a
minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi at 28 days and a 28-day flexural strength of no less
than 650 psi. The concrete should also be designed with 5±1 percent entrained air to improve
workability and durability. All pavement materials and construction procedures should conform to
NCDOT or appropriate city and/or county requirements. Specimens to verify the compressive
strength of the pavement concrete should be obtained for at least every 50 cubic yards, or at least
once for each day's placement, whichever is greater.
We assume that concrete pavement may be used in the canopy, driveway and tank mat areas.
In addition, concrete pavement is recommended under the dumpster area, and 10 feet in front of
the trash enclosure, at a minimum. Large front-loading trash dump trucks frequently impose
concentrated front-wheel loads on pavements during loading. This type of loading typically results
in rutting of the pavement and ultimately, pavement failures. Therefore, we recommend that the
pavement in trash pickup areas consist of a Heavy Duty rigid pavement section as described in
Table IV below.
TABLE IV
MINIMUM RIGID PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Graded Minimum Maximum Recommended
Service Level Aggregate Base Pavement Control Joint Saw Cut Depth
(GAB) Thickness Spacing
Standard Duty 4 inches 6 inches 10 Feet by 10 2 inches
Feet
Heavy Duty 4 inches 8 Inches 12 Feet x 12 Feet 2 2/3 Inches
9

Circle K UES Project No. 0730.0922.00020
Winston-Salem, North Carolina UES Report No. 8382.G0205
11.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
11.1 General
After required erosion control measures have been put in place and site clearing/stripping
operations have been completed, strip/demolish the proposed construction limits of surface
vegetation, topsoil, and other deleterious materials within and 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the
proposed development and pavement areas. Demolition should include complete removal of all
above and below grade foundations and other improvements.
Existing underground utility lines within the construction area should be located moved as
necessary. Provisions should be made to relocate interfering utilities to appropriate locations. It
should be noted that if underground pipes are not properly removed or plugged, they may serve
as conduits for subsurface erosion which may lead to excessive settlement of overlying structures.
The site should be graded to direct surface water runoff away from the construction areas. Positive
drainage of improved areas should be maintained during construction and throughout the design
life of the project.
Proof-roll the subgrade using a heavily loaded, rubber-tired vehicle (i.e. fully loaded dump truck)
making a minimum of 2 passes in each of two perpendicular directions under the observation of
a qualified Geotechnical Engineer of their representative. Proof-rolling will help locate any isolated
zones of especially loose or soft soils. Any areas that deflect excessively under proof-rolling or
that are deemed soft/loose or wet should be undercut, as directed by a geotechnical engineer or
their representative, and backfilled with a select fill or stone. Material for replacement of loose,
soft, organic, or wet soils is typically a graded aggregate base, No. 57 sized crushed stone,
compacted structural fill, or geogrid. All undercutting should be observed by the Geotechnical
Engineer to confirm that all unsuitable materials are removed and to prevent unnecessary
undercutting of suitable materials.
If site preparation work is performed during the rainy season, special care should be taken to
maintain positive drainage from the development and paved areas to drains or ditches around the
site. Unexpected wet periods can also occur in North Carolina during the "dry" season. Such
events can raise water tables to levels above seasonal highs without the associated high
temperatures to evaporate ponded water. Therefore, the contractor should practice wet weather
means and methods for earthwork during the "dry" season as well. Groundwater and surface
water control, use of granular fill material and aeration are the normal means to accommodate
wet weather construction. All fill materials that are excavated from below the water table should
be stockpiled for a sufficiently long period to allow drainage.
11.2 Structural Fill
Once the site has been stripped and prepared, place fill material as required to meet finished
grades. The recommended criteria for soil fill characteristics (both on-site and imported materials)
and compaction procedures are listed below. The project design documents should include the
following recommendations to address proper placement and compaction of project fill materials.
Earthwork operations should not begin until representative samples are collected and tested
10

Circle K UES Project No. 0730.0922.00020
Winston-Salem, North Carolina UES Report No. 8382.G0205
(allow 3 to 4 days for sampling and testing). The maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content should be determined.
The contractor should not assume that on-site soil moisture conditions will be within their optimum
moisture content range for compaction. Therefore, moisture modification including drying and/or
wetting of soils should be anticipated. The required moisture modification will be dependent on
weather conditions and the time of year that site grading activities are being performed.
11.3 Acceptable Fill
• Imported fill and on-site material satisfactory for structural fill should include clean
soil material with USCS classifications of (GW, GM, SW, SM, and approved ML, MH and
CL). The fill material should have a Standard Proctor(ASTM D698) Maximum Dry Density
of at least 100 pcf, a maximum Liquid Limit (LL) of 40 and a Plasticity Index (PI) of 20 or
less.
• Organic content or other foreign matter (debris) should be no greater than 3
percent by weight, and no large roots (greater than % inch in diameter) should be allowed.
• Material utilized as fill should not contain rocks greater than 3 inches in diameter
or greater than 30 percent retained on the 3/4-inch sieve.
• Based on the results of our soil test borings and laboratory testing,the near surface
moderately plastic and non-plastic soils appear to be suitable for reuse as structural fill, in
their current state. However, if these soils are wet, they may exhibit longer than normal
drying times. During wetter periods of the year, care should be taken to "seal off'the soils
prior to any significant rain fall. We recommend that the contractor be equipped to control
moisture by both wetting and drying the soils. In addition, heavy construction equipment
(trucks, lifts, lulls) with large tires may significantly deteriorate the consistency of onsite
soils if operated during wet soil conditions. Care should be taken to prevent deterioration
as best as possible. Additionally, variations in soil types of the existing fill should be
anticipated.
11.4 Compaction Requirements
• Maximum loose lift thickness — 8 inches, mass fill. Loose lifts of 4 to 6 inches in
trenches and other confined spaces where hand operated equipment is used. Contractor
is responsible for managing lift thickness and uniformity of compaction. A loose lift
thickness of 12 inches is permissible at the discretion of the Geotechnical Engineer if a
full-sized and heavy roller (CAT 815 roller) is used during mass grading activities.
• Compaction requirements—95 percent of the maximum dry density and 98 percent
within the upper 12 inches as determined by the standard Proctor (ASTM D698)
compaction test.
• Soil moisture content—within ±3 percent of the optimum moisture content to obtain
minimum compaction level.
11

Circle K UES Project No. 0730.0922.00020
Winston-Salem, North Carolina UES Report No. 8382.G0205
11.5 Excavated Permanent Slopes and Fill Embankments
All fill placed in embankments should be uniformly compacted to a similar requirement as
discussed previously. It is difficult to compact soil at the face of slopes. Therefore, it will be
necessary to construct the slopes outside their design limits, and then cut them back; leaving the
exposed face well compacted. This is very important to the performance of the slopes and we
advise special care be used. Also, existing grade that will underlie new fill embankments should
be benched in order for soil compaction to be accomplished in a horizontal plane. The benching
will tie the new fill into the existing grade and reduce the potential for slippage or slope stability
failure at the interface of existing grade and new fill embankment.
We recommend that the face of slopes and embankments be protected by establishing vegetation
or mulching as soon as practical after grading. Rainwater runoff should be diverted away from
the crest of slopes. It is very important that all factors associated with slopes be constructed in
accordance with plans and specifications.
Construction of the slopes should be monitored by the Geotechnical Engineer through daily field
reports for the slopes. All slopes should be constructed at a minimum ratio of 3(H):1(V) unless a
global stability analysis has been performed. UES has not been informed of any such conditions.
12.0 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
Basement walls and earth retaining walls must be capable of resisting the lateral earth pressures
that will be imposed on them. Shear strength testing was not performed on the soils sampled
during this exploration. However, based on the material types and our experience, the earth
pressure coefficients detailed below are recommended. Walls that will be laterally restrained and
not free to deflect or rotate (i.e., basement walls or loading dock walls tied into existing slabs on
grade) should be designed using the "at-rest" (Ko) earth pressure condition. In addition, tank
walls that would be damaged by movement should also be designed for at-rest pressures. Walls
that are not restrained (retaining walls) and can tolerate the required movement can be designed
using the "active" (Ka) earth pressure condition. A third condition, the "passive state" (Kp)
represents the maximum possible pressure when a structure is pushed against the soil and is
used in wall foundation design to help resist "active" or "at-rest" pressures. The earth pressure
coefficients used in the design will depend upon the type of backfill used.
Imported No. 57 stone or approved free draining granular soil typically is suitable for use as backfill
within the "active" zone of basement walls. Soils with Plasticity Index values greater than 10
(PI>10)should not be used for backfill behind the walls within the"active"zone. Additionally, soils
with high mica content should not be considered for use as backfill behind the walls within the
"active" zone. The active zone is typically modeled by an area extending rearward one foot from
the base of the wall footing and then extending upward toward the ground surface at an inclination
of 45 degrees plus one-half of the internal angle of friction (45° + c/2). Based on the results of
our geotechnical exploration, we recommend the lateral earth pressure coefficients listed in Table
V can be used for design purposes.
12

Circle K UES Project No. 0730.0922.00020
Winston-Salem, North Carolina UES Report No. 8382.G0205
TABLE V
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design Parameter Recommended Value
At-rest Earth Pressure Coefficient, Ko 0.53
Active Earth Pressure Coefficient, Ka 0.36
Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient, Kp 2.8
Unit Weight of Soil (Moist) 115 pcf
Angle of Internal Friction, cp 28 degrees
Coefficient of Sliding Friction 0.35
Passive earth pressure of the soil adjacent to the footing, as well as soil friction at the footing
base, may be used to resist sliding. Because significant wall movements are required to develop
the "passive" earth pressure, the total calculated "passive" pressure may be reduced by one-half
to two-thirds for design purposes. A coefficient of 0.35 could be reasonably assumed for
evaluating allowable frictional resistance to sliding at the foundation (concrete)-soil contact. The
design bearing pressure for the retaining wall foundations should correspond to the value
provided earlier in this report.
The recommended earth pressure coefficients assume horizontal backfill and that constantly
functioning drainage systems are installed between walls and soil backfill to prevent the build-up
of hydrostatic pressures and lateral stresses in excess of those stated. Even though groundwater
was not encountered, wall drainage is very important because of the potential for infiltration of
surface water and water from other sources (leaks, irrigation, etc.). In addition, damp proofing
should be applied to the outside of below grade walls. If a sufficient drainage system is not
installed, the lateral earth pressures should be computed using the buoyant weight of the soil and
the hydrostatic pressure due to the water must be added to the earth pressure to estimate the
lateral earth pressure for design. A water collection system consisting of 4 to 6-inch diameter,
slotted, corrugated polyethylene tubing per ASTM F405 (Standard Specification for Corrugated
Polyethylene Pipe and Fittings), surrounded by at least 12 inches of No. 57 stone can be used.
Completely encapsulate the aggregate with drainage geotextile such as Mirafi® 140N or
equivalent. These pipes should then discharge by gravity to a lower lying area of the site beyond
the development and pavement limits, or to a sump with a pump.
Special care should be taken while compacting the backfill behind below grade and/or retaining
walls. Over-compaction of backfill behind retaining walls may result in the buildup of excessive
lateral pressures, and potential structural distress. To avoid over-compaction of the backfill
behind walls, we recommend that the backfill within 5 feet of the wall be compacted with small
hand operated equipment to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density of the standard
Proctor as determined by ASTM D698. Heavy compactors and large pieces of construction
equipment should not operate within 5 feet of the embedded wall to avoid the buildup of excessive
lateral pressures unless the walls have been designed to accommodate these forces.
We recommend that the retaining walls be backfilled with materials deemed suitable by the
retaining wall designer. Once soils to be used as retaining wall backfill have been identified, we
recommend that testing of the soils be performed as specified by the retaining wall designer prior
to commencement of wall construction.
13

Circle K UES Project No. 0730.0922.00020
Winston-Salem, North Carolina UES Report No. 8382.G0205
13.0 SITE PREPARATION
The site should be prepared in accordance with generally accepted industry guidelines and as
specified herein, and should include testing and verification of structural fill and foundations:
1. Prior to construction, existing underground utility lines and other below grade structures
within the construction area should be located. Provisions should be made to relocate
interfering utilities to appropriate locations. It should be noted that if underground
improvements are not properly removed or plugged, they may serve as conduits for
subsurface erosion which may lead to excessive settlement of overlying structures.
2. Strip the proposed construction limits of vegetation, topsoil, existing improvements, roots,
debris and other deleterious materials within and 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the new
construction areas. Expect clearing and grubbing to depths of 6 to 12 inches. Deeper
clearing and grubbing depths should be anticipated within the developed areas to remove
buried improvements. We strongly recommend that the stripped/excavated surfaces be
observed and probed by representatives of Universal.
3. Proof-roll the exposed subsurface soils under the observation of Universal to locate any
soft areas of unsuitable soils and to increase the density of the shallow loose fine sand
soils. If deemed necessary by Universal, remove any deleterious soils or materials that
continue to yield and replace with an approved and properly compacted structural backfill.
4. Place fill as necessary. Imported fill and on-site material satisfactory for structural fill should
include low permeability soil material with USCS classifications of(some ML, SP, SP-SM,
SM, SC)to be similar to shallow on-site soils found at most of the boring locations. The fill
material should have a Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) Maximum Dry Density of at least
100 pcf, a maximum Liquid Limit (LL) of 25 and a Plasticity Index (PI) of 10 or less. Place
fill in maximum 12-inch loose, uniform lifts and compact each lift at least 95 percent of the
Standard Proctor maximum dry density.
5. Earthwork operations should not begin until representative samples are collected and
tested (allow 3 to 4 days for sampling and testing.) The maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content should be determined. One Standard Proctor compaction test and one
Atterberg limits test for each soil type used as project fill should be performed. Gradation
tests may be necessary and should be performed at the geotechnical engineer's
discretion.
6. Organic content or other foreign matter (debris) should be no greater than 3 percent by
weight, and no large roots (greater than '/4 inch in diameter) should be allowed.
7. Material utilized as fill should not contain rocks greater than 3 inches in diameter or greater
than 30 percent retained on the 3/4-inch sieve.
8. Within the at-grade (or below grade) foundation areas, subgrade compaction of at least
95 percent of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) should be achieved to a depth of at
least 2 feet below bottom of foundation/slab levels.
14

Circle K UES Project No. 0730.0922.00020
Winston-Salem, North Carolina UES Report No. 8382.G0205
9. Within the pavement areas, the upper 12 inches of subgrade beneath the base course or
concrete slabs (sub-base) should be stabilized and compacted to at least 100 percent of
the Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) maximum dry density.
10. Test the subgrade and each lift of fill for the specified compaction and/or bearing capacity.
The appropriate number of density tests necessary to represent each lift of mass structural
fill should be determined in the field by an experienced technician at the time of
construction. For Trench backfill, perform a minimum of one density test for every 75
linear feet at vertical intervals of no more than 2 feet.
11. Prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete, verify compaction within the
footing trenches to a depth of 4 feet. We recommend testing every column footing and at
least one test for every 50 feet of wall footing, with a minimum of 4 tests per building. Re-
compaction of the foundation bearing level soils, if loosened by the excavation process,
should be performed by making several passes with a walk-behind vibratory sled.
However, we also recommend removal of all loose materials and backfilling the resulting
excavation with compacted graded aggregate or additional concrete.
Stability of the compacted soils is essential and independent of compaction and density control.
If the near surface soils or the structural fill experience "pumping" conditions, terminate all
earthwork activities in that area. Pumping conditions occur when there is too much water present
in the soil-water matrix. Impacted soils should be dried in place by scarification and aeration prior
to any additional earthwork activities.
Vibrations produced during vibratory compaction operations at the site may be significantly
noticeable within 100 feet and may cause distress to adjacent structures if not properly regulated.
Provisions should be made to monitor these vibrations so that any necessary modifications in the
compaction operations can be made in the field before potential damages occur. Universal can
provide vibration monitoring services to help document and evaluate the effects of the surface
compaction operation on existing structures. It is recommended that large vibratory rollers remain
a minimum of 50 feet from existing structures. Within this zone, the use of a static roller or small
hand guided plate compactors is recommended.
Should there be a significant time lag or period of inclement weather between site grading and
the fine grading of the slab prior to the placement of stone or concrete, the Geotechnical Engineer
of Record or qualified representative should assess the condition of the prepared subgrade. The
subgrade may require scarification and re-compaction or other remedial measures to provide a
firm and unyielding subgrade prior to final slab or pavement construction.
13.1 Temporary Excavations
Excavations should be sloped as necessary to prevent slope failure and to allow backfilling. As a
minimum, temporary excavations below 4-foot depth should be sloped in accordance with the
latest OSHA regulations. Where lateral confinement will not permit slopes to be laid back, the
excavation should be shored in accordance with OSHA requirements. During excavation,
excavated material should not be stockpiled at the top of the slope within a horizontal distance
equal to the excavation depth.
15

Circle K UES Project No. 0730.0922.00020
Winston-Salem, North Carolina UES Report No. 8382.G0205
The Contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations
and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of
both the excavation sides and bottom. The Contractor's "responsible person", as defined in 29
CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the Contractor's
safety procedures. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth,
including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in all local, state, and federal
safety regulations. Provisions for maintaining workman safety within excavations is the sole
responsibility of the contractor.
13.2 Temporary & Permanent Slopes
Our scope of services did not include an analysis of slope stability for any temporary or permanent
conditions. However, based on our experience with soils similar to those encountered at the site,
well-constructed permanent slopes graded to 3H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical) or flatter are typically
stable. All proposed slopes that are to be steeper than 3H:1V should be specifically analyzed for
slope stability once final plans are available. This analysis should include laboratory testing
(triaxial shear test, Atterberg limits, gradation, and moisture content)to determine the engineering
strength parameters of the proposed embankment soil.
Fill slopes should be free of organic or other deleterious material and should be constructed using
structural fill, compacted as discussed in Section 12.0 of this report. Strippings, topsoil or
unsuitable soils should not be utilized to construct slopes or be "wasted" in or below fill slopes. All
slope areas should be proof-rolled and evaluated prior to any fill placement. Additionally, we
recommend fill slopes be slightly over-built, then cut back to firm, well-compacted soils prior to
applying a vegetative cover. We also caution not to dress slopes with low permeability clayey
soils, as this may inhibit free draining of the slopes and cause instability.
Slopes should also be constructed in a manner that minimizes surface flow of water over the crest
and down the slope face. Typical slope construction incorporates a swale along the slope crest
for this purpose. It will also be important that the slopes be protected from erosion by placement
of erosion control blankets and seeded to establish a vegetative cover immediately after slope
construction. In areas where vegetation cannot be established, the ground cover can include
ground surface stabilization treatments, such as open-graded gravel, riprap, jute netting,
geotextile or a combination of these items. We do not advise that mulch be used on slopes.
Parking lots and driveways should not be constructed within five feet of slope crests.
13.3 Temporary & Permanent Dewatering
At the time of drilling, groundwater levels were not observed in the borings for this exploration.
Should groundwater be encountered while performing excavations associated with the
construction, the contractor should be prepared to promptly remove/dewater the water from the
general construction area. Pump(s) should remain on standby to handle groundwater as
necessary. Details concerning dewatering should be discussed with the geotechnical engineer
and agreed upon with the contractor prior to proceeding with construction. Also, depending on
the groundwater conditions, the contractor may need to contact a professional that specializes in
designing a groundwater control system.
16

Circle K UES Project No. 0730.0922.00020
Winston-Salem, North Carolina UES Report No. 8382.G0205
The groundwater levels should be kept a minimum of five (5) feet below the bottom of the
proposed excavation elevation. Dewatering shall be performed until the construction is
completed. If water is encountered, pumping must be maintained continuously from sumps and/or
well points for any beneficial dewatering to be derived and a back-up pump should also be
maintained on-site. Discontinuous pumping will result in softening of the subgrade soils and
additional undercutting may be required. The contractor should also be prepared to implement
additional dewatering procedures in the event water levels rise to the point it impacts construction.
Positive site drainage shall be maintained away from all working areas at all times to prevent
ponding of water that could soften and disturb the subgrade materials. The contractor shall be
prepared to implement alternative dewatering techniques should the need arise. All subgrade
surfaces and fill surfaces should be adequately sloped to provide positive drainage as
construction progresses. Undercutting due to softening of subgrade soils as a result of improper
temporary dewatering will be the contractor's responsibility.
Note: Depending on final grades and groundwater level conditions, permanent dewatering
system(s) may need to be installed and maintained during and after construction.
14.0 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES
We recommend the owner retain Universal to provide inspection services during the site
preparation procedures for confirmation of the adequacy of the earthwork operations. Field tests
and observations include verification of foundation and pavement subgrades by monitoring
earthwork operations and performing quality assurance tests of the placement of compacted
structural fill courses.
The geotechnical engineering design does not end with the advertisement of the construction
documents. The design is an on-going process throughout construction. Because of our familiarity
with the site conditions and the intent of the engineering design, we are most qualified to address
site problems or construction changes, which may arise during construction, in a timely and cost-
effective manner.
15.0 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Circle K Stores. and other designated
members of their design/construction team associated with the proposed construction for the
specific project discussed in this report. No other site or project facilities should be designed using
the soil information contained in this report. As such, UES will not be responsible for the
performance of any other site improvement designed using the data in this report.
This report should not be relied upon for final design recommendations or professional opinions
by unauthorized third parties without the expressed written consent of UES. Unauthorized third
parties that rely upon the information contained herein without the expressed written consent of
UES assume all risk and liability for such reliance.
The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil
borings performed at the locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan and from other
17

Circle K UES Project No. 0730.0922.00020
Winston-Salem, North Carolina UES Report No. 8382.G0205
information as referenced. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between
the boring locations. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until the
course of construction. If variations become evident, it will then be necessary for a re-evaluation
of the recommendations of this report after performing on-site observations during the
construction period and noting the characteristics of the variations.
Borings for a typical geotechnical report are widely spaced and generally not sufficient for reliably
detecting the presence of isolated, anomalous surface or subsurface conditions, or reliably
estimating unsuitable or suitable material quantities. Accordingly, UES does not recommend
relying on our boring information for estimation of material quantities unless our contracted
services specifically include sufficient exploration for such purpose(s) and within the report we
so state that the level of exploration provided should be sufficient to detect anomalous conditions
or estimate such quantities. Therefore, UES will not be responsible for any extrapolation or use
of our data by others beyond the purpose(s)for which it is applicable or intended.
All users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for UES to attempt to locate
any man-made buried objects or identify any other potentially hazardous conditions that may exist
at the site during the course of this exploration. Therefore, no attempt was made by UES to locate
or identify such concerns. UES cannot be responsible for any buried man-made objects or
environmental hazards which may be subsequently encountered during construction that are not
discussed within the text of this report. We can provide this service if requested.
During the early stages of most construction projects, geotechnical issues not addressed in this
report may arise. Because of the natural limitations inherent in working with the subsurface, it is
not possible for a geotechnical engineer to predict and address all possible problems. A
Geotechnical Business Council (GBC) publication, "Important Information About This
Geotechnical Engineering Report" appears in Appendix C, and will help explain the nature of
geotechnical issues.
Further, we present documents in Appendix C: Constraints and Restrictions, to bring to your
attention the potential concerns and the basic limitations of a typical geotechnical report.
18

r --.
‘ IP
UNIVERSAL
ENGINEERING SCIENCES

9
_,y tor e it e r
Goodwill
Donation Trailer
SITE
e
Circle K -
Convenience sore
refs., ITC/ CashPoints® ATM
Hickory Tree Rd
Bank Of America ATM 9
Circle K
Old Us Hwy 52 & Hickory Tree /AIM
Figure A-1
Rd. SUMMIT
Site Location Plan Winston-Salem, North Carolina --Aso—T.—
SUMMIT
A Universal Engineering Sciences Company
Report No.: 8382.G0205 3575 Centre Circle
UES Project No.: 0730.0922.00020 Fort Mill,South Carolina 29715
SCALE: NTS [phone]

II ,
klbhddi•
UNIVERSAL
ENGINEERING SCIENCES

----- \___) / \
PROPOSED HSD CANOPY
PROPO11,
R50' REMOT
LINE IN BLUE i PROPO
/rill":-3 ♦ \
.y
,• 1 s' 4". 20'
-.co ‘ R40' 1'8r 001101Ft
, /�
O o x R30'-""
' > ' v . ' ‘ \n
. B-2
A• 18'
0010,,11011 R50' W \
SED SCM '
--36' 4, B-1 \\
two
f t , N/
DING SETBACK *OW \
R10' ♦ \
/4 • III
+I-5a \
' x \
\
♦ \\
EXISTING CANOPY ♦ \
(4 MPDs) \
EXISTING C-STORE \
(3,200 SO FT)
O \
\
\ OP'
'' i EXISTING CANOPY
O (2 MPDs)
d
0
JG AIR/VAC
r ..... ..... ...... .....
1 ____ +1-93'
+/-93' 0
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE IN RED
35'
Circle K
Figure B-1 Old Us Hwy 52 & Hickory Tree -
Boring Location Plan Rd. SUMMIT
• Approx. Soil Test Boring Location Winston-Salem, North Carolina ENGINEERING•LABORATORY•TESTING
A Unlve sal Engineering Scien es Company
SUMMIT Report No.: 8382.G0205 3575 Centre Circle
UES Project No.: 0730.0922.00020 Fort Mill,South Carolina 29715
SCALE: NTS [phone]

SUMMIT COMPANIES SUBSURFACE DIAGRAM .\:, <�
3575 CENTRE CIR Topsoil ® USCS Elastic Silt USCS Sandy Silt
•
/LW FORT MILL.SC 29715 USCS Silty Sand
W USCS Clayey Sand
SUMMIT 7045041717
[e-mail]
CLIENT Circle K PROJECT NAME Circle K-Hickory Tree Road
PROJECT NUMBER 8382.G0205 PROJECT LOCATION Winston-Salem, North Carolina
B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4
O ft. Oft. Oft. Oft.
0 N-Value• I •Depth N-Value• I •Depth N-Value• I •Depth N-Value. I••Depth••0
ir1
0.25ill-0.25 7 0.25 0.25
10 . . 6 10 . 9
-2 -2
3 3
4 -4
9 7 5 9
5.5 '•. 5.5
-6 -6
4— .
0
-8 8 g -8•
W
11 9 . 9 10 1
-10 10 .�•.I•10 -10
-10 ft. -10 ft.
-12 12 12 -12
-14 -14
10 ' 7
•
•
-16 -16
•
17 17
-18 -18
8 9 .
-20 -20
20 20

A SUMMIT COMPANIES BORING NUMBER B-1
3575 CENTRE CIR
FORT MILL.Sc 29715 PAGE 1 OF 1
SUMMIT 7045041717
n _
Un�n�.a Era-earls x�—�Company [e-mail]
CLIENT Circle K PROJECT NAME Circle K-Hickory Tree Road
PROJECT NUMBER 8382.G0205 PROJECT LOCATION Winston-Salem, North Carolina
DATE STARTED 10/21/22 COMPLETED 10/21/22 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 6 inches
DRILLING CONTRACTOR SUMMIT GROUND WATER/CAVE-IN:
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING ---GW NE ATD/Caved in Depth @ 17.7'bgs
LOGGED BY J.Parrish CHECKED BY N.Sacks AT END OF DRILLING ---
NOTES See Figure 2"Boring Location Plan"for Approx. Boring Location AFTER DRILLING ---
w a A SPT N VALUE A
0 U a o_ >- o w 0 20 40 60 80 100
�w �^ ��
~ a O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w m >0 O D Q I I
w C J Cl-z 0 110> 0 20 40 60 80 100
w < 0 FINES CONTENT(%)0
0 20 40 60 80 100
if\ Approx.3"of TOPSOIL 7
(MH)RESIDUUM:
Reddish Brown Micaceous Sandy Elastic SILT
(ML)Stiff Reddish Brown and Brown Micaceous Sandy SILT SPT 3-4-6
1 (10)
SPT 4-4-5 A
2 (9)
5.0
(ML)Stiff Light Brown and White Micaceous Sandy SILT
SPT 5-4-6
— — 3 (10)
(ML)Stiff Light Brown and White Micaceous Sandy SILT with
Manganese Stains
SPT 5-5-6
4 (11)
10.0
�— (SM)Loose Light Brown and White Micaceous Silty SAND
— — SPT 4-4-6
5 (10)
5.0
(ML)Firm Moist Brown and Gray Micaceous Sandy SILT
17.7ft
•
— •
SPT 3-3-5
6 (8)
20.0
Bottom of Boring at 20 feet bgs,Boring Terminated

A SUMMIT COMPANIES BORING NUMBER B-2
3575 CENTRE CIR
FORT MILL.Sc 29715 PAGE 1 OF 1
SUMMIT 7045041717
n _
Un�n�.a Era-earls x�—�Company [e-mail]
CLIENT Circle K PROJECT NAME Circle K-Hickory Tree Road
PROJECT NUMBER 8382.G0205 PROJECT LOCATION Winston-Salem, North Carolina
DATE STARTED 10/21/22 COMPLETED 10/21/22 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 6 inches
DRILLING CONTRACTOR SUMMIT GROUND WATER/CAVE-IN:
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING ---GW NE ATD/Caved in Depth @ 16'bgs
LOGGED BY J.Parrish CHECKED BY N.Sacks AT END OF DRILLING ---
NOTES See Figure 2"Boring Location Plan"for Approx. Boring Location AFTER DRILLING ---
w a A SPT N VALUE A
0 U a o_ >- o w 0 20 40 60 80 100
�w �^ ��
~ a O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w m >0 O D Q I I
w J Cl-z 0 110> 0 20 40 60 80 100
w < 0 FINES CONTENT(%)0
0 20 40 60 80 100
` ``I" Approx.3"of TOPSOIL 7
(MH)RESIDUUM:
Reddish Brown Micaceous Sandy Elastic SILT
(SM)Loose Reddish Brown and Light Brown Micaceous Silty SPT 4-3-3
SAND 1 (6)
SPT 3-3-4
2 (7)
5.0
(ML)Firm Light Brown and White Micaceous Sandy SILT
SPT 3-3-4
— — 3 (7)
—
(ML)Stiff Light Brown and Gray Micaceous Sandy SILT
SPT 4-5-4
4 (9)
10.0
(ML)Firm Light Brown and Gray Micaceous Sandy SILT
— — SPT 3-3-4
5 (7)
1 5.0
16ft
(ML)Stiff Light Brown and Gray Micaceous Sandy SILT
•
— SPT 3-4-5
6 (9)
20.0
Bottom of Boring at 20 feet bgs,Boring Terminated

A SUMMIT COMPANIES BORING NUMBER B-3
3575 CENTRE CIR
FORT MILL.Sc 29715 PAGE 1 OF 1
SUMMIT 7045041717
n _
Un�n�.a Era-earls x�—�Company [e-mail]
CLIENT Circle K PROJECT NAME Circle K-Hickory Tree Road
PROJECT NUMBER 8382.G0205 PROJECT LOCATION Winston-Salem, North Carolina
DATE STARTED 10/21/22 COMPLETED 10/21/22 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 6 inches
DRILLING CONTRACTOR SUMMIT GROUND WATER/CAVE-IN:
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING ---GW NE ATD/Caved in Depth @ 7.5'bgs
LOGGED BY J.Parrish CHECKED BY N.Sacks AT END OF DRILLING ---
NOTES See Figure 2"Boring Location Plan"for Approx. Boring Location AFTER DRILLING ---
w a A SPT N VALUE A
0 U a o_ >- o w 0 20 40 60 80 100
�w �^ ��
~ a O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w m >0 O Q 1 I
w J o z 0 O . 110> 0 20 40 60 80 100
w < Ill ❑FINES CONTENT(%)❑
0 20 40 60 80 100
' iv.•`° Approx.3"of TOPSOIL
(SC)RESIDUUM:
Brown Clayey SAND
(ML)RESIDUUM:
Stiff Reddish Brown and Light Brown Micaceous Sandy SILT
SPT 4-4-6
1 (10)
lk
2.5 '• '.•••.
—
(ML)Firm Reddish Brown and Light Brown Micaceous Sandy
SILT
SPT 3-2-3 A
2 (5)
5.0
—
T� (ML)Stiff Light Brown Micaceous Sandy SILT
SPT 4-5-6
3 (11)
7.5
7.5ft
SPT 4-4-5
4 (9)
10.0
Bottom of Boring at 10 feet bgs, Boring Terminated

A SUMMIT COMPANIES BORING NUMBER B-4
3575 CENTRE CIR
FORT MILL.Sc 29715 PAGE 1 OF 1
SUMMIT 7045041717
n _
Un�n�.a Era-earls x�—�Company [e-mail]
CLIENT Circle K PROJECT NAME Circle K-Hickory Tree Road
PROJECT NUMBER 8382.G0205 PROJECT LOCATION Winston-Salem, North Carolina
DATE STARTED 10/21/22 COMPLETED 10/21/22 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 6 inches
DRILLING CONTRACTOR SUMMIT GROUND WATER/CAVE-IN:
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING ---GW NE ATD/Caved in Depth @ 8'bgs
LOGGED BY J.Parrish CHECKED BY N.Sacks AT END OF DRILLING ---
NOTES See Figure 2"Boring Location Plan"for Approx. Boring Location AFTER DRILLING ---
w a A SPT N VALUE A
0 U a o >- o w 0 20 40 60 80 100
�w �^ ��
~ a O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w m >0 O D Q I I
w J Cl-z 0 110> 0 20 40 60 80 100
w < 0 FINES CONTENT(%)0
0 20 40 60 80 100
• •`° Approx.3"of TOPSOIL
i _ I (
ReddishMH) BrownRESIDUUM:Sandy Elastic SILT
(SM)Loose Reddish Brown and Light Brown Micaceous Silty
SAND
SPT 5-5-4
1 (9)
2.5
(SM)Loose Light Brown and White Micaceous Silty SAND
SPT 4-4-5 A
2 (9)
5.0
(ML)Stiff Olive Brown and White Micaceous Sandy SILT
SPT 4-4-6
3 (10)
7.5
•
— 8ft
SPT 3-4-6
4 (10)
10.0
Bottom of Boring at 10 feet bgs, Boring Terminated

g p UNIVERSAL KEY TO BORING LOGS
ENGINEERING SCIENCES
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION GROUP
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL NAMES
No.of Blows of a 140-Ib.Weight Falling 30
N-Value Inches Required to Drive a Standard Spoon cp GW Well-graded gravels and gravel-
1 Foot a) GRAVELS
CLEAN sand mixtures,little or no fines
N 50%or GRAVELS Poorly graded gravels and
WOR Weight of Drill Rods o mixtures,little or no GP gravel-sand o more of fines
J •• N coarse
WOH Weight of Drill Rods and Hammer p Z fraction GM Silty gravels and gravel-sand-
(/) ro retained on GRAVELS silt mixtures
T 0 No.4 sieve
WITH FINES
i Sample from Auger Cuttings Z GC Clayey gravels and gravel-
o sand-clay mixtures
Q -o —
x Standard Penetration Test Sample c .� CLEAN p SW** Well-graded sands and gravelly
@ SANDS sands,little or no fines
cn 2 SANDS 5%or less —
' Thin-wall Shelby Tube Sample iy More than passing No. ** Poorly graded sands and
Q o 50%of 200 sieve SP gravelly sands,little or no fines
(Undisturbed Sampler Used) O «, coarse
asfraction SANDS with SM** Silty sands,sand-silt mixtures
RQD Rock Quality Designation passes No. 12%or more
Y Stabilized Groundwater Level 2o
4 sieve passing No.200 sieve SC** Clayey sands,sand-clay
mixtures
Inorganic silts,very fine sands,
I Groundwater Level at time of Drilling ML rock flour,silty or clayey fine
sands
NE Not Encountered > SILTS AND CLAYS Inorganic clays of low to
N
Liquid limit CL medium plasticity,gravelly
O 50%or less clays,sandy clays,lean clays
• O
GNE Groundwater Not Encountered _i N
O 6 OL Organic silts and organic silty
F Z clays of low plasticity
BT Boring Terminated o °, -
W -c Inorganic silts,micaceous or
200(%) Fines Content or%Passing No.200 Sieve Z MH diamicaceous fine sands or
(▪ 0silts,elastic silts
MC(%) Moisture Content 0 Q
W °) SILTS AND CLAYS CH Inorganic clays or clays of high
LL Liquid Limit(Atterberg Limits Test) Z plasticity,fat clays
I E Liquid limit
greater than 50%
PI Plasticity Index(Atterberg Limits Test) OH Organic clays of medium to
high plasticity
0
NP Non-Plastic(Atterberg Limits Test) `r' -
PT Peat,muck and other highly
K Coefficient of Permeability organic soils
*Based on the material passing the 3-inch(75 mm)sieve
Org. Cont. Organic Content **Use dual symbol(such as SP-SM and SP-SC)for soils with more
than 5%but less than 12%passing the No.200 sieve
G.S. Elevation Ground Surface Elevation
RELATIVE DENSITY
(Sands and Gravels) PLASTICITY CHART
Very loose—Less than 4 Blow/Foot
Loose—4 to 10 Blows/Foot 60
Medium Dense—11 to 30 Blows/Foot
Dense—31 to 50 Blows/Foot so
Very Dense-More than 50 Blows/Foot
CONSISTENCYw 40
(Silts and Clays) z /. cuoroH
Very Soft-Less than 2 Blows/Foot E 30
Soft-2 to 4 Blows/FootOH or MH
Firm-5 to 8 Blows/Foot20Stiff-9 to 15 Blows/Foot
Very Stiff-16 to 30 Blows/FootHard-More than 30 Blows/Foot10
RELATIVE HARDNESS 0
(Limestone) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 00 90 100
Soft—100 Blows for more than 2 Inches LIQUID LIMIT
Hard—100 Blows for less than 2 Inches

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT, ASTM D 4318
60 /
Dashed line indicates the approximate /
upper limit boundary for natural soils //
50 /
/ O
G
40
X /
Z /
30
cnn.
g /
/ O
20 of
10
f/f/C MLA%// ML or C MH or OH
0 I •
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
LIQUID LIMIT
J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS
• Light Orange-Brown Sandy Silt 45 41 4 76.3 56.3 ML
• Light Orange-Brown Silty Sand NP NP NP 88.8 46.6 SM
•
• Yellow-Brown Sandy Silt NP NP NP 83.7 66.7 ML
• Light-Brown Silty Sand 36 35 1 64.6 41.7 SM
Project No. 8382.G0205 Client: UES Remarks:
Project: Circle K
Hickory Tree Road
•Location: B-1 SS @ 3.5'-5'
•Location: B-2 SS @ 1'-2.5'
•Location: B-3 SS @ 8.5'-10'
•Location: B-4 SS @ 3.5'-5'
Summit Engineering
Ft. Mill, South Carolina Figure
Tested By: FG Checked By: MH

Particle Size Distribution Report
ASTM D422
C C O 0 0 O 0 0 v O
It It It
100 0
I I
I I I
90 ) . .I I
80 -
70CC I •
• I
Lii 60
e I
z
I
z 50 1 1
Z -
w I
0
W 40
30 1 I -I 1 -
I
20 J I
I I
I I
10
I I I
0 I I I I
100 10 1 0,1 0.01 0 001
GRAIN SIZE-mm.
+3" %Gravel %Sand %Fines
% Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 20.9 20.0 56.3
Test Results(ASTM D422) Material Description
Sieve Size " Out of Pct. Light Orange-Brown Sandy Silt
Finer Spec. Spec. of
Diam.(mm.) (%) (%) (%) Fines
0.375 100.0
#4 100.0
#10 97.2 Atterberg Limits
#20 86.3 PL= 41 LL= 45 P1= 4
#40 76.3 Coefficients
#60 69.9 D90= 1.1052 D85= 0.7742 D60= 0.1015
#100 64.4 D50= D30= D15=
#140 60.5 D10= Cu= Cc=
#200 56.3
Classification
USCS= ML AASHTO= A-5(2)
Test Remarks
Moisture Content: 18.3%
(no specification provided)
Location:B-1 SS @ 3.5'-5'
Sample Date: 11-14-22
Summit Engineering Client: UES
Project: Circle K 1
Hickory Tree Road
Ft. Mill, South Carolina Project No: 8382.G0205 Figure
Tested By: FG _ Checked By: MH

Particle Size Distribution Report
ASTM D422
C C •• O O O 0 O O _a O
(0 (n cm .- .- n \ & " ' 4 # # u V4
100 I I I r 1 1
I I I I I I I
90 I d I I . 1
I I I
I I I
80— I I I
I
70 I � I -
CC
W 60
"-
Z 50
W I
0
CC
Wo_ 40
30
I I
20 I I 1 1 .
I I I I
I I I
10 f I I I . 1
I I I I I I
0 I 1 I I I I
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE-mm.
+3" %Gravel %Sand %Fines
% Coarse Fine Coarse 1 Medium I Fine Silt Clay
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 11.2 42.2 46.6
Test Results(ASTM D422) Material Description
Sieve Size Finer Spec.* Out of Pct. Light Orange-Brown Silty Sand
or ° Spec. of
Diam.(mm.) (�°) (%) (%) Fines
0.375 100.0
#4 100.0
#10 100.0 Atterberg Limits
#20 98.8 PL= NP LL= NP P1= NP
#40 88.8 Coefficients
#60 73.1 Dg0= 0.4498 D85= 0.3671 D60= 0.1577
#100 58.7 D50= 0.0982 D30= D15=
#140 51.2 D10= Cu= Cc=
#200 46.6
Classification
USCS= SM AASHTO= A-4(0)
Test Remarks
Moisture Content: 19.6%
* (no specification provided)
Location:B-2 SS @ 1'-2.5'
Sample Date: 11-14-22
Summit Engineering I Client: UES
Project: Circle K
Hickory Tree Road
Ft. Mill, South Carolina I Project No: 8382.G0205 _ Figure
Tested By: FG _ _ Checked By: MH

Particle Size Distribution Report
ASTM D422
0 0 8 0
C C C C C 5- N P�7 O tpp 8 ?
c0 Cr) N n \ # # # # it #
100 I i
I I
90 I
I I
I I
80 I I
I I
70
I Y
0`
Z 60
� I
Z 50 1
w
U
a 40
30 I f
20 1
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE-mm.
+3" %Gravel %Sand %Fines
% Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt I Clay
0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 14.1 I 17.0 66.7
Test Results(ASTM D422) Material Description
Sieve Size Finer Spec.. Out of Pct. Yellow-Brown Sandy Silt
or ° Spec. of
Diam.(mm.) (/°) (%) (%) Fines
0.375 100.0
#4 100.0
#10 97.8 Atterberg Limits
#20 90.7 PL= NP LL= NP P1= NP
#40 83.7 Coefficients
#60 78.8 D90= 0.7859 D85= 0.4846 D60=
#100 74.2 D50= D30= D15=
#140 70.4 D10= Cu= Cc=
#200 66.7
Classification
USCS= ML AASHTO= A-4(0)
Test Remarks
* (no specification provided)
Location: B-3 SS @ 8.5'-10'
Sample Date: 11-14-22
Summit Engineering Client: UES
Project: Circle K
Hickory Tree Road
Ft. Mill, South Carolina Project No: 8382.G0205 Figure
Tested By: FG Checked By: MH

Particle Size Distribution Report
ASTM D422
_ • = O O O
= = C C _O N M OO 0 O C N
cc t7 N ; \ A A iT I ik Ft ik #
100 I ' I I I 1
I I I I
90 4 ! I !
I I I
I
80 I I
I
70 d I d -1 I
W 60
Z I
LL
\44s_
Z 50 )
LU I I
C I I U
a 40 , _
I I
I I
30 t I
I I
20. I I
I I I
I I I
10 f I i 1
I I I
0 I I I
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE-mm.
+3" %Gravel %Sand %Fines
% Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 0.0 0.6 3.4 31.4 22.9 41.7
Test Results(ASTM D422) Material Description
Sieve Size Finer Spec` Out of Pct. Light-Brown Silty Sand
Spec.or
Diam.(mm.) (%) (%) ( °) Fines
0.375 100.0
#4 99.4
#10 96.0 Atterberg Limits
#20 80.0 PL= 35 LL= 36 P1= 1
#40 64.6 Coefficients
#60 55.7 D90= 1.3725 D85= 1.0786 D60= 0.3283
#100 49.0 D50= 0.1624 D30= D15=
#140 45.1 D10= Cu- Cc=
#200 41.7
Classification
USCS= SM AASHTO= A-4(0)
Test Remarks
Moisture Content: 14.3%
(no specification provided)
Location: B-4 SS @ 3.5'-5'
Sample Date: 11-14-22
Summit Engineering Client: UES
Project: Circle K
Hickory Tree Road
Ft. Mill, South Carolina Project No: 8382.G0205 Figure _
Tested By: FG Checked By: MH

II ,
k640
UNIVERSAL
ENGINEERING SCIENCES

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

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

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