SW3170504 (4)

Report of
Geotechnical Study
Iredell County
New Public Safety Complex
Statesville, North Carolina
Prepared For:
Iredell County Facility Services
200 South Center Street
Statesville, North Carolina 28677
F&R Record No. 63T-0112

Report of Geotechnical Study
Iredell County
New Public Safety Complex
Statesville, North Carolina
Prepared For:
Iredell County Facility Services
200 South Center Street
Statesville, North Carolina 28677
By:
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
2505 Hutchison -McDonald Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28269
,,,% a l 1 l l l r r , , ,
GAR '''�,
'0FEssi0 • .2
Y
0
.7
s
b �y�
4_;_
® F, 7—< 0 '�
xl� �•a
�eteeaaraea���
July 17, 2015
F&R Record No. 63T-0112 F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GEOI

SINCE FROEHLIN13 & ROBERTSON, INC.
Engineering Stability Since 1881
�C 2505 Hutchison -McDonald Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28269
o T 704.596.2889 1 F 704.596.3784
1881
NC License #F-0266
July 17, 2015
F&R Record No. 63T-0112
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01
Iredell Facility Services
200 South Center Street
Statesville, North Carolina 28677
Attn: Mr. Robert Woody, Director
Re: Report of Geotechnical Study
Iredell County
New Public Safety Complex
Statesville, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Woody:
The enclosed report presents the results of the subsurface exploration program and
geotechnical engineering evaluation undertaken by Froehling & Robertson, Inc. (F&R), in
connection with the planned Iredell County New Public Safety Complex project. Our services
were performed in general accordance with F&R Proposal No. 1663-00092G dated May 28,
2015.
The report presents our understanding of the project, reviews our exploration procedures,
describes the general subsurface conditions at the boring locations, and presents our
evaluations, conclusions, and recommendations. There are important limitations to this and all
geotechnical reports. Some of these limitations are discussed in the information prepared by
Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA), provided in Appendix I of this report. We ask that
you review the referenced GBA infprmation.
Corporate HQ: 3015 Dumbarton Road Richmond, Virginia 23228 T 804.264 2701 F 804.264.1202 www.fandr.com
VIRGINIA • NORTH CAROLINA 9 SOUTH CAROLINA • MARYLAND • DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
A Minority -Owned Business

We have enjoyed working with you on this project, and we are prepared to assist you with the
recommended quality assurance monitoring and testing services during construction. Please
contact us if you have any questions regarding this report or if we may be of further service.
Sincerely,
FROEFILING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Kristian S. Molander, P.E.
Staff Engineer
KSM/MLF
Email Distribution: [e-mail]
1 fi
M/ving . Far er, P.E.
Branch Manager, Senior Engineer
F:\Projects 63T\63T0112 (Iredell County - Geotechnical Services for New Public Safety Complex)\Report\T0112 - GE01.docx
Iredell County Facility Services New Public Safety Complex
F&R Record No. 63T-0112 Statesville, North Carolina
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GEOI July 17, 2015
Page ii of h

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
.......................................................................................................1
1.0
PURPOSE & SCOPE OF SERVICE................................................................................... 2
2.0
PROJECT INFORMATION............................................................................................. 3
2.1
PROJECT INFORMATION AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION....................................................... 3
2.2
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION.................................................................................... 3
3.0
EXPLORATION PROCEDURES.......................................................................................3
3.1
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION............................................................................................ 3
3.2
LABORATORY TESTING.................................................................................................. 5
4.0
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS......................................................................................... 5
4.1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................................................. 5
4.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY.................................................................................................... 6
4.3 SURFICIAL MATERIALS.................................................................................................. 6
4.4 GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY........................................................................ 7
4.5 PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK........................................................................................ 8
4.6 GROUNDWATER DATA.................................................................................................. 9
5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................... 9
5.1 GENERAL...................................................................................................................9
5.2 SHALLOW FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................ 10
5.3 ANTICIPATED SHALLOW FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT............................................................ 10
5.4 CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE....................................................................................... 10
5.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES.......................................................................................... 11
5.6 SOIL ENGINEERING PROPERTIES AT T-1........................................................................... 13
5.7 PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................... 13
5.8 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION....................................................................................... 14
5.9 POTENTIAL LIQUEFACTION........................................................................................... 15
5.10 STORMWATER RUNOFF AND ARCHITECTURAL LANDSCAPING ................................................. 15
6.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................... 16
6.1
GENERAL.................................................................................................................16
6.2
SITE PREPARATION....................................................................................................
16
6.3
MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS..........................................................................................
17
6.4
STRUCTURAL FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION..............................................................
17
6.5
SHALLOW FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION.........................................................................
19
6.6
SURFACE WATER CONTROL..........................................................................................
19
Iredell County Facility Services New Public Safety Complex
F&R Record No. 63T-0112 Statesville, North Carolina
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 July 13, 2015
Page i of ii

F&R
,6.7 EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS...................................................................................... 20
6.8 NON-STRUCTURAL FILL............................................................................................... 20
6.9 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS....................................................................................... 21
6.10 SOIL EROSION........................................................................................................... 21
6.11 EXCAVATIONS...........................................................................................................21
7.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES................................................................................... 22
8.0 LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................22
appriuni F:q
APPENDIX I
GBA Publication
"Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report"
APPENDIX II
Site Vicinity Map (Drawing No. 1)
Test Location Plan (Drawing No. 2)
APPENDIX III
Boring Logs (B-01 through B-10, T-1, CBR -1 through 4)
Composite Subsurface Profiles (Building Area, Parking Area)
Key to Boring Log Soil Classifications
Unified Soil Classification System
APPENDIX IV
Laboratory Test Results
Iredell County Facility Services
F&R Record No. 63T-0112
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01
Page ii of ii
New Public Safety Complex
Statesville, North Carolina
July 17, 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Executive Summary is provided as a brief overview of our geotechnical engineering
evaluation for the project and is not intended to replace more detailed information contained
elsewhere in this report. As an overview, this summary inherently omits details that could be
very important to the proper application of the provided geotechnical design
recommendations. This report should be read in its entirety prior to implementation into
design and construction.
The New Public Safety Complex project involves constructing a new 35,000-sf, one-story
building in the general vicinity of Westminster Drive and Bristol Drive in Statesville, North
Carolina. A 172 foot communications tower and adjacent parking lots with connection roads
will also be built.
• The subsurface exploration program consisted of 15 soil test borings performed during the
weeks of June 15 and 22, 2015. Site subsurface conditions generally consisted of surficial
soils underlain by residual soils.
• Based on soil laboratory testing and visual observations, elastic silts (MH) were typically in
the upper 8 feet below existing grades.
• The proposed buildings may be supported on a shallow foundation system bearing on
approved residual soil or controlled structural fill. If the recommendations in the report are
followed, we can recommend that building foundations be designed for a maximum
allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for foundations bearing
on approved subgrades. Exterior footings should be constructed at least 24 inches below
adjacent grades for frost and bearing capacity considerations.
• From the average SPT N -values obtained, the subsurface conditions at the project site
correspond most closely with those of Site Classification "D".
• Monitoring and testing of site grading and foundation construction should be performed in
conjunction with the recommendations contained in this report. Deviating from the
recommendations listed in this report could lead to potential excessive settlement issues
and site erosion with the planned construction.
Iredell County Facility Services
F&R Record No. 63T-0112
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01
Page 1 of 23
New Public Safety Complex
Statesville, North Carolina
July 17, 2015

7RM
1.0 PURPOSE & SCOPE OF SERVICE
Froehling & Robertson, Inc. (F&R) was involved with the planned Iredell County New Public Safety
Complex in Statesville, North Carolina, to 1) perform a subsurface exploration and laboratory
testing, 2) provide shallow foundation design recommendations, provide pavement section design
recommendations and 3) comment on geotechnical aspects of the proposed construction. In
order to accomplish these objectives, we undertook the following scope of services:
• Visited the site to observe existing surface conditions and mark the proposed
boring locations.
• Coordinated underground utility clearance with NC811.
• Reviewed and summarized readily available geologic and subsurface information
relative to the project site.
• Executed the requested subsurface exploration program consisting of fifteen
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings. SPT borings B-01 through B-10 were
advanced to termination depths of 20 feet below the proposed building footprint.
Four additional 10 feet deep test borings were also performed at planned parking
and road locations. One SPT boring was drilled at the planned location for the 172 -
foot tall tower.
• Performed nine sets of soil classification tests (ASTM D422 without hydrometer,
D4318, D2216) and four standard Proctor maximum dry density tests with
California Bearing Ratio determinations (ASTM D698 and D1883).
• Preparation of this written report summarizing our work on the project, providing
descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered, presenting the
recommended shallow foundation and pavement section designs, and discussing
geotechnical related aspects of the proposed construction. Copies of the boring
logs and laboratory test results are included.
F&R's geotechnical services did not include topographic or field surveying, development of
quantity estimates, preparation of plans and specifications, or the identification and evaluation
of wetlands or other environmental aspects of the project site.
Iredell County Facility Services
F&R Record No. 63T-0112
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01
Page 2 of 23
New Public Safety Complex
Statesville, North Carolina
July 17, 2015

fa�R
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Project Information and Proposed Construction
Initial project information was provided by Mr. Robert Woody of Iredell County Facility Services to
F&R, via email and email attachment to Mr. Marving L. Farmer, P.E., on May 22, 2015. F&R
provided Proposal No. 1663-00092G dated May 28, 2015, to Iredell County in response to the
proposal request. A new Public Safety Complex is planned on a 16 -acre site.
The proposed project involves constructing a new 35,000-sf, one-story building fronting on Bristol
Drive in the general vicinity of Westminster Drive. A 172 -foot tall communications tower is
planned to be constructed behind the building.
F&R understands that initial project design and development is currently underway. As a result,
detailed plans and specifications are unavailable at the time of this report.
2.2 Site Location and Description
The proposed building location (Parcel 4724672542.000) sits southwest of the intersection of
Westminster Drive and Bristol Drive in Statesville, North Carolina. This 16 -acre site is currently
wooded. Project surroundings are shown on the attached Site Vicinity Map in Appendix II,
Drawing No. 1.
3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
3.1 Subsurface Exploration
The subsurface exploration program consisted of fifteen Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
borings. Ten borings designated as B-01 through B-10 were advanced to termination depths of
20 feet below the existing ground surface at the building footprint area. Four borings (CBR -1 to
4) were performed to 10 -feet below existing site grades at the proposed parking areas. One
boring, for the 172 -foot tower, was drilled to auger refusal at 34.8 feet. Approximate boring
locations are identified on the Subsurface Exploration Plan included in Appendix II as Drawing
No. 2. Boring locations were marked at the site by F&R personnel utilizing hand-held GPS
equipment. As such, the boring locations should be considered approximate.
Subsurface exploration was performed during the weeks of June 15 and June 22, 2015. SPT
tests at boring locations were performed continuously from the existing ground surface to a
Iredell County Facility Services New Public Safety Complex
F&R Record No. 63T-0112 Statesville, North Carolina
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 July 17, 2015
Page 3 of 23

0
depth of 6 feet in general accordance with ASTM D1586. Thereafter, boreholes were advanced
and SPT performed at approximate 5 -foot intervals to their termination depths.
Soil samples were obtained with a standard 2" O.D. and 30" long split -spoon sampler with each
SPT being driven with a 140 -Ib automatic hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows
required to drive the sampler each 6 -inch increment of penetration was recorded and are
shown on the boring logs. The first six-inch increment is used to seat the sampler with the sum
of the second and third penetration increments being termed the SPT value, "N". A
representative portion of each disturbed split -spoon sample was collected with each SPT,
placed in a glass jar, and returned to our laboratory for review.
The recovered split -spoon samples were visually classified by F&R engineers in general
accordance with the ASTM D2488. The boring logs provided in Appendix III show the
subsurface conditions encountered on the dates and at the approximate locations indicated.
The drill rig used for this project was an ATV -mounted, CME 550X equipped with an automatic
hammer. Research has shown that the Standard Penetration Resistance (N -value) determined
by the automatic hammer is different from the N -value determined by the safety hammer
method. Most correlations that are published in technical literature are based on the N -value
determined by the safety hammer method. This is commonly termed N60 as the rope and
cathead with a safety hammer delivers roughly 60 percent of the theoretical energy delivered
by a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches.
Because an automatic hammer was used to perform the SPT tests, the sample blows recorded
during drilling (Nf,eld) have been corrected to equivalent N60 safety hammer values. The N60
values reported on the boring logs included in this report were determined from the following
equation:
N60 ," Nf,eld x CE
where Nfeld is the value recorded in the field, and CE is the drill rod energy ratio for the hammer
used. A value of 1.3 was used for CE in accordance with guidelines provided in the Performance
and Use of the Standard Penetration Test in Geotechnical Engineering Practice manual
published by the Center for Geotechnical Practice and Research at the Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University.
Iredell County Facility Services
F&R Record No. 63T-0112
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01
Page 4 of 23
New Public Safety Complex
Statesville, North Carolina
July 17, 2015
0

By the nature of the work performed, the drilling activities result in disturbances to the site.
The completed boreholes performed were backfilled upon completion. The borehole backfill
may subside at some time following our work. F&R assumes no responsibility for borehole
subsidence after completion of the field exploration and departing the site. For continued
safety, the boreholes should be occasionally observed by others with any needed additional
backfilling then being performed.
3.2 Laboratory Testing
For geotechnical considerations, select split -spoon samples from the soil test borings were
subjected to laboratory classification testing. This testing included natural water content
determinations (ASTM D2216), sieve analysis (ASTM D422 without hydrometer), and Atterberg
limits tests (ASTM D4318). Based on the results of these tests, the soil samples were then
classified in general accordance with Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487).
Laboratory testing was performed on bulk soil samples for determination of a California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) value (ASTM D1883) for the proposed paved areas. Standard Proctor maximum dry
density (ASTM D698) was used to prepare each soil for CBR testing.
Laboratory test results for are provided in Appendix IV.
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
4.1 Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions discussed in the following paragraphs and those shown on the attached
boring logs represent an estimate of the subsurface conditions based on interpretation of the field
and laboratory data using normally accepted geotechnical engineering judgments. Subsurface
profiles for the project stratigraphy have been prepared for convenience only. Given the wide
spacing between boring locations, it is anticipated that subsurface conditions may vary
between each boring location.
Strata breaks designated on the boring logs represent approximate boundaries between soil
types. The transitions between different soil strata are usually less distinct than those shown on
the boring logs. Although individual soil test borings are representative of the subsurface
conditions at the boring locations on the dates shown, they are not necessarily indicative of
Iredell County Facility Services
F&R Record No. 63T-0112
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01
Page 5 of 23
New Public Safety Complex
Statesville, North Carolina `
July 17, 2015

Q
subsurface conditions at other locations or at other times. Data from the specific soil test borings
are shown on the individual boring logs included in Appendix III.
4.2 Regional Geology
The referenced site is located within the Inner Piedmont Geologic Province according to the
Geologic Map of North Carolina (1985) and is reportedly underlain mainly by Biotite Gneiss and
Schist (CZbg). Underlying rock is generally described as being inequigranular, locally abundant,
potassium feldspar and garnet; interlayered and gradational with calc-silicate rock, sillimanite-mica
schist, mica schist, and amphibolite. Underlying rock may contain small masses of granitic rock.
Ground surface elevations within the Piedmont Plateau vary from approximately 400 feet
above sea level in the east to 2,000 feet in the west. The topography of the Piedmont Plateau
generally consists of well-rounded hills and long -rolling ridges with a northeast -southwest
trend. This rolling topography is the result of streams flowing across and acting on rocks of
unequal hardness.
The Piedmont Plateau region is underlain by older crystalline (metamorphic and igneous) rock
formations that trend northeast -southwest and vary greatly in their resistance to weathering
and erosion. The major streams generally flow from northwest to southeast across these rock
structures without regard to their northeast -southwest tending structures.
The typical residual soil profile consists of fine-grained soils (clays/silts) near the surface, where
soil weathering is more advanced, underlain by more coarse-grained soils (sandy silts/silty
sands) with depth. The boundary between soil and rock is not sharply defined. This transitional
zone, termed "weathered rock", is normally found overlying the parent bedrock. The degree of
weathering is facilitated by fractures, joints, and by the presence of less resistant rock types.
Consequently, the profile of the "weathered rock" and hard rock is quite irregular and erratic,
even over short, horizontal distances.
4.3 Surficial Materials
As identified by the boring data from this study, a surficial soil layer was encountered at
multiple boring locations. Surficial soil is typically dark -colored soil material containing roots,
fibrous matter, and/or other organic components, and is generally unsuitable for engineering
purposes. F&R has not performed any laboratory testing to determine the organic content or
Iredell County Facility Services
F&R Record No. 63T-0112
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01
Page 6 of 23
New Public Safety Complex
Statesville, North Carolina
July 17, 2015

other horticultural properties of the observed surficial soil materials. Therefore, the term
surficial soil is not intended to indicate suitability for landscaping and/or other purposes.
The surficial soil depth provided in this report is based on visual observations and should be
considered approximate. We note that the transition from surficial soil to underlying materials
maybe gradual and, therefore, the observation and measurement of surficial soil is subjective.
Actual surficial soil depths should be expected to vary across the site.
4.4 Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy
Subsurface data obtained by the soil borings are presented in the following Composite
Subsurface Profiles and in Appendix III.
Figure 4.4.1: Composite Subsurface Profile — Building Area
Composite Profile Notes
• STRATUM I: Very Stiff to Stiff, Reddish Brown, Elastic SILT with trace mica, moist (MH)
• STRATUM II: Loose, Brownish Red, Silty SAND with trace mica, moist (SM).
Iredell County Facility Services
F&R Record No. 63T-0112
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GEO1
Page 7 of 23
New Public Safety Complex
Statesville, North Carolina
July 17, 2015
960
SURnOAL9-10
R 09�
—Tl ff 7 8-08
555
_ 8.
B-OT� 1/ I
1� 22
16 26 20
B-06
22
-950
SURPICIAL
6'
26
16
31 6
6 STRATUM I
13
8
8 05
25
8
_
16
8
u
21
STRATUM I
910
26
6
12
7 STRATUM II
ze
535
13 STRATUM II
11
7
930
Subsurface Profile Notes
925
12
'-Standard Penetration Resistance
Seethe Bong Lags,, Appendmul fora desmpwnof the gmphx symbolsand soldasd-t
Composite Profile Notes
• STRATUM I: Very Stiff to Stiff, Reddish Brown, Elastic SILT with trace mica, moist (MH)
• STRATUM II: Loose, Brownish Red, Silty SAND with trace mica, moist (SM).
Iredell County Facility Services
F&R Record No. 63T-0112
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GEO1
Page 7 of 23
New Public Safety Complex
Statesville, North Carolina
July 17, 2015

Figure 4.4.2: Composite Subsurface Profile — Parking Areas
Composite Profile Notes
• STRATUM I: Very Stiff to Stiff, Reddish Brown to Brownish Red, Elastic SILT with trace
mica, moist (MH). ,
4.5 Partially Weathered Rock
Borinlf1 a labr�rax"s_fla-te,lu�3�3}'%e'e�t be'e'ath�fihi's+in;r►czu,nd s rrfcace. Boring T-1 was
terminated at auger refusal in rock at 34.8 feet below existing grades. Partially weathered rock
was logged and modelled for our evaluations as Sandy SILT (MH).
Iredell County Facility Services New Public Safety Complex
F&R Record No. 63T-0112 Statesville, North Carolina
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 July 17, 2015
Page 8 of 23
965
960
CBR -4
SURFICIAL
13
CBR -3
17
955
12
11
9
19
950
SURFICIAL
W
S E ATUM I
945
4
CBR -2
940
r
SrFUTGII I
23
24
935
B
Subsurface Profli a Notes
930
,z Standard PenetratwnResistarc
Seethe Boring Lpl;s in Appench 111 fwa dacnptwnafthe¢rapfucsymbals and scildassditatiw
Composite Profile Notes
• STRATUM I: Very Stiff to Stiff, Reddish Brown to Brownish Red, Elastic SILT with trace
mica, moist (MH). ,
4.5 Partially Weathered Rock
Borinlf1 a labr�rax"s_fla-te,lu�3�3}'%e'e�t be'e'ath�fihi's+in;r►czu,nd s rrfcace. Boring T-1 was
terminated at auger refusal in rock at 34.8 feet below existing grades. Partially weathered rock
was logged and modelled for our evaluations as Sandy SILT (MH).
Iredell County Facility Services New Public Safety Complex
F&R Record No. 63T-0112 Statesville, North Carolina
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 July 17, 2015
Page 8 of 23

9
4.6 Groundwater Data
F&R did not obtain long-term stabilized groundwater level readings at the soil boring locations,
as the boreholes were backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. The groundwater level
was evaluated at each boring location by gauging the water level in the boring after drilling and
by visually judging the moisture content of the recovered split -spoon soil samples.
e ge depth ©f 11.5 feet. Baed' ®n th cavi g , p , g aur dwa�er may be encounte,rc�E'n
Groundwater levels fluctuate with seasonal changes, periods of heavy or little rainfall, and
other factors. Therefore, our evaluations of the groundwater level do not reveal the actual
year-round groundwater conditions.
5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 General
The following findings and recommendations are based on our observations at the site,
interpretation of the field and laboratory data obtained during our subsurface exploration, and
our experience with similar subsurface conditions and projects. Soil penetration data has been
used to evaluate the subsurface conditions based on established correlations. Subsurface
conditions in unexplored locations may vary from those encountered. If the proposed building
footprint is changed, F&R requests that we be advised so that our design recommendations can
be re-evaluated.
Determination of an appropriate foundation system for a given structure is dependent on the
proposed structural loads, soil conditions, and construction constraints such as proximity to
other structures, etc. The subsurface exploration aids the geotechnical engineer in determining
the soil stratum appropriate for structural support. This determination includes considerations
with regard to both allowable bearing capacity and compressibility of the soil strata. In
addition, since the method of construction greatly affects the soils intended for structural
support, consideration must be given to the implementation of suitable methods of site
preparation, fill compaction, and other aspects of construction. Please refer to the
Construction Recommendations included in Section 6 of this report.
Iredell County Facility Services New Public Safety Complex
F&R Record No. 63T-0112 Statesville, North Carolina
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 July 17, 2015
Page 9 of 23

5.2 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations
Based on the available project information and our evaluations, structures may be supported on a
conventional shallow foundation system bearing in approved Stratum I soils or compacted
structural fill placed in accordance with requirements in Section 6.
e structural elements should be centered on the foundations to
provide uniform load transfer, unless the foundations are proportioned for eccentric loads.
Shallow, lightly loaded foundations should bear at a depth of at least 24 inches below the finish
exterior site grades to lessen the potential for damage from frost penetration and for bearing
capacity considerations.
5.3 Anticipated Shallow Foundation Settlement
Based on the boring data, assumed structural loading, and the considerations provided in
Section 6,MM1,11sets, em t • e lug an oda ' = nI • a 0 75 +iup nd a uoil
is expected to be on the order of
Differential foundation settlement is anticipated to be on the order of %-inch or less.
Our settlement analysis was performed on the basis of structural and grading assumptions
discussed in the project information section of this report. Actual settlements experienced by
the structure and the time required for these soils to settle will be influenced by undetected
variations in subsurface conditions, actual structural loads, final grading plans, and the quality
of fill placement and foundation construction.
5.4 Concrete Slabs -On -Grade
Concrete slabs not structurally supported as part of the building may be placed on properly
compacted controlled structural fill over an approved soil subgrade following subgrade
preparation as discussed in Section 6. A standard modulus of subgrade reaction ("k") of 75
pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) may be used for the design of the slabs -on -grade.
Iredell County Facility Services New Public Safety Complex
F&R Record No. 63T-0112 Statesville, North Carolina
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 July 17, 2015
Page 10 of 23

Slabs should be structurally isolated (float freely) from the foundations to allow for differential
movement between the slabs and the structure.
Settlements associated with the slabs are anticipated to be on the order of 1 -inch or less,
provided the slab area is prepared and controlled structural fill material is placed and
compacted as recommended.
A six-inch thick layer of North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Open Graded
Coarse Aggregate No. 57 or No. 78 or clean sand (SP per Unified Soil Classification System)
should be placed beneath the floor slab. This granular base would function as a leveling and
load distributing material as well as a capillary break beneath the slab.
A vapor retarder should be used beneath slabs that will be covered by tile, wood, carpet,
impermeable coatings, and/or if other moisture -sensitive equipment or materials will be in
contact with the slab. However, the use of vapor retarders may result in excessive curling of
concrete slabs during curing. We refer the concrete slab designer to ACI 302.111-04, Sections
4.1.5 and 11.11, for further discussion on vapor retarders, curling, and the means to lessen
potential concrete shrinkage and curling.
Proper jointing of the concrete slabs -on -grade is also essential to reduce cracking. ACI suggests
that unreinforced, plain concrete slabs may be jointed at spacing of 24 to 36 times the slab
thickness, up to a maximum spacing of 15 feet. Slab construction should incorporate isolation
joints along walls and column locations to allow minor movements to occur without damage.
Utility or other construction excavations in the prepared subgrade should be backfilled to a
controlled fill criterion to provide uniform support.
5.5 Lateral Earth Pressures
The following information is provided to aid in analysis of soil loads on below -grade concrete
walls. These below -grade wall recommendations should not be correlated for use in any other
wall design.
Earth pressures on below grade walls are influenced by structural design of the walls,
conditions of wall restraint, methods of construction and/or compaction, and the strength of
the materials being restrained. The most common conditions assumed for earth retaining wall
design are the active and at -rest conditions. Active conditions apply to relatively flexible earth
retention structures, such as freestanding walls, where some movement and rotation may
Iredell County Facility Services
F&R Record No. 63T-0112
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01
Page 11 of 23
New Public Safety Complex
Statesville, North Carolina
July 17, 2015

9
occur to mobilize soil shear strength. Walls that are rigidly restrained require design using at -
rest earth pressures.
A third condition, the passive state, represents the maximum possible pressure when a
structure is pushed against the soil, and is used in wall foundation design to help resist active or
at -rest pressures. Because significant wall movements are required to develop the passive
pressure, the total calculated passive pressure should be reduced by one-half to two-thirds for
design purposes.
A granular material such as NCDOT No. 57 stone or SP sand should be used for backfill behind
the below grade walls. This material should be free draining and meet the requirements for
controlled structural backfill, as outlined in Section 6 of this report.
A moist unit weight of 115 pounds per cubic foot and angle of internal friction of 30' should be
used for design calculations for below grade structures or foundation with granular backfill
bearing against the existing Stratum I or II soils. Based on these values, recommended lateral
earth pressure coefficients and equivalent fluid pressure parameters for design of below grade
structures are provided in the following Table:
Table 5.5.1: Lateral Earth Pressure Design Data
Granular Backfill
Earth
Pressure
Conditions
Coefficient
Recommended Equivalent
Fluid Pressure —Drained
(psf/ft)1
Fully Submerged
Equivalent Fluid
Pressures (psf/ft)l
Active (Ka)
0.33
38
81
At -Rest (Ko)
0.50
58
91
Passive (KP)
3.00
345
--
NOTE: 1— does not include a factor of safety
An appropriate factor of safety should be applied to the recommended equivalent fluid
pressures for below grade wall design.
A soil -concrete coefficient of friction (tan S) of 0.4 is recommended for use with respect to
evaluating foundation sliding resistance.
Iredell County Facility Services
F&R Record No. 63T-0112
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01
Page 12 of 23
New Public Safety Complex
Statesville, North Carolina
July 17, 2015

5.6 Soil Engineering Properties at T-1
The following soil properties are provided for use in the tower foundation design:
Table 5.6.1: Estimated Soil Properties at T-1
Notes:GW - Groundwater Elevation
5.7 Pavement Section Recommendations
The pavement design for the planned parking area should consider whether the pavement will
be subjected to light duty or heavy duty traffic. A light duty pavement section can be used
where traffic is expected to primarily consist of autos and occasional light service vehicles. A
heavy duty pavement section should be used where the traffic will also consist of light and
heavy service vehicles.
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test results on four subgrade soil samples obtained from the
planned parking area are presented in Attachment IV. Pavement designs are normally based on
a Design CBR (DCBR) value calculated as % of the average soaked CBR value. The DCBR for this
project based on the laboratory data is 3.
Using an assumed traffic type and the laboratory DCBR value, the following light and heavy duty
pavement sections are recommended for the project:
Iredell County Facility Services
F&R Record No. 63T-0112
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GEO1
Page 13 of 23
New Public Safety Complex
Statesville, North Carolina
July 17, 2015
Approximate
Effective
Undrained
Soil Stratum
Depth
Unit
FrictionCohesion,
c
(ft)
Weight
Angle, 4)
(psf)
(pcf)
STRATUM I
(Sandy Elastic
0-8.5
90
23
1,000
Silt above GW)
STRATUM II
(Silty Sand
8.5-33.5
53
30
-
below GW)
STRATUM I I I
(Sandy Elastic
33.5-35
53
25
500
Silt below GW)
Notes:GW - Groundwater Elevation
5.7 Pavement Section Recommendations
The pavement design for the planned parking area should consider whether the pavement will
be subjected to light duty or heavy duty traffic. A light duty pavement section can be used
where traffic is expected to primarily consist of autos and occasional light service vehicles. A
heavy duty pavement section should be used where the traffic will also consist of light and
heavy service vehicles.
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test results on four subgrade soil samples obtained from the
planned parking area are presented in Attachment IV. Pavement designs are normally based on
a Design CBR (DCBR) value calculated as % of the average soaked CBR value. The DCBR for this
project based on the laboratory data is 3.
Using an assumed traffic type and the laboratory DCBR value, the following light and heavy duty
pavement sections are recommended for the project:
Iredell County Facility Services
F&R Record No. 63T-0112
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GEO1
Page 13 of 23
New Public Safety Complex
Statesville, North Carolina
July 17, 2015

fs�R
Table 5.7.1: Pavement Section Design
Construction of the pavements should be performed in accordance with the latest edition of
the North Carolina Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Roads and
Structures.
It is recommended that any dumpsters be supported on a minimum 6 -inch thick concrete pad
on a minimum 6 -inch thick NCDOT ABC stone subbase. The pad should project horizontally in
front of the dumpster such that the front wheels of any service truck are supported by the
concrete pad during loading and unloading of the dumpster.
0
Chapter 16 of the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) references relevant ASCE 7 provisions
for determining seismic Site Class, based on soil properties present within the upper 100 feet of
the subsurface profile.
The available subsurface data from our exploration indicates an average N -value of 31 bpf at
the site in the upper 100 feet of the subsurface. Therefore, in general accordance with Section
20.3 of ASCE 7-10, SJ,e (9I 7si i[
F&R notes that the recommended Site Class is based on information available at the time this
report was written. If this classification should be so onerous to the project cost that further
study is warranted, we can perform a site-specific geo-physical survey to attain sufficient detail
Iredell County Facility Services New Public Safety Complex
F&R Record No. 63T-0112 Statesville, North Carolina
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 July 17, 2015
Page 14 of 23
Light Duty Pavement
Heavy Duty Pavement
Mix Design
(inches)
(inches)
59.513 Bituminous Concrete
3
1.5
Surface Mix
1325.06 Bituminous Concrete
-
4.5
Base Mix
NCDOT ABC Stone Subbase
8
8
Construction of the pavements should be performed in accordance with the latest edition of
the North Carolina Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Roads and
Structures.
It is recommended that any dumpsters be supported on a minimum 6 -inch thick concrete pad
on a minimum 6 -inch thick NCDOT ABC stone subbase. The pad should project horizontally in
front of the dumpster such that the front wheels of any service truck are supported by the
concrete pad during loading and unloading of the dumpster.
0
Chapter 16 of the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) references relevant ASCE 7 provisions
for determining seismic Site Class, based on soil properties present within the upper 100 feet of
the subsurface profile.
The available subsurface data from our exploration indicates an average N -value of 31 bpf at
the site in the upper 100 feet of the subsurface. Therefore, in general accordance with Section
20.3 of ASCE 7-10, SJ,e (9I 7si i[
F&R notes that the recommended Site Class is based on information available at the time this
report was written. If this classification should be so onerous to the project cost that further
study is warranted, we can perform a site-specific geo-physical survey to attain sufficient detail
Iredell County Facility Services New Public Safety Complex
F&R Record No. 63T-0112 Statesville, North Carolina
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 July 17, 2015
Page 14 of 23

to further define the project's seismic Site Class definition. This additional testing would be
beyond the currently authorized scope of services for this project. -
According to the ASCE 7-10 maps prepared by the USGS in collaboration with the Building
Seismic Safety Council, the mapped spectral accelerations, as determined from Section 22, for
short periods (SS) is equal to 0.22 g and at a 1 -second period (Sl ) is equal to 0.092 g. The Site
C•aefifi,ci,ent 'Fa i.s 6 and the Sit Cee ficient Fv is 2. oir
Ta ieWLM&MFa7M1 -2
respectively.
5.9 Potential Liquefaction
An evaluation was performed with respect to potential seismic liquefaction of the subsurface
soils encountered by the soil test borings. The evaluation was performed using methods
developed by Seed and Idriss (1982) and modified by Youd (2001).
The evaluation was based on N -values and soil classification. A Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)
of 0.097 g and an earthquake magnitude 7.4 was used in the evaluation based on data obtained
from the 2008 NSHMP PSHA Interactive Deaggregation web site U' i g phis rt ni m
aI IWERRsa ty et=er w s fount Md t be 2, MMMUM- is abe a h pig diiy en
5.10 Stormwater Runoff and Architectural Landscaping
Due to the moisture sensitivity of the subgrade soils, roof drainage and downspouts should be
designed to discharge at least 10 feet away from the building footprint or onto nearby concrete
or asphalt surfaces.
Irrigation systems should be designed to discharge no closer than 10 feet to the buildings.
Architectural landscaping plantings requiring irrigation should be no closer than 10 feet to the
buildings.
Iredell County Facility Services
F&R Record No. 63T-0112
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01
Page 15 of 23
New Public Safety Complex
Statesville, North Carolina
July 17, 2015

FSR
6.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General
The principal purpose of this section is to comment in general on the items related to
earthwork and associated geotechnical engineering aspects of construction that should be
expected for this project. It is recommended that F&R's geotechnical engineer be retained to
provide soil -engineering services during the construction phases of the project and perform
appropriate evaluations to help assure that conditions encountered during construction are
similar to conditions encountered in the borings. The geotechnical engineer can also assist in
interpretation of differing subsurface conditions that may be encountered and recommend
remedial work, if needed.
6.2 Site Preparation
The entire construction area should be stripped of grass, trees, stumps, vegetation, organic -
laden soils, debris or any other deleterious materials to a- minimum of 10 feet outside the
structural limits for buildings and 5 feet for paved areas. Depressions or low areas resulting
from stripping and or clearing operations should be backfilled with approved soil and
compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report.
During grading operations, hidden features in the substratum, such as organic laden soils, trash,
or other deleterious materials will likely be encountered within the proposed construction area.
Generally, such features will require removal. Details regarding the removal of deleterious
materials should be determined on a case-by-case basis; and, therefore, c.yn rrae dc,c.u;i u�.on�ts
We recommend site preparation be monitored by the geotechnical engineer or his
representative to verify that the recommendations presented herein are implemented. Prio 0
e&fec, a n7aJ �ttijfit-eer o h:i_ rP ..r_e P_ratriiuP,_ Proofrolling should be performed with a fully
loaded tandem -axle dump truck or similar piece of rubber -tired equipment with a minimum
loaded weight of 20 tons. The purpose of the proofrolling is to detect the existence of any soft,
very loose, or wet, near -surface materials or unsuitable soils that may require undercutting.
Iredell County Facility Services New Public Safety Complex
F&R Record No. 63T-0112 - Statesville, North Carolina
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 July 17, 2015
Page 16 of 23

9
repreLse tat070-a ,d apps ed„15 tllee Owner!- �Some localized undercutting and or recompaction
should be anticipated; and, therefore, conga°ctd"ocuirpne,nts'sh,o�uld ,i'n2cfu�deon�tsingenryCosC
6.3 Moisture Sensitive Soils
Based on the results of our visual/manual classification and laboratory testing, moisture
sensitive soils, elastic SILT (MH), were encountered as the Stratum I and III soils.
In general, el'as &ic siilfis are highly moisture sensitive, have low strength properties, can undergo
significant changes in volume (shrink/swell) with changes in their moisture content, and are
to help reduce the potential for soil movement from such materials directly
underlying structures.
Pe►�d� ma su «e ssfu proo�Fr�a In if ®yni' on en �romete(I� ) testin i d �crat
nit�blle e sr'�n eon'd°�itions, these ®"Is le; III If the soils evaluated are
considered unstable, they should be undercut to suitable, stable soils. Due to the nature of
these moisture sensitive soils, we recommend positive drainage be provided away from the
building pad and roadway areas during and after construction.
Please be aware that there is the possibility that problems may arise when using elastic silts as
structural fill. If elastic silts are to be used as structural fill, we recommend using these soils in
the deeper fill areas if laboratory testing indicates dry unit weights above 90 pounds per cubic
foot (pcf). If the elastic silts are tested and are lightweight (less than 90 pcf), they may be used
in landscaped areas.
6.4 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction
Iredell County Facility Services
F&R Record No. 63T-0112
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01
Page 17 of 23
New Public Safety Complex
Statesville, North Carolina
July 17, 2015

FB�R
Fill in structural areas should be free of organics, roots, or other deleterious materials; should
not contain more than five percent (by weight) organic material; have a plasticity index (PI)
greater than 25; or have a maximum dry density less than 90 pounds per cubic foot. Soils not
meeting these criteria may be used in landscaped or non-structural areas. Compacted
structural fill should consist of material classified as CL, ML, SC or SM per ASTM D2487, or
others as approved by the geotechnical engineer. CH and MH materials are generally not
recommended for use as structural fill due to their low strength characteristics and moisture
sensitivity, but may be approved on a case-by-case basis. Soils imported from off-site sources
should also meet similar classification requirements and be approved by the geotechnical
engineer prior to use. Successful reuse of the excavated, on-site soils as compacted structural
fill will depend on the water content and the plasticity of the soils encountered during
excavation.
Once fill placement begins,
Structural fills should be
placed in thin (8- to 10 -inch) loose lifts and compacted to the following recommendations:
• er i ,e es below the final subgrade elevation:
■ 100% of the soil's standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method
D698) at or near optimum water content: maximum deviation of ±3 percent.
■ 98% of the soil's standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method
D698) at or near optimum water content: maximum deviation of ±3 percent.
Some manipulation of the water content (such as wetting or drying) may be required during the
filling operation to obtain the required degree of compaction. The manipulation of the water
content is highly dependent on weather conditions and site drainage conditions. Therefore, the
grading contractor should be prepared to both dry and wet the fill materials to obtain the
specified compaction during grading. Regular one -point Proctor tests should be conducted in
an attempt to verify that the most representative Proctor curve is being selected. S f ieien
The contractor should exercise care after these soils have been compacted. If water is allowed
to stand on the surface, these soils may become saturated. Movement of construction traffic
on saturated subgrades can cause rutting that may destroy the fill's integrity. Once the
Iredell County Facility Services New Public Safety Complex
F&R Record No. 63T-0112 Statesville, North Carolina
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 July 17, 2015
Page 18 of 23

9
integrity of the subgrade is destroyed, mobility of construction traffic becomes difficult or
impossible. Therefore, the fill surface should be sloped to achieve positive drainage and to
minimize water from ponding on the surface.
6.5 Shallow Foundation Construction
To document suitable bearing within the actual foundation excavatio
OUR jp�m.e�rut ®r ohh.e,r sui�ta�lale me�t�hod�s Allier �a f�MZMM�tf�.a�n i�m�11� Any unsuitable soils
detected during this evaluation should be undercut and remediated as directed by the
geotechnical engineer. Depending on final design grades, some localized undercutting and/or
recompaction should be anticipated.
We recommend that individual foundations be concreted as soon after the evaluation as
possible to minimize the potential disturbance of the bearing soils. If the foundation excavation
subgrade soils must remain exposed overnight or during inclement weather, w rdec_�.inrnead
The foundation bearing area should be free of any very loose or soft material, standing water,
and debris at the time of concrete placement. Concrete should not be placed on soils that have
been softened by precipitation or frost heave. Exposure of the subgrade materials to the
environment may weaken these soils at the foundation bearing level ch�ai
6.6 Surface Water Control
If free water is allowed to stand on stable subgrade soils, particularly the elastic silts, these soils
can absorb water, swell, and experience a reduction in their support capability. As a result, we
recommend that the subgrade surface be graded to provide positive drainage away from the
Iredell County Facility Services
F&R Record No. 63T-0112
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GEO1
Page 19 of 23
New Public Safety Complex
Statesville, North Carolina
July 17, 2015

M
construction areas and towards suitable drainage handling areas, such as a perimeter ditch, -
French drain, culvert, or retention pond.
Due to the presence of moisture -sensitive soils, trapped or perched water conditions could
develop during periods of inclement weather and during seasonally wet periods. Such
conditions could cause seepage into excavations and deeper cuts. Therefore, grading of the
project should be performed in such a manner to prevent ponding of water and promote runoff
away from construction areas. In addition, if site grading is performed during the seasonally
wet months or after extended periods of inclement weather, wet and water softened near
surface soil conditions should be expected.
6.7 Excavation Characteristics
We anticipate a majority of the near -surface subgrade soils at the site can be excavated with
backhoes, front-end loaders or other similar equipment using conventional means and methods.
However, if weathered rock is encountered at shallow depths, increased effort such as jack
hammering or ripping will likely be necessary to excavate the weathered rock. Typically, material
with an N -value of 50 blows per 3 to 6 inches of penetration can be excavated with moderate to
heavy effort using appropriately sized equipment, such as a large track -hoe (e.g., Caterpillar 330
with rock teeth). Material that exhibits less than 3 inches of penetration per 50 blows and
material causing auger refusal will likely require jack hammering, blasting or drilling to facilitate
removal. Since the site is relatively close to neighboring structures, we do not recommend
blasting be performed.
6.8
Elastic silts not meeting the classification of controlled structural fill were encountered in the
near surface strata. Soils not meeting the requirements for Controlled Structural Fill could be
used for backfill in "green" areas. However, it may not be economically feasible to dry soils that
are found to be excessively wet during the excavation procedures. Such conditions may require
the use of off-site borrow for backfill.
Placement and compaction of non-structural fill materials in green areas should be in
accordance with the recommendations provided in Section 6.4; however, the required
minimum compaction could be reduced to at lea sjo0 e ce of twh &Eand ,. octor (ASTM
D698) maximum dry density.
Iredell County Facility Services
F&R Record No. 63T-0112
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01
Page 20 of 23
New Public Safety Complex
Statesville, North Carolina
July 17, 2015

0
6.9 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater for the purposes of this report is defined as water encountered below the existing
ground surface. Based on the data obtained during our exploration program, groundwater was
not encountered to the depths explored. However, caving of the borings was noted to occur
between 6 and 24 feet below the ground surface at an average depth of 11.5 feet. Based on
the caving depths, groundwater may be encountered at depths below 6 feet, especially in the
Stratum II sands.
The contractor should be prepared to dewater locations where excavations are advanced below
the groundwater level. The contractor should be responsible for the design and installation of
any dewatering systems required for this project.
Groundwater levels tend to fluctuate with seasonal and climatic variations as well as with some
types of construction operations. Generally, the highest groundwater levels occur in late winter
and early spring and the lowest levels occur in late summer and early fall. Depending on time
of construction, ground ,afar may be encountered at shallower depths and locations not
explored during this study.I-f a cou�ntered du�rin�g ,,>vn�str�cti ff','� 5me,eIri~n�g p on ��ea 04 � • ur
MEN, Wiges6FU n�®twi pied i� r�n�edJan +ly.
6.10 Soil Erosion
The Stratum I soils at this site are fine-grained and highly erodible. Once design finish grade
elevations are established for green areas, finish grades should be protected from erosion.
Sloped areas with increased stormwater runoff rates should be protected from erosion using
temporary erosion prevention practices until permanent erosion prevention methods, such as
vegetative growth, can be established.
6.11 Excavations
Mass excavations and other excavations required for construction of this project must be
performed in accordance with the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines (29 CFR 1926, Subpart P, Excavations) or other
applicable jurisdictional codes for permissible temporary side -slope ratios and/or shoring
requirements. The OSHA guidelines require daily inspections of excavations, adjacent areas
Iredell County Facility Services
F&R Record No. 63T-0112
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01
Page 21 of 23
New Public Safety Complex
Statesville, North Carolina
July 17, 2015

fa�R
and protective systems by a "competent person" for evidence of situations that could result in
cave-ins, indications of failure of a protective system, or other hazardous conditions.
Excavated soils, equipment, building supplies, etc., should be placed away from the edges of
the excavation at a distance equaling or exceeding the depth of the excavation. F&R cautions
that the actual excavation slopes will need to be evaluated frequently each day by the
"competent person" and flatter slopes or the use of shoring may be required to maintain a safe
excavation depending upon excavation specific circumstances. The contractor is responsible
for providing the "competent person" and all aspects of site excavation safety. F&R can
evaluate specific excavation slope situations if we are informed and requested by the owner,
designer or contractor's "competent person".
7.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES
F&R recommends that we be retained for professional and construction materials testing
services during construction of the project. Our continued involvement on the project helps
provide continuity for proper implementation of the recommendations discussed herein.
Additionally, we request the opportunity to review the foundation plans and project
specifications when these construction documents approach completion. This review evaluates
whether the recommendations and comments provided herein have been understood and
properly implemented. The above listed services are not part of the currently authorized scope
of services.
8.0 LIMITATIONS
There are important limitations to this and all geotechnical studies. Some of these limitations
are discussed in the information prepared by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA),
which is included in Appendix I. We recommend that you review the GBA information.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Iredell County Facility Services, or their
agents, for specific application to the New Public Safety Complex in Statesville, North Carolina,
in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other
warranty, express or implied, is made. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on
design information furnished to us at the time the work was performed; the data obtained from
the previously described subsurface exploration program, and generally accepted geotechnical
engineering practice. The findings and recommendations do not reflect variations in subsurface
Iredell County Facility Services New Public Safety Complex
F&R Record No. 63T-0112 Statesville, North Carolina
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 July 17, 2015
Page 22 of 23

fa�R
conditions, which could exist in unexplored areas of the site. In areas where variations from
the available subsurface data become apparent during construction, it will be necessary to re-
evaluate our conclusions and recommendations based upon on-site observations of the
conditions.
Regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface exploration, there is the possibility that
conditions in other areas will differ from those at the boring locations, that conditions are not
as anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the soil conditions.
Therefore, our experienced geotechnical engineers should evaluate foundation construction to
verify that the conditions anticipated in design actually exist. Otherwise, we assume no
responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or
recommendations.
In the event that changes are made in the design or location of the proposed building, paved
areas, and tower location, the recommendations presented in this report shall not be
considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by our firm and conclusions of this report
modified and/or verified in writing. If this report is copied or transmitted to a third party, it
must be copied or transmitted in its entirety, including text, attachments, and enclosures.
Interpretations based on only a part of this report may not be valid.
Iredell County Facility services New Public Safety Complex
F&R Record No. 63T-0112 Statesville, North Carolina
F&R Report Serial No. T0112-GE01 July 17, 2015
Page 23 of 23

APPENDIX I
GBA Publication
"Important Information About Your
Geotechnical Engineering Report"

r Geolechnical-Engineeping Report — )
Geotechnical Services Aire Performed fop
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 engi-
neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical -engineering study is unique, each
geotechnical -engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No
one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. Andno 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 many unique, project -specific factors
when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's
goals, objectives, and risk -management preferences; the general nature of
the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the struc-
ture on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities Unless the geotech-
nical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise,
do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
• not prepared for you,
not prepared for your project,
not prepared for the specific site explored, or
completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical -
engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a
parking garage to an office building, or from a light -industrial plant
to a refrigerated warehouse,
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 -engineer-
ing reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of
time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site,
or by natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwa-
ter 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 engi-
neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional
judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ—sometimes significantly—
from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer
who developed your report to provide construction observation is the
most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated
conditions.
A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your
report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi-
neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical
engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual

subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical
engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or
liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform
construction observation.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to
Misinterpretation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical -engineering
reports has resulted in costly problems Lower that risk by having your geo-
technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after
submitting the report Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications Contractors can
also misinterpret a geotechnical -engineering report. Reduce that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction
conferences, and by providing construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs
ueoiecnnicai engineers prepare renal Doring ano testing logs oasea upon
their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or
omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should
neverbe redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk
Give Contractors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what
they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-
tractors the complete geotechnical -engineering report, but preface it with a
clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the
report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical
engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to
conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they
need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac-
tors have sufficient time to perform additional study Only then might you
be in a position to give contractors the best Information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci-
plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that
have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly Include a variety of
explanatory provisions in their reports, Sometimes labeled "limitations,"
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi-
bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities
and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical
engineer should respond fully and 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
relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations,
e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or
regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to
numerous project failures If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvi-
ronmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk manage-
ment guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for some-
one else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction,
operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from
growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be
devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, Integrated Into a com-
prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional
mold -prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or
moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, many
mold -prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry While
groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been
addressed as part of the geotechnical -engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this
project is not a mold -prevention consultant; none of the services per-
formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study
were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-
tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed
in this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold
from growing in or on the structure involved.
Rely, on Your GOA -Member Geotechnclal Engineer
for hdditional Assistance
Membership In the GEOPROFESSIONAL BUSINESS ASsoctATioN exposes geotech-
nical engineers to a wide array of risk confrontaton techniques that can be
of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer
with your GBA-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
GEOPROEESSIONAL
BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail: info@geoprofessional org www.geoprofessional org
Copyright 2014 by Geoprolessional Business Association, Inc (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying o1 this document, 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 commiling negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
TIGER 0914/5.01VIRP

APPENDIX II
Site Vicinity Map (Drawing No. 1)
Test Location Plan (Drawing No. 2)

SINCE
FFROEHLING & ROBERTSON INC.
,m
Project No: 63T-0112
Client: Iredell County Facility Services
Project: Iredell County Public Safety Complex
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
SITE VICINITY MAP
Drawing No. 1
Source: Google Earth®
Scale: As Shown
Date: June 2015

SINCE
&� FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Iasi
Project No: 63T-0112
Client: Iredell County Facility Services
Project: Iredell County Public Safety Complex
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
TEST LOCATION PLAN
Drawing No. 2
Source: Google°
Scale: As Shown
Date: June 2015
E) - Approximate Boring Location

APPENDIX III
Boring Logs (B-01 through B-10, T-1, CBR -1, CBR -2, CBR -3, CBR -4)
Composite Subsurface Profiles (Building Area, Parking Area)
Key to Boring Log Soil Classification
Unified Soil Classification System

r
c
c
L
2
c
c
(SINCE
r& FROEHLING & ROE3ERTSON, INC.
1 ss,
Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 945 ±
Client: Iredell County Facility Services Total Depth: 20.0'
Project: New Public Safety Complex Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
BORING LOG
Boring: B-01 (1 of 1)
Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Date Drilled: 6/18/15
Driller: F&R
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample
Depth
N -Value
(blows/ft )
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
feet
Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist
5-5-6
943.9
1.1
(SURFICIAL)
15
11
RESIDUUM: Stiff to Very Stiff, Reddish Brown,
6-8-13
PPR = 4.5 tsf
Elastic SILT with sand and trace mica, moist
3.0
21
9-11-14
(MH)
940.5
4.5
STRATUM I
4'S
25
PPR = 3.25 tsf
Very Stiff to Stiff, Reddish Brown, Fine Sandy
14-14-13
SILT, moist (MH)
6.0
27
STRATUM I
8.5
4-5-5
10
10.0
PPR = 1.40 tsf
931.5
13.5
13.5
Cave in at 13.7 feet
Loose, Brownish Red, Silty SAND with trace
3-4-5
930.5
14.5
mica, moist (SM)
15.0
9
STRATUM 11
PPR = 1.00 tsf
Firm, Brownish Red, Sandy SILT, moist (MH)
STRATUM III
.5
19.5
8
PPR = 1.10 tsf
925.0
20.0
Boring Terminated at 20 feet
Boring was dry at
termination
i
PPR = Pocket
Penetrometer Reading
-' IVumoer uT Mows reguireu IUr d 14U IU HdITIFTIUl WILIPPMr, 3U LU UIIVC L U U., 1.3/0 I.U. bdIII II=1 Cl LULtll UI 4Y IIIUIC] III IUUI U IIRd UIIIOI—.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N -Value.

SINCE
0FROEHLING & ROBERTSON9 INC.
1881
Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 946 ±
Client: Iredell County Facility Services
Project: New Public Safety Complex
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
BORING LOG
Boring: B-02 (1 of 1)
Drilling Method: HSA
Total Depth: 20.0' Hammer Type: Automatic
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan Date Drilled: 6/18/15
Driller: F&R
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* sample
Sample
N -Value
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
(feet)(blows/ft)
Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist
5-8-11
944.9
1.1
(SURFICIAL)
19
12-16-18
15
RESIDUUM: Very Stiff, Reddish Brown, Elastic
SILT with sand and trace mica, moist (MH)
3.0
34
6-7-10
STRATUM 1
941.5
4.5
4.5
17
Very Stiff, Reddish Brown, Sandy SILT with
12-13-9
trace of mica, moist (MH)
22
STRATUM I
6.0
937.5
8.5
8.5
Firm, Reddish Brown, Sandy SILT with trace of
3-4-5
mica, moist (MH)
10.0
9
STRATUM 1
Cave in at 12.5 feet
932.5
13.5
135
Loose, Brown, Silty SAND with trace of mica,
4-4-5
moist (SM)
9
STRATUM II
15.0
927.5
18.5
18.5
Medium Dense, Brown Silty SAND with trace of
6-9-12
926.0
20.0mica,
moist (SM)
20 G
21
Boring was dry at
STRATUM 11
termination
Boring Terminated at 20 feet
PPR = Pocket
Penetrometer Reading
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O D., 1375" I.D. sampler a total of 24 inches In four 6' Increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N -Value.

SINCE
C
r FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
1 ,I8,
Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 949 ±
Client: Iredell County Facility Services
Project: New Public Safety Complex
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
Total Depth: 20.0'
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: B-03 (1 of 1)
Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Date Drilled: 6/18/15
Driller: F&R
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
*Sample
Depth
N -Value
(blows/ft)
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
feet
Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist
4-5-6
947.9
1.1
(SURFICIAL)
15
11
RESIDUUM: Stiff, Reddish Brown, Sandy SILT
6-7-9
with trace mica, moist (MH)
3.0
16
6-11-13
STRATUM 1
24
4.5
8-14-14
28
943.0
6.0
6.0
Stiff, Brown, Sandy SILT with trace mica, moist
(MH)
STRATUM I
8.5
5-6-8
14
10.0
Cave in at 10.8 feet
935.5
13.5
13.5
Loose, Brown, Silty SAND with trace mica,
8-4-3
moist (SM)
15.0
7
STRATUM II
930.5
18.5
18.5
Firm, Brown, Sandy SILT with trace mica, moist
3-4-4
929.0
20.0(M
H)
STRATUM III
8
Boring was dry at
termination
Boring Terminated at 20 feet
PPR = Pocket
Penetrometer Reading
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30 to drive 2 O.D., 1.375 I.D. sampler a total of 24 inches in four 6' Increments
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N -Value.

SINCE
nrkoFROEHLING & ROBERTSON9 INC.
1861
Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 950 ±
Client: Iredell County Facility Services Total Depth: 20.0'
Project: New Public Safety Complex Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
BORING; LOC
Boring: B-04 (1 of 1)
Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Date Drilled: 6/18/15
Driller: F&R
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* sample
Sample
Depth
N-ValueRemarks
(Classification)
Blows
feet
(blows/ft)
Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist
5-7-10
948.5
1.5
(SURFICIAL)
15
17
RESIDUUM: Very Stiff, Brownish Red, Sandy
15-11-12
947.0
3.0
Elastic SILT with trace mica and roots, moist
3.0
23
8-10-13
(MH)
STRATUM 1
23
45
Very Stiff, Brownish Red, Sandy SILT with trace
6-8-9
mica and roots, moist (MH)
60
17
STRATUM I
941.5
8.5
8.5
Firm, Reddish Brown, Sandy SILT with trace
3-3-4
mica, moist (MH)
10.0
7
STRATUM I
Cave in at 11.9 feet
936.5
13.5
13.5
Firm, Reddish Brown, Sandy SILT with trace
4-4-4
mica, moist (MH)
150
8
STRATUM I
185
3-4-7
11
930.0
20.0--
0.0
Boring Terminated at 20 feet
20.0
Boring was dry at
termination
PPR = Pocket
Penetrometer Reading
-Ivumoer or oiows requirea Tor a 14u io nammer aropping su to arive c- u.u., i u sampier a totai or t4 incnes in Tour b-' increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N -Value.

C
eSINCE
r& FROEHLING & ROBERTSON9 INC.
Project No: 63T-0112
Client: Iredell County Facility Services
Project: New Public Safety Complex
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
Elevation: 945 ±
Total Depth: 20.0'
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: B-05 (1 of 1)
Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Date Drilled: 6/18/15
Driller: F&R
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample
Depth
N -Value
( blows/ft)Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
feet
Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist
3-3-4
0.0
943.8
1.2
(SURFICIAL)
1'S
7
Very Stiff, Brownish Red, Sandy SILT with trace
4-7-9
PPR = 3.5 tsf
mica, moist (MH)16
3'0
7-9-12
STRATUM 1
PPR = 2.0 tsf
21
940.5
4.5
4'5
PPR = 3.25 tsf
Very Stiff, Brownish Red, Sandy SILT with trace
9-12-14
mica, moist (MH)
60
26
STRATUM I
'
PPR = 4.25 tsf
936.5
8.5
8.5
Stiff, Brownish Red, Sandy SILT with trace
5-6-6
mica, moist (MH)
100
12
-
STRATUM I
PPR = 0.25 tsf
13.5
Cave In at 14.3 feet
4-5-6
11
15.0
PPR = 0.75 tsf
185
4-5-7
12
PPR = 0.25 tsf
925.0
20.0
Boring Terminated at 20 feet
Boring was dry at
termination
PPR = Pocket
Penetrometer Reading
'IVumDer OT DIOWS requlrec Tor a 14u ID nammer cropping 3u-- to drive z u U., 1.3/7-- I.U. sampler a total OT L4 IrICneS in four o Increments.
The sum of the second and third Increments of penetration Is termed the standard penetration resistance, N -Value.

n
n
c
c
c
Cc
SINCE
�& FROEHLING & Ro8ERTSONg INC.
Project No: 63T-0112
Client: Iredell County Facility Services
Project: New Public Safety Complex
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
Elevation: 950 ±
Total Depth: 20.0'
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: B-06 (1 of 1)
Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Date Drilled: 6/18/15
Driller: F&R
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample th
N -Value
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
(feet)
(blows/ft)
Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist
2-3-3
948.6
1.4
(SURFICIAL)
1'S
6
RESIDUUM:Very Stiff, Brown, Silty SAND with
3-6-10
PPR = 3.50 tsf
trace mica, moist (MH)
3'0
16
7-9-9
STRATUM 1
PPR = 3.75 tsf
4'S
18
9-11-14
PPR = 1.50 tsf
25
6 0
PPR =1.Otsf
941.5
8.5
8.5
Loose, Reddish Brown, Silty SAND with trace
4-4-4
mica, moist (SM)
100
8
STRATUM II
PPR = 0 tsf
936.5
13.5
13.5
Cave in at 13 3 feet
Loose, Brown, Silty SAND with trace mica,
3-3-4
moist (SM)
150
7
STRATUM II
PPR = 0.75 tsf
931.5
18.5
18.5
Loose, Reddish Brown, Silty SAND with trace
4-3-4
mica, moist (SM)
7
PPR = 0 25 tsf
930.0
20.0
STRATUM 11
Boring was dry at
termination
Boring Terminated at 20 feet
PPR = Pocket
Penetrometer Reading
-ivumoer oT niows requires Tor a 14u ionammer aropping su - to arive z u.0 , i.0 sampier a iota) OT L4 in cries in Tour I) increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N -Value

SINCE
FROEHLINES & ROEiIERTSON9 INC.
Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 953 ±
Client: Iredell County Facility Services Total Depth: 20.0'
Project: New Public Safety Complex Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
BORING LOG
Boring: B-07 (1 of 1)
Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Date Drilled: 6/18/15
Driller: F&R
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
(Classification)
* Sample
Blows
Sample
Depth
feet
N -Value
(blows/ft)
Remarks
951.7
1.3
Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist
(SURFICIAL)
3-4-6
0.0
15
3.0
10
14
RESIDUUM: Stiff, Brown, Sandy SILT with trace
mica, moist (MH)
STRATUM 1
7-5-9
8-14-12
13-16-15
4.5
26
6.0
31
944.5
8.5
8.5
10.0
8
Firm, Reddish Brown, Sandy SILT with trace
mica, moist (MH)
STRATUM I
4-4-4
939.5
13.5
13.5
15.0
7
Cave in at 12.7 feet
Loose, Brownish Red, Silty SAND with trace
mica, moist (SM)
STRATUM II
3-4-3
934.5
933.0
18.5
20.0
18 5
Medium Dense, Brown, Silty SAND with trace
quartz fragments (SM)13
STRATUM II
7-9-4
Boring was dry at
termination
Boring Terminated at 20 feet
i
PPR = Pocket
Penetrometer Reading
-ivumoer OT oiows requirea Tara i,+u io nammer aroppmg au Lo anve c u.u., l.a/7 I.LJ. ]d Rlplel d LULdl UI L'+ IIILIIe] III IUW O IIID CIIICIIL]
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N -Value.

SINCE
nruFF:zOEHLING & ROBERTSON9 INC.
1881
Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 955 ±
Client: Iredell County Facility Services Total Depth: 20.0'
Project: New Public Safety Complex Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
City/State: Statesville,. North Carolina
BORING LOG
Boring: B-08 (1 of 1)
Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Date Drilled: 6/18/15
Driller: F&R
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample
Depth
N -Value
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
feet
(blows/ft)
Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist
3-4-4
953.5
1.5
(SURFICIAL)
15
8
RESIDUUM: Very Stiff, Brown, Sandy SILT with
5-8-9
trace mica, moist (MH)
3.0
17
7-11-9
STRATUM I
20
10-11-11
4.5
6.0
22
946.5
8.5
8.5
Loose, Brown, Silty SAND with trace mica,
3-4-4
moist (SM)
8
STRATUM II
10.0
Cave in at 11.2 feet
13.5
3-4-4
15.0
8
936.5
18.5
185
Medium Dense, Brown, Silty SAND with trace
17-14-6
935.0
20.0
mica, moist (SM)
20
Boring was dry at
STRATUM II
termination
Boring Terminated at 20 feet
PPR = Pocket
Penetrometer Reading
. imumoer Or mows requirea ror a i4u to nammer aroppmg sU-- co arive L"" u u , 1.s/5 - I u. sampler a total oT L4 Incnes In Tour b" Increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N -Value

CSINCE
r& FROEHLING & ROBERTSON9 INC.
1 1881
Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 956 ±
Client: Iredell County Facility Services Total Depth: 20.0'
Project: New Public Safety Complex Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
BORING LOG
Boring: B-09 (1 of 1)
Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Date Drilled: 6/19/15
Driller: F&R
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
*Sample
Depth
N -Value
(blows/ft)
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
Ifeet
Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist
3-3-4
0.0
954.8
1.2
(SURFICIAL)
1.5
7
RESIDUUM: Stiff, Reddish Brown, Sandy SILT
5-7-8
with trace mica, moist (MH)
3.0
15
8-12-13
STRATUM 1
25
11-13-13
4.5
26
950.0
6.0
6.0
Firm, Reddish Brown, Sandy SILT with trace
mica, moist (MH)
STRATUM 1
8.5
3-3-3
10.0
6
Cave in at 12.4 feet
942.5
13.5
13.5
Loose, Brownish Red, Silty SAND, moist (SM)
3-3-4
STRATUM II
15.0
7
18.5
3-3-3
6
936.0
20.0
Boring Terminated at 20 feet
Boring was dry at
termination
PPR = Pocket
Penetrometer Reading
-IvumDer oT mows requlrea Tara i,+u is nammer cropping 3u w unve c v.u., 1.3 3 1 U. ,an[PICI a wpm U 4� inuicy Ii IUUI o inu=I]1-1—
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N -Value

SINCE
FROEHLING & ROE3ERTSONV INC.
Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 957 ±
Client: Iredell County Facility Services
Project: New Public Safety Complex
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
Total Depth: 20.0'
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: B-10 (1 of 1)
Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Date Drilled: 6/19/15
Driller: F&R
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample
N -Value
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
(feet)
(blows/ft)
Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist
3-5-8
955.9
1.1
(SURFICIAL)
13
10-12-11
1 5
PPR = 1.50 tsf
RESIDUUM: Very Stiff, Brown, Sandy SILT with
trace mica, moist (MH)
3.0
23
7-10-10
STRATUM 1
PPR = 3.5 tsf
4'S
20
9-10-12
PPR = 4.0 tsf
6.0
22
PPR =3.0tsf
948.5
8.5
8'5
Firm, Brown, Sandy SILT with trace mica, moist
3-3-3
6
STRATUM I
10.0
PPR = 0 tsf
Cave in at 12.4 feet
943.5
13.5
135
Firm, Brown, Sandy SILT with trace mica, moist
3-3-5
(M H)
8
STRATUM I
150
PPR = 0.25 tsf
938.5
18.5
18.5
Firm, Brown, Sandy SILT with trace mica, moist
3-4-4
(MH)
8
PPR = 0 75 tsf
937.0
20.0
STRATUM I
Boring was dry at
termination
Boring Terminated at 20 feet
PPR = Pocket
Penetrometer Reading
'Number of blows required for a 140 Ib hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" 1 D sampler a total of 24 Inches in four 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration Is termed the standard penetration resistance, N -Value

SINCE
FROEHLINEi & ROSERTSON' INC.
Project No: 63T -Q112 Elevation: 955 ±
Client: Iredell County Facility Services Total Depth: 35.0'
Project: New Public Safety Complex Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
BORING LOG
Boring: T-1 (1 of 1)
Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Date Drilled: 6/22/15
Driller: F&R
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample
Depth
N -Value
(blowsft )
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
feet
Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist
3-3-5
953.8
1.2
(SURFICIAL)
15
8
RESIDUUM: Very Stiff, Brown, Sandy SILT with
8-9-8
PPR = 1.25 tsf
trace mica, moist (MH)
3.0
17
5-10-12
951.5
3.5
STRATUM 1
PPR = 2.75 tsf
4.5
22
Medium Dense, Brown, Silty SAND with trace
mica, moist (SM)
11-14-13
PPR = 3.50 tsf
STRATUM 1127
6.0
PPR = 3.75 tsf
946.5
8.5
8.5
Loose, Brown, Silty SAND with trace mica,
3-3-4
moist (SM)
100
7
STRATUM 11
PPR = 0.25 tsf
13.5
2-3-4
7
15.0
185
4-4-4
20.0
8
PPR =0tsf
931.5
23.5
235
Cave in at 23.6 feet
Loose, Brown, Silty SAND with trace mica,
3-3-3
moist (SM)
25.0
6
STRATUM 11
28.5
3-4-3
300
7
PPR =Otsf
921.5
33.5
33.5
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: Hard, Brown,
50/5
920.2
34.8
Sandy SILT with trace mica, moist (MH)
100+
Boring terminated at 34.8 feet upon augar
Boring was dry at
refusal
termination
PPR = Pocket
Penetrometer Reading
- Ivumoer OT oiows requirea tar a Lou is nammer aropping 3u w urrve c u.u., 1.0/J I.U. ,dnlpl Cl d lulm UI 44 IIILIIC, III IUU1 o IIJU CIIICIIL. .
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N -Value

C
SINCE
nruFR13EHLING & ROSERTSON9 INC.
1861
Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 950 ±
Client: Iredell County Facility Services Total Depth: 10.0'
Project: New Public Safety Complex Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
BORING LOO
Boring: CBR -1 (1 of 1)
Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Date Drilled: 6/19/15
Driller: F&R
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample
Dep
N-ValueRemarks
(Classification)
Blows
feet
(th blows/ft)
949.5
0.5
—
Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist
2-4-8
(SURFICIAL)
12
1.5
PPR = 4.50 tsf
FILL: Very stiff, Brownish Red, Elastic SILT with
9-12-13
947.03.0
some sand and trace mica, moist (MH)
3.0
25
5-6-7
STRATUM 1
PPR = 3.50 tsf
945.5
4.5
4.5
13
RESIDUUM: Stiff, Dark Red, Elastic SILT with
7-7-8
trace mica, moist (MH)
PPR = 2 50 tsf
STRATUM 1
6.0
15
Stiff to Medium Stiff, Reddish Brown, Elastic
SILT with trace mica, moist (MH)
STRATUM t
8.5
Cave in at 8.3 feet
3-3-4
940.0
10.0
7
PPR = 1.25 tsf
Boring terminated at 10 feet
Boring was dry at
termination
PPR = Pocket
Penetrometer Reading
IVumuer uioiows requirea Tor a 14u io nammer uropping nu Lo arlve L u.U., 1-1/:)i.u. sampler a zozal or L4 incnes In Tour t) increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N -Value.

41
a
U
C
SINGE
FR13EHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 941 ±
Client: Iredell County Facility Services Total Depth: 10.0'
Project: New Public Safety Complex Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
BORING LOG
Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Date Drilled: 6/19/15
Driller: F&R
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
(Classification)
* Sample
Blows
Sample
Depth
feet
N -Value
(blowsue )
Remarks
939.8
1.2
Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist
(SURFICIAL)
2-2-3
15
0
5
12
RESIDUUM: Stiff, Brown, Sandy SILT with trace
mica, moist (MH)3
STRATUM 1
4-6-6
8-10-13
936.5
4.5
4.5
0
23
24
Very Stiff, Brownish Red, Sandy SILT with trace
mica, moist (MH)6
STRATUM I
13-13-11
932.5
8.5
8.5
Medium Stiff, Brownish Red, Sandy SILT with
3-3-5
931.0
10.0
trace mica, moist (MH)
STRATUM I
8
wasdry at
Borin!in
at nn
Boring Terminated at 10 feet
PPR = Pocket
Penetrometer Reading
-ivumoer or mows requirea ror a 14u io nammer Cropping :5u-- io arive c- u u., L.sin i.u. sampier a ioial OT L4lncnes in Tour o increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N -Value

SINCE
nrkp FROEHLING & ROBERTSON INC.
1881
Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 956 ±
Client: Iredell County Facility Services Total Depth: 15.0'
Project: New Public Safety Complex Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
BORING LOG
Boring: CBR -3 (1 of 1)
Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Date Drilled: 6/19/15
Driller: F&R
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample
N -Value
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
(feet)
(blows/ft)
Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist
4-3-5
954.5
1.5
(SURFICIAL)
1.S
8
RESIDUUM: Stiff, Brown, Sandy SILT with trace
6-5-6
mica, moist (MH)
3.0
11
6-4-5
STRATUM 1
951.5
4.5
4.5
9
Firm to Soft, Brown, Sandy SILT with trace
4-4-4
mica, moist (MH)
6.0
8
STRATUM I
S.5
Cave in at 8.4 feet
2-2-2
946.0
10.0
10.0
4
Boring was dry at
Very Stiff, Brown, Sandy SILT with trace mica
and quartz fragments, moist (MH)
termination
STRATUM I
13.5
3-8-16
24
941.0
15.0
Boring Terminated at 15 feet
PPR =Pocket
Penetrometer Reading
`Ivumner OT mows requlrea Tor a 14u In nammer oropping su- to orive L" u.u., 1.:3/5- I.0 sampler a total of L4 Incnes In tour b'• Increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N -Value.

SINCE
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON' INC.
Project No: 63T-0112 Elevation: 960 ±
Client: Iredell County Facility Services Total Depth: 10.0'
Project: New Public Safety Complex Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
BORING LOG
Boring: CBR -4 (1 of 1)
Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Date Drilled: 6/22/15
Driller: F&R
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample
Depth
N -Value
(blows/ft)
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
feet
Brown, Silty CLAY with trace organics, moist
3-4-5
0.0
958.7
1.3
(SURFICIAL)
1.5
9
RESIDUUM: Stiff, Reddish Brown, SILT (MH)
7-6-7
957.0
3.0
STRATUM I
3.0
13
Very Stiff, Reddish Brown, SILT (MH)
7.8.9
STRATUM 1
4.5
17
8-6-6
12
954.0
6.0
6.0
Cave in at 6.4 feet
Firm, Brown, SILT (MH) with trace mica, moist
(MH)
STRATUM I
8.5
4-5-4
9
950.0
10.0
Boring Terminated at 10 feet
Boring was dry at
termination
PPR = Pocket
Penetrometer Reading
-ivumoer OT oiows requires Tor a 14u io nammer aropping 3u co anve c V.U., i.aiZ) I.U. ,drllplel d LULdI ul LY II II IICD III luul o 11JUIC M11LD.
The sum of the second and third Increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N -Value

SINCE
W18al
FROEHLINs & ROBERT5ONq INC.
Project No: 63T-0112
Client: Iredell County Facility Services
Project: New Public Safety Complex
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Plot Based on Elevation
Profile Name: Building Area
960
SURFICIAL B-10
B-09
955
2 B-08
8
15
20
B-07�* 17
� 1L 25
22
20
14 26
950
B-06
SURFICIAL 6*
22
26
16
31 6
18
6 STRATUM I
$
c
2
945
B -os
„ 7*
25
8
v
16
8
W
21
STRATUM I
8
940
26
7
12
7 STRATUM II
6
20
935
-
13 STRATUM II
11
7
930
12
Subsurface Profile Notes -
* - Standard Penetration Resistance
See the Boring Logs in Appendix III for a description of the graphic symbols and soil classification
925

SINCE
®RFROEHLING & ROBERTSON INC.
,86,
Project No: 63T-0112
Client: Iredell County Facility Services
Project: New Public Safety Complex
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Plot Based on Elevation
Profile Name: West Site Paved Areas
965
CBR -4
960
9*
SURFICIAL
13
CBR -3
17
955
�8*
,
12
11
9
8
9
c
950
SURFICIAL
v
W
4 STRATUM I
945
24
CBR -2
S*
STRATUM I
940
12
23
24
935
i
8
Subsurface Profile Notes -
930
Standard Penetration Resistance See the Boring Logs in Appendix III for a description of the graphic symbols and soil classification

KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Correlation of Penetration Resistance with
Relative Density and Consistency
Sands and Gravels
Silts and Clays
No. of
Relative
No. of
Relative
Blows, N
Densily
Blows, N
Density
0- 4
Very loose
0- 2
Very soft
5-10
Loose
3- 4
Soft
11-30
Medium dense 5- 8
Firm
31 -50
Dense
9-15
Stiff
Over 50
Very dense
16-30
Very stiff
31 -50
Hard
Over 50
Very hard
Particle Size Identification
(Unified Classification System)
Boulders:
Diameter exceeds 8 inches
Cobbles:
3 to 8 inches diameter
Gravel:
Coarse - 3/4 to 3 inches diameter
Fine - 4.76 mm to 3/4 inch diameter
Sand: Coarse - 2.0 mm to 4.76 mm diameter
Medium - 0.42 mm to 2.0 mm diameter
Fine - 0.074 mm to 0.42 mm diameter
Silt and Clay: Less than 0.07 mm (particles cannot be seen with naked eye)
Modifiers
The modifiers provide our estimate of the amount of silt, clay or sand size particles in the soil
sample.
Approximate
Content Modifiers
5 5%: Trace
5% to 12%: Slightly silty, slightly clayey,
slightly sandy
12% to 30%: Silty, clayey, sandy
30% to 50%: Very silty, very clayey, very
sandy
Field Moisture
Description
Saturated:
Usually liquid; very wet, usually
from below the groundwater table
Wet:
Semisolid; requires drying to attain
optimum moisture
Moist:
Solid; at or near optimum moisture
Dry:
Requires additional water to attain
optimum moisture

SINCE
F&R
UNIFIED SOIL CLASS I F I CAT ION SYSTEM (USCS)
MAJOR DIVISION
TYP ICAL NAMES
�• '
GW
Well graded grovels
GRAVELS
CLEAN GRAVEL
•
' �
doY
GP
Poorly graded ravels
9 9
More than 50%
(little or no fines)
of coarse
fraction larder
GM
Silty gravels
than No: 4 sieve
GRAVELS
GC
Clayey gravels
with fines
'
SW
Well graded sands
CLEAN SAND
SANDS
(little or no fines)
SP
Poorly graded sands
More than 50%
of coarse
fraction smaller
SM
Silty sands,
than No. 4 sieve
SAND
�'�'�
sond/silt mixtures
with fines
Clayey sands,
SC
sond/clay mixtures
Inorganic silts, sandy
ML
and clayey silts with
slightly plasticity
Sandy or silty clays
SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid Limit is less than 50
CL
of low to medium
plasticity
OL
Organic silts of low
plasticity
Inorganic silts,
MH
somicaceous or
cla ey elastic silts
Inorganic clays of
SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid Limit is greater than 50
CH
high plasticity,
fat cloys
Organic clays of
OH
medium to high
plasticity
Peat and other highly
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
organic soils
PWR (Partially
Weathered Rock)
Rock
MISCELLANEOUS
Asphalt
MATERIALS
ABC Stone
o •.
Concrete
D
Su ficial Organic Soil
�• '

APPENDIX IV
Laboratory Test Results

SINCE
FROEHLINIG & ROBERT'SONq INC.
Project No: 63T-0112
Client: Iredell County Facility Services
Project: New Public Safety Complex
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
LABORATORY TEST
SUMMARY SHEET
Sheet: 1 of 1
Boring/
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
LL
PL
PI
Water
Content (%)
%
Gravel
%
Sand
%
Fines
USCS
Class.
AASHTO
Class.
Maximum
Dry Density
(pcf)
Optimum
Water
Content (/o)
CBR
Value
@ 0.1
B-01
1.5
57
38
19
24.6
1.4
26.3
72.3
MH
A-7-5
B-04
1.5
57
48
9
23.0
2.4
45.0
52.6
MH
A-5
B-07
1.5
60
48
12
25.2
0.0
56.6
43.4
SM
A-7-5
CBR -1
1.0
62
37
25
26.1
0.0
0.0
74.3
MH
A-7-5
87.5
30.8
4
CBR -2
1.0
63
44
19
29.3
0.0
0.0
63.5
MH
A-7-5
92.6
25.9
5
CBR -3
1.0
56
30
26
23.7
0.0
0.0
59.9
MH
A-7-5
98
23.7
5
CBR -4
1.0
68
46
22
30.5
0.0
0.0
77.7
MH
A-7-5
91.1
28.4
4
T-1
3.5
32
31
1
12.3
5.8
76.3
17.9
SM
A-2-4
T-1
23.5
37
33
4
16.3
0.0
79.5
20.5
SM
A-2-4

SINCE
nrkp FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
1881
Project No: 63T-0112
Client: Iredell County Facility Services
Project: New Public Safety Complex
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
U S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES US SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER
6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200
100
95
90
85
80
75
r 7cu0
ou
65
T
60
v
Lc 55
W 50
2
v
a 45
40
35
30
25
20
15 1 11 lit
10
5
0
100 10 1 01 0.01 0.0
Grain Size (mm)
Boring No.
COBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT OR CLAY
coarse I fine
I coarse I medium I fine
Boring No.
Depth
Classification
LL
PL
PI
Cc Cu
• B-01
at
1.5
ELASTIC SILT with SAND (MH)
57
38
19
X B-04
at
1.5
SANDY ELASTIC SILT (MH)
57
48
9
A B-07
at
1.5
SILTY SAND (SM)
60
48
12
* CBR -1
at
1.0
ELASTIC SILT with SAND (MH)
62
37
25
O CBR -2
at
1.0
SANDY ELASTIC SILT (MH)
63
44
19
Boring No.
Depth
D100
D60 D30 D10
%Gravel
%Sand
%Silt
%Clay
• B-01
at
1.5
9.5
1.4
263
72.3
X B-04
at
1.5
9.5
0.12
2.4
450
526
B-07
at
1.5
2
0.145
0.0
56.6
43.4
CBR -1
at
1.0
0.075
0.0
0.0
74.3
101 CBR -2
at
1.0
0 075
00
1
0.0
63.5

. SINCE
FRIOEHLINr. & R138ERTSE3N9 INC.
R
Project No: 63T-0112
Client: Iredell County Facility Services
Project: New Public Safety Complex
City/State: Statesville, North Carolina
100
95
90
85
80
75
s 70
oa
65
60
v
S 55
ami 50
U
N
a 45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
U S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I US SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER
6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100140200
of I I 1 111111 I I 1 111111 I I 1 111111 I I 1 111111 I I I 111111 I I 1
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0 001
Grain Size (mm)
J
COBB
Boring No.
a
• CBR -3 at
X CBR -4 at
= A T-1 at
z
T-1 at
at
r Boring No.
V
• CBR -3 at
X CBR -4 at
L
A T-1 at
s T-1 at
r
at
LES
GRAVEL SAND
SILT OR CLAY
coarse I fine I coarse I medium fine
Depth
LL
Classification
1.0
Cc Cu
SANDY ELASTIC SILT (MH)
10
30
ELASTIC SILT with SAND (MH)
3.5
SILTY SAND (SM)
23.5
22
SILTY SAND (SM)
32
31
Depth
D100
D60 D30 D10
1.0
0.075
4
1.0
0.075
3.5
19
0.399 0.121
23.5
4.75
0.22 0.097
LL
I PL
PI
Cc Cu
56
30
26
68
46
22
32
31
1
37
33
4
%Gravel
%Sand
%Silt
%Clay
0.0
0.0
59.9
0.0
0.0
77.7
5.8
76.3
17.9
0.0
795
20.5

MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
90
88
�- 86
U
C:
I-AV for
Sp.G. _
2.70
a)
a
84
82
80
23.5 25.5 27.5 29.5 31.5 33.5 35.5
Water content, %
Test specification ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard
Elev/
Depth
Classification
Nat.
Moist.
Sp.G.
LL
PI
% >
#4
% <
No.200
USCS
AASHTO
MH
26.1
62
25
2.9
74.3
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 87.5 pcf
Optimum moisture = 30.8 %
BROWN CLAYEY SILT WITH MICA
Project No. 63TO112 Client: IREDELL COUNTY FACILITY SERVICES
Project: GEOTECHNIICAL SERVICES FOR NEW PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
o Location: STATESVILLE, NC -Sample Number: 1 (120645)
LFROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Remarks:
PROCTOR NO. 1
ON SITE
6-8-2015
M. FARMER
Figure 1

LABORATORY CBR TEST (REMOLDED)
(ASTM D 1883 / AASHTO T 193)
Project. Geo -Technical Services for New Public Safety Complex
DATE. 23-Jun-15
Job Number. 63T-0112
140
120
100
t/]
P� 80
60
E-�
Cn
40
20
0
0 000 0 100 0200 0 300
0 400 0 500
0 600
PENETRATION (IN.)
Soil Sample Parameters
Boring No. #1 Sample
Depth (ft.): (0-5)ft
Soil Description: Brown Clayey SILT W/Mica
LL. 62 PL: 37 PI• 25
ASTM Compaction Method. D 698
Passing #200 74.3
Maximum Dry Density (pcf). 87.5
Unified Soil Classification- MH
Optimum Moisture Content (%):
30.8
Natural Moisture Content (%)
26.1
Test Specimen Data
Molding MC(%) 31.2 Dry Density(pcf): 86.1
Percent Compactton(pcf). 98.4
Sample Condition: SOAKED
Surcharge Weight(lbs): 10 Ave. MC after soaking, % 350
Final Dry Density(pcf): 85.0
Top MC after soaking, %- 38.6
Swell(%): 0.02 CBR = 4
Froehling && Robertson, Inc.
S I N C E
PLATE
2505 Hutchison-McDonald Road
Charlotte, North CarolinaGEOTECHNICAL
O'D
AND MATERIALSCONSULTANTS

MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
96
94
92
U
d
_T
C
N
T
p`
ZAV for
90
Sp.G. _
2.70
88
86
20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard
Elev/
Classification
Nat.
% >
% <
Sp.G.
LL
PI
Depth
USCS
AASHTO
Moist.
#4
No.200
MH
29.3
63
19
1.4
63.5
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 92.6 pcf
RED BROWN SANDY SILT
Optimum moisture = 25.9 %
Project No. 63TO112 Client: IREDELL COUNTY FACILITY SERVICES
Remarks:
Project: GEOTECHNIICAL SERVICES FOR NEW PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
PROCTOR NO. 2
ON SITE, (0-5)FT
o Location: STATESVILLE, NC Sample Number: 2 (120648)6-19-2015
J.ABERNATHY
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Figure 2

LABORATORY CBR TEST (REMOLDED)
(ASTM D1883 / AASHTO T193)
Project: Geo -Technical Services for New Public Safety Complex
DATE. 29-Jun-15
Job Number. 63T-0112
90
80
70
60
a 50
L� 40
f-�
E-�
30
20
"0
0 000 0 100 0200 0 300
0 400 0 500
0 600
PENETRATION (IN.)
-
Soil Sample Parameters
Boring No. #2 Sample
Depth (ft.): (0-5)ft
Soil Description. Brown Clayey SILT W/Mica
LL: 63 PL: 44 PI: 19
ASTM Compaction Method: D 698
Passing #200 63.5
Maximum Dry Density (pcf). 92.6
Unified Soil Classification MH
Optimum Moisture Content (%).
25.9
Natural Moisture Content (%). 29.3
Test Specimen Data
Molding MC(%) 26.7 Dry Density(pcf)• 90.8
Percent Compachon(pcf)• 98.1
Sample Condition SOAKED
Surcharge Weight(lbs) 10 Ave. MC after soaking, % 34.6
Final Dry Density(pcf) 88.5
Top MC after soaking, % 41.4
Swell(%): 0.10 CBR = 3
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
S I N C E
PLATE
2505 Hutchison-McDonald Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
VX.,
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS
CONSULTANTS
e a

MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
100
98
96
U
d
_T
C
U
U
T
0
94
ZAV for
Sp.G. _
2.70
92
90
18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard
Elev/
Classification
Nat.
% >
% <
Sp.G.
LL
PI
Depth
USCS
AASHTO
Moist.
#4
No.200
MH
23.7
56
26
0.64
59.9
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 98.0 pcf
BROWN RED SANDY SILT
Optimum moisture = 23.7 %
Project No. 63TO112 Client: IREDELL COUNTY FACILITY SERVICES
Remarks:
Project: GEOTECHNIICAL SERVICES FOR NEW PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
PROCTOR NO. 3
ON SITE, (0-5)FT
o Location: STATESVILLE, NC Sample Number: 3 (120648)
6-19-2015
J.ABERNATHY
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Figure 3

LABORATORY CBR TEST (REMOLDED)
(ASTM D1883 / AASHTO T193)
Project: Geo -Technical Services for New Public Safety Complex
DATE: 29-Jun-15
Job Number: 63T-0112
140
120
t00
80
�] 60
E�
to
40
20
0
0 000 0 100 0200 0 300
0.400 0 500
0 600
PENETRATION (IN.)
Soil Sample Parameters
Boring No: #3 Sample
Depth (ft.): (0-5)ft
Soil Description• Brown Red Sandy SILT
LL: 56 PL: 30 PI: 26
ASTM Compaction Method: D 698
Passing #200 599
Maximum Dry Density (pef). 98
Unified Soil Classification: MH
Optimum Moisture Content (%)
23.7
Natural Moisture Content (%) 23.7
Test Specimen Data
Molding MC(%)• 25.4 Dry Density(pcf). 970
Percent Compaction(pcf): 990
Sample Condition- SOAKED
Surcharge Weight(lbs): 10 Ave. MC after soaking, W 29.4
Final Dry Density(pcf): 95.1
Top MC after soaking, %: 33.2
Swell(%): 002 CBR = 5
F'roehling & Robertson, Inc.
S I N C E
PLATE
2505 Hutchison-McDonald Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
@,@.
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS
CONSULTANTS
1881

MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
95
93
91
U
Q
_A
C
N
T
0
89
Cr
87
ZAV for
Sp.G. _
85
2.70
23.5 25.5 215 295 31.5 335 35.5
Water content, %
Test specification ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard
Elev/
Depth
Classification
Nat.
Moist.
Sp.G.
LL
PI
% >
#4
% <
No.200
USCS AASHTO
MH
30.5
68
22
3.2
77.7
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density= 91.1 pcf
Optimum moisture = 28.4 %
RED BROWN ELASTIC SILT
Project No. 63T0112 Client: IREDELL COUNTY FACILITY SERVICES
Project: GEOTECIINIIICAL SERVICES FOR NEW PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
o Location: STATESVILLE, NC Sample Number: 4 (120650)
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Remarks:
PROCTOR NO.4
ON SITE, (0-5)FT
6-24-2015
J. FOWLER
Figure 4

LABORATORY CBR TEST (REMOLDED)
(ASTM D 1883 / AASHTO T 193)
Project: Geo -Technical Services for New Public Safety Complex
DATE 29 -Jun -15
Job Number: 63T-01 12
140
120
100
P-, 80
�] 60
F,
C/)
40
20
0
0.000 0 100 0200 0 300
0 400 0 500
0 600
PENETRATION (IN.)
Soil Sample Parameters
Boring No. #4 Sample
Depth (ft.). (0-5)ft
Soil Description Red Brown Elastic SILT
LL: 68 PL 46 PI: 22
ASTM Compaction Method: D 698
Passing #200 777
Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 91.1
Unified Soil Classification MH
Optimum Moisture Content (%):
284
Natural Moisture Content (%): 30.5
Test Specimen Data
Molding MC(%): 295 Dry Density(pcf): 89.8
Percent Compaction(pcf). 98.6
Sample Condition: SOAKED
Surcharge Weight(lbs). 10 Ave. MC after soaking, %. 37.2
Final Dry Density(pcf). 87.4
Top MC after soaking, %- 43.5
Swell(%): 0.34 CBR = 4
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
S I N C E
PLATE
2505 Hutchison -McDonald Road
(1
Charlotte, North Carolina
JVC�•
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS
CONSULTANTS
18810