Updated geo-report 2-15-18.pdf

ECS Southeast,, LLP
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Truss Plant Expansion
200 Emmett Road
Dunn, Harnett County, North Carolina
ECS Project Number # 33:4052112
February 14, 2018

ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP "setting the Standard for Service"
DSM Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental • Facilities NC Registered Engineering Firm F-1078
NC Registered Geologists Firm C-406
SC Registered Engineering Firm 3245
February 14, 2018
Mr. Dennis Cline
Permitting/Development
84 Lumber Company
1019 Route 519
Eighty Four, PA 15330-2813
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2
Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Truss Plant Expansion
200 Emmett Road
Dunn, Harnett County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Cline:
ECS Southeast (ECS) has completed the subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical
engineering analyses for the above -referenced project. Our services were performed in general
accordance with our Proposal No. 33:3165 -GP, dated May 1, 2017. This report presents our
understanding of the geotechnical aspects of the project, the results of the field exploration and
laboratory testing conducted, and our design and construction recommendations.
It has been our pleasure to be of service to 84 Lumber Company during the design phase of this
project. We would appreciate the opportunity to remain involved during the continuation of the
design phase, and we would like to provide our services during construction phase operations as well
to verify the assumptions of subsurface conditions made for this report. Should you have any
questions concerning the information contained in this report, or if we can be of further assistance to
you, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
ECS Southeast, LLP
-�-
Mike Ellis, E.l.
Project Manager
[e-mail]
L
Winslow Goins, PE
Principal Engineer
WGoins@ecslimiteMcorn;
a / l[Jl±E/
aptc'- 02/°14/18
6151 Raeford Road, Suite A, Fayetteville, NC 28304 • T 910-401-3288 • F: 910-323-0539 • www.ecslimited.com
ECS Capitol Seances, PLLC • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLP • ECS Texas, LLP

Truss Plant Expansion
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
February 14, 2018
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................2
1.1 General...................................................................................................................................2
1.2 Scope of Services....................................................................................................................2
1.3 Authorization..........................................................................................................................2
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION.....................................................................................................3
2.1 Project Location......................................................................................................................3
2.2 Current Site Conditions..........................................................................................................3
2.3 Proposed Construction...........................................................................................................3
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION...........................................................................................................4
3.1 Field Exploration Program......................................................................................................4
3.1.1 Test Borings..................................................................................................................4
3.2 Regional/Site Geology............................................................................................................4
3.3 Subsurface Characterization..................................................................................................6
3.4 Groundwater Observations....................................................................................................6
4.0 LABORATORY TESTING........................................................................................................7
5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................8
5.1 Building Design.......................................................................................................................8
5.1.1 Foundations..................................................................................................................8
5.1.2 Floor Slabs.....................................................................................................................9
5.2 Site Design Considerations.....................................................................................................9
5.2.1 Pavement Sections.......................................................................................................9
6.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................12
6.1 Subgrade Preparation..........................................................................................................12
6.1.1 Stripping and Grubbing...............................................................................................12
6.1.2 Proofrolling.................................................................................................................12
6.1.3 Subgrade Stabilization................................................................................................12
6.2 Earthwork Operations..........................................................................................................13
6.2.1 Structural Fill Materials...............................................................................................13
6.2.2 Compaction.................................................................................................................14
6.3 Foundation and slab observations.......................................................................................16
6.4 Utility Installations...............................................................................................................16
6.5 General Construction Considerations..................................................................................17
7.0 CLOSING...........................................................................................................................18

Truss Plant Expansion
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2
APPENDICES
Appendix A — Drawings & Reports
• Site Location Diagram
• Exploration Location Diagram
Appendix B — Field Operations Reference Notes for Boring Logs
• Reference Notes for Boring Logs
• Boring Logs B-1 through B-7
• Subsurface Cross -Sections
Appendix C — Laboratory Testing
• Laboratory Test Results Summary
• Particle Size Distribution Reports
• Plasticity Chart
Appendix D — Supplemental Report Documents
• ASFE Document
February 14, 2018
Page ii

Truss Plant Expansion February 14, 2018
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2 Page 1
X4 III W*111MI IT_137
The following summarizes the main findings of the exploration, particularly those that may have a
cost impact on the planned development. Further, our principal foundation recommendations
are summarized. Information gleaned from the executive summary should not be utilized in lieu
of reading the entire geotechnical report.
• The geotechnical exploration performed for the planned development included seven (7)
soil test borings drilled to depths ranging 20 to 25 feet in the area of the proposed
expansion.
• The borings generally encountered coastal plain soils. The soils generally consisted of
very soft to stiff, Lean and Fat Clay (CL, CH) with layers of very loose to medium dense,
Clayey and Clean Sand (SC, SP).
• Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from about 7 to 10 feet beneath
existing grades.
• The planned building can be supported by conventional shallow foundations consisting of
column or strip footings with an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. However,
undercutting to depths of 3 to 5 feet and backfilling with approved structural fill should
be anticipated.

Truss Plant Expansion February 14, 2018
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2 Page 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
The purpose of this study was to provide geotechnical information for the design of the proposed
truss plant expansion located at 200 Emmett Road in Dunn, Harnett County, North Carolina.
The recommendations developed for this report are based on project information supplied by 84
Lumber Company. This report contains the results of our subsurface explorations and laboratory
testing programs, site characterization, engineering analyses, and recommendations for the
design and construction of the proposed expansion.
1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
To obtain the necessary geotechnical information required for design of the truss plant expansion,
seven (7) soil test borings were performed at locations selected. A laboratory -testing program
was also implemented to characterize the physical and engineering properties of the subsurface
soils.
This report discusses our exploratory and testing procedures, presents our findings and
evaluations and includes the following.
• Project description;
• Site conditions, including geologic and special site features;
• Field exploration procedures;
• Subsurface conditions;
• Foundation recommendations;
■ Allowable bearing pressures;
■ Settlement estimates (total and differential);
• Slab on grade recommendations;
• Site development recommendations;
• Pavement design recommendations;
• Suitability of soils for use as fill material;
• Discussion of groundwater impact;
• Techniques to control shallow groundwater;
• Compaction recommendations;
• Site vicinity map;
• Exploration location plan; and
• Soil test boring logs.
1.3 AUTHORIZATION
Our services were provided in accordance with our Proposal No. 33.3165 -GP, dated May 12017,
as authorized by 84 Lumber Company on May 16, 2017, and include the Terms and Conditions of
Service outlined with our Proposal.

Truss Plant Expansion
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
February 14, 2018
Page 3
The proposed site is located at 200 Emmett Rd in Dunn, Harnett County, North Carolina. Figure
2.1.1 below shows an aerial image of the site.
Figure 2.1.1 Site Location
2.2 CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS
i n k
The site is located at the existing truss plant at 200 Emmett Rd in Dunn, North Carolina. Cleared
farm land is north of the existing plant and a moderately wooded area on the south part of the
site.
2.3 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
ECS understands the construction will consist of adding a 28,800 square foot truss plant, a 5,000
square foot office building, and a 24,000 square foot wall panel plant around the existing plant.
On the northern portion of the site the proposed construction consists of a storage yard and
proposed shed buildings. At the time of this report, additional project information including
structural loads and grading information was not available.

Truss Plant Expansion
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION
3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM
February 14, 2018
Page 4
The field exploration was planned with the objective of characterizing the project site in general
geotechnical and geological terms and to evaluate subsequent field and laboratory data to assist
in the determination of geotechnical recommendations.
3.1.1 Test Borings
The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling seven soil test borings within the structural
building pad and in pavement areas. Based on the boring locations accessibility, a track -mounted
drill rig was utilized to drill the soil test borings. Borings were generally advanced to depths
ranging from 20 to 25 feet below the current ground surface.
Boring locations were identified in the field by ECS personnel using handheld GPS and referencing
existing features prior to mobilization of our drilling equipment. The approximate as -drilled
boring locations are shown on the exploration location diagram in Appendix A. The approximate
ground surface elevations noted on the boring logs were interpolated from the site plan prepared
by 84 Lumber, dated September 4, 2017.
Standard penetration tests (SPTs) were conducted in the borings at regular intervals in general
accordance with ASTM D 1586. Small representative samples were obtained during these tests
and were used to classify the soils encountered. The standard penetration resistances obtained
provide a general indication of soil shear strength and compressibility.
3.2 REGIONAL/SITE GEOLOGY
The site is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of North Carolina. The Coastal Plain
is composed of seven terraces, each representing a former level of the Atlantic Ocean. Soils in
this area generally consist of sedimentary materials transported from other areas by the ocean or
rivers. These deposits vary in thickness from a thin veneer along the western edge of the region
to more than 10,000 feet near the coast. The sedimentary deposits of the Coastal Plain rest upon
consolidated rocks similar to those underlying the Piedmont and Mountain Physiographic
Provinces. In general, shallow unconfined groundwater movement within the overlying soils is
largely controlled by topographic gradients. Recharge occurs primarily by infiltration along higher
elevations and typically discharges into streams or other surface water bodies. The elevation of
the shallow water table is transient and can vary greatly with seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation.

Truss Plant Expansion February 14, 2018
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2 Page S
It is important to note that the natural geology at the site has been modified in the past.
Therefore, potential fill and unsuitable materials may be present at the site. Based on the U.S.
Geological Surveyl,2 the site of the proposed construction lies within the Cape Fear Formation
(Kc). The formation generally consists of alluvial sands and clays underlain by sandstone and
mudstone. An overview of the general site geology is illustrated in Figure 3.2.1 below.
1002
Kc: Cape Fear Formation
(Cretaceous)
[Detailed descrintionl
Cape Fear Formation - sandstone and sandy
"04�4V4� mudstone, yellowish gray to bluish gray.
mottled red to yellowish orange, indurated,
graded and laterally continuos bedding,
blocky clay, faint cross -bedding, feldspar and
mica common.
Figure 3.2.1
Geologic map for Figure 3.2.1 obtained from The North Carolina Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Land
Resources, NC Geological Survey, in cooperation with the NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, 1998, Geology - North
Carolina (1:250,000), coverage data file geo1250 and Google Earth.
1 The North Carolina Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Land Resources, INC Geological
Survey, in cooperation with the NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, 1998, Geology - North Carolina
(1:250,000), coverage data file geol250. The data represents the digital equivalent of the official State Geology map
(1:500,000 scale), but was digitized from (1:250,000 scale) base maps.
2 Rhodes, Thomas S., and Conrad, Stephen G., 1985, Geologic Map of North Carolina: Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, Division of Land Resources, and the NC Geological Survey, 1:500,000 -scale, compiled by
Brown, Philip M., et al, and Parker, John M. III, and in association with the State Geologic Map Advisory Committee.

Truss Plant Expansion
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2
3.3 SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION
February 14, 2018
Page 6
The subsurface conditions encountered were generally consistent with published geological
mapping. No organic topsoil was noted at the boring locations during the exploration; however at
the time of the exploration, the site consisted of an agricultural plowed fill. Rootmat material
may be present in the plow zone of 4 to 6 inches across the site. Deeper topsoil or organic laden
soils are most likely present in wet, poorly drained areas and potentially unexplored areas of the
site. The following sections provide generalized characterizations of the soil encountered during
our subsurface exploration. For subsurface information at a specific location, refer to the Boring
Logs in Appendix B.
Table 3.3.1 Subsurface Stratieraphv
Approximate
Stratum
Description
Ranges of
Depth Range (ft)
SPT(1) N -values (bpf)
0-12 ft
I
Very Soft to Very Stiff, Lean CLAY (CL) with
W.O.H to 17
interbedded layers of Loose to Medium Dense Clayey
SAND, moist to wet
12-20
II
Very Soft to Stiff, Fat CLAY (CH) with interbedded
W.O.H to 11
layers of Very Loose to Medium Dense Clayey SAND
(SC), moist to wet
Notes: (1) Standard Penetration Test
3.4 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS
Groundwater observations were made at the boring locations during exploration as noted on the
boring logs in Appendix B. Borings B-1 through B-7 had time of drilling water levels ranging from
approximately 7 to 10 feet.
The highest groundwater observations are normally encountered in the late winter and early
spring. Variations in the long-term water table may occur as a result of changes in precipitation,
evaporation, surface water runoff, construction activities, and other factors not immediately
apparent at the time of this exploration. If long term water levels are crucial to the development
of this site, it would be prudent to verify water levels with the use of perforated pipes or
piezometers.

Truss Plant Expansion
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2
4.0 LABORATORY TESTING
February 14, 2018
Page 7
The laboratory testing performed by ECS for this project consisted of selected tests performed on
samples obtained during our field exploration operations. The following paragraphs briefly
discuss the results of the completed laboratory testing program. Classification and index property
tests were performed on representative soil samples obtained from the test borings in order to
aid in classifying soils according to the Unified Soil Classification System and to quantify and
correlate engineering properties.
Each soil sample from the test borings were classified on the basis of texture and plasticity in
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM D-2488 (Description and
Identification of Soils-Visual/Manual Procedures). After classification, the soils were grouped into
various soil types into the major zones noted on the boring logs in Appendix B. The group symbols
for each soil type are indicated in parentheses following the soil descriptions on the boring logs.
The stratification lines designating the interfaces between earth materials on the boring logs are
approximate; in situ, the transitions may be gradual.
Representative soil samples obtained during our field exploration were selected and tested in our
laboratory to check field classifications and to determine pertinent engineering properties. The
laboratory testing program included index property testing including four (4) natural moisture
content determinations (ASTM D 2216), two (2) grain size analyses (ASTM D 1140) and two (2)
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318).
Index and engineering properties tests were performed on select samples of the sample soils
encountered within the test borings. In summary, the tested samples had in-situ moisture
contents ranging from about 19.6 to 30.7 percent. The samples tested for grain size analysis
showed 1.6 to 34.7 percent by weight passing the number 200 sieve. The samples tested for
plasticity had Liquid Limits ranging from 36 to 47, Plastic Limits ranging from 16 to 18 and Plastic
Indices ranging from 20 to 29.
Specific laboratory test results are provided in Appendix C of this report.

Truss Plant Expansion
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2
5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 BUILDING DESIGN
February 14, 2018
Page 8
The following sections provide recommendations for foundation design, soil supported slabs, and
pavements.
5.1.1 Foundations
Provided subgrades and structural fills are prepared as discussed herein, the proposed structure
can be supported by conventional shallow foundations: individual column footings and
continuous wall footings. The design of the foundation shall utilize the following parameters:
Table 5.1.1.1 Foundation Desien
Design Parameter
Column Footing
Wall Footing
Net Allowable Bearing Pressure'
2,000 psf
2,000 psf
Acceptable Bearing Soil Material
Approved Structural
Fill
Approved Structural Fill
Minimum Width
30 inches
18 inches
Minimum Footing Embedment Depth (below
slab or finished grade)
12 inches
12 inches
Estimated Total Settlement
1 inch
1 inch
Estimated Differential Settlement
Less than 0.5 inches
between columns
Less than 0.5 inches over
50 feet
1. Net allowable bearing pressure is the applied pressure in excess of the surrounding overburden soils
above the base of the foundation.
A majority the soils at the foundation bearing elevation are anticipated to be unsuitable for
support of the proposed structure. It is anticipated that approximately 3 to 5 feet of undercut will
be necessary in the general vicinity of borings B-1, B-2 B-3, B-5, and B-7. It will be important to
have the geotechnical engineer of record observe the foundation subgrade prior to placing
foundation concrete; to confirm the bearing soils are what was anticipated. If soft or unsuitable
soils are observed at the footing bearing elevations, the unsuitable soils should be undercut and
removed. Any undercut should be backfilled with approved structural fill up to the original design
bottom of footing elevation; the original footing shall be constructed on top of the structural fill.
The depth and lateral extent of the undercut should be determined in the field during
undercutting operation. An ECS representative must be on site during the undercut and backfill of
the areas in order to provide a report stating that the repairs were in accordance with our
recommendations.

Truss Plant Expansion
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2
5.1.2 Floor Slabs
February 14, 2018
Page 9
Assuming the lowest finished floor elevation is around the current elevation, it appears that the
slabs for the structure will bear on Approved Structural Fill or Stratum I. Provided the subgrade
recommendations of this report in Section 6.0 are followed, this material is likely suitable for the
support of a slab -on -grade. The following graphic depicts our soil -supported slab
recommendations:
Vapor Barrier
Concrete Slab
Compacted Subgrade
Figure 5.1.2.1
1. Drainage Layer Thickness: 6 inches
2. Drainage Layer Material: GRAVEL (GP, GW), SAND (SP, SW)
Granular Capillary Break/Drainage Layer
3. Subgrade compacted to 98% maximum dry density per ASTM D698
Subgrade Modulus: Provided the placement of structural fill and granular drainage layer per the
recommendations discussed herein, the slab may be designed assuming a modulus of subgrade
reaction, kl of 150 pci (lbs/cu. inch). The modulus of subgrade reaction value is based on a 1 ft by
1 ft plate load test basis.
Slab Isolation: Ground -supported slabs should be isolated from the foundations and foundation -
supported elements of the structure so that differential movement between the foundations and
slab will not induce excessive shear and bending stresses in the floor slab. Where the structural
configuration prevents the use of a free-floating slab, the slab should be designed with suitable
reinforcement and load transfer devices to preclude overstressing of the slab. Maximum
differential settlement of soils supporting interior slabs is anticipated to be less than 0.5 inches in
50 feet.
5.2 SITE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
5.2.1 Pavement Sections
Subgrade Characteristics: Based on the results of our soundings, it appears that the soils that will
be exposed as pavement subgrades generally consist of CLAYS and Approved Structural Fill -
SANDS. The pavement design assumes subgrades consist of suitable materials evaluated by ECS
and placed and compacted to at least 98 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by
the standard Proctor test (ASTM D 698) in accordance with the project specifications.
-_7-0 -_�_-
-•..a
Compacted Subgrade
Figure 5.1.2.1
1. Drainage Layer Thickness: 6 inches
2. Drainage Layer Material: GRAVEL (GP, GW), SAND (SP, SW)
Granular Capillary Break/Drainage Layer
3. Subgrade compacted to 98% maximum dry density per ASTM D698
Subgrade Modulus: Provided the placement of structural fill and granular drainage layer per the
recommendations discussed herein, the slab may be designed assuming a modulus of subgrade
reaction, kl of 150 pci (lbs/cu. inch). The modulus of subgrade reaction value is based on a 1 ft by
1 ft plate load test basis.
Slab Isolation: Ground -supported slabs should be isolated from the foundations and foundation -
supported elements of the structure so that differential movement between the foundations and
slab will not induce excessive shear and bending stresses in the floor slab. Where the structural
configuration prevents the use of a free-floating slab, the slab should be designed with suitable
reinforcement and load transfer devices to preclude overstressing of the slab. Maximum
differential settlement of soils supporting interior slabs is anticipated to be less than 0.5 inches in
50 feet.
5.2 SITE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
5.2.1 Pavement Sections
Subgrade Characteristics: Based on the results of our soundings, it appears that the soils that will
be exposed as pavement subgrades generally consist of CLAYS and Approved Structural Fill -
SANDS. The pavement design assumes subgrades consist of suitable materials evaluated by ECS
and placed and compacted to at least 98 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by
the standard Proctor test (ASTM D 698) in accordance with the project specifications.

Truss Plant Expansion February 14, 2018
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2 Page 10
Design Considerations: For the design and construction of exterior pavements, the subgrades
should be prepared in strict accordance with the recommendations in the "Subgrade Preparation"
and "Engineered Fill Placement" sections of this report. An important consideration with the
design and construction of pavements is surface and subsurface drainage. Where standing water
develops, either on the pavement surface or within the base course layer, softening of the
subgrade and other problems related to the deterioration of the pavement can be expected.
Furthermore, good drainage should minimize the possibility of the subgrade materials becoming
saturated during the normal service period of the pavement.
Based on assumed traffic loads and the soil conditions encountered during our exploration, a light
duty flexible pavement section may consist of the of at least 2 inches of surface mix (SF9.5A)
asphalt overlying at least 6 inches of compacted crushed stone. Similarly, a heavy duty, flexible
pavement section may consist of at least 3.0 inches of surface mix (SF9.5A) asphalt over overlying
8 inches of compacted crushed stone.
For a rigid pavement section, we recommend 6 inches of 5,000 psi flexible strength concrete
overlying at least 6 inches of compacted crushed stone.
For the storage yard, the gravel lot should consist of at least 12 inches of compacted crushed
stone.
Aggregate base course materials beneath pavements should be compacted to at least 98 percent
of their modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557).
Regardless of the section selected and type of construction utilized, saturation of the subgrade
materials and asphalt pavement areas results in a softening of the subgrade material and
shortened life span for the pavement. Therefore, we recommend that both the surface and
subsurface materials for the pavement be properly graded to enhance surface and subgrade
drainage. By quickly removing surface and subsurface water, softening of the subgrade can be
reduced and the performance of the parking area can be improved. Site preparation for the
parking areas should be similar to that for the building area including stripping, proofrolling, and
the placement of compacted structural fill.
Please note that large, front -loading trash dumpsters frequently impose concentrated front -wheel
loads on pavements during loading. This type of loading typically results in rutting of bituminous
pavements and ultimately pavement failures and costly repairs. Consequently, we recommend
the use of an 8 inch thick, mesh or fiber reinforced concrete slab that extends the entire length of
the truck. Concrete pavements should be properly jointed and reinforced as needed to help
reduce the potential for cracking and to permit proper load transfer.

Truss Plant Expansion February 14, 2018
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2 Page 11
Weather Restrictions: In this region, asphalt plants may close during the months of December,
January, and/or February if particularly cold weather conditions prevail. However, this can change
based on year to year temperature fluctuations. Daily temperatures from December to February
will often stay below 40°F, limiting the days that asphalt placement can occur.

Truss Plant Expansion
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2
6.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 SUBGRADE PREPARATION
6.1.1 Stripping and Grubbing
February 14, 2018
Page 12
The subgrade preparation should consist of stripping all vegetation, rootmat, topsoil, existing fill,
and any other soft or unsuitable materials from the 10 -foot expanded building and 5 -foot
expanded pavement limits and to 5 feet beyond the toe of structural fills. ECS should be called on
to verify that topsoil and unsuitable surficial materials have been completely removed prior to the
placement of Structural Fill or construction of the building and parking lot.
6.1.2 Proofrolling
After removing all unsuitable surface materials, cutting to the proposed grade, and prior to the
placement of any structural fill or other construction materials, the exposed subgrade should be
examined by the Geotechnical Engineer or authorized representative. The exposed subgrade
should be thoroughly proofrolled with previously approved construction equipment having a
minimum axle load of 10 tons (e.g. fully loaded tandem -axle dump truck). The areas subject to
proofrolling should be traversed by the equipment in two perpendicular (orthogonal) directions
with overlapping passes of the vehicle under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer or
authorized representative. This procedure is intended to assist in identifying any localized
yielding materials. In the event that unstable or "pumping" subgrade is identified by the
proofrolling, those areas should be marked for repair prior to the placement of any subsequent
structural fill or other construction materials. Methods of repair of unstable subgrade, such as
undercutting or moisture conditioning or chemical stabilization, should be discussed with the
Geotechnical Engineer to determine the appropriate procedure with regard to the existing
conditions causing the instability. Test pits may be excavated to explore the shallow subsurface
materials in the area of the instability to help in determined the cause of the observed unstable
materials and to assist in the evaluation of the appropriate remedial action to stabilize the
subgrade. It is anticipated that approximately 3 to 5 feet of undercut and backfill with approved
structural fill will be necessary in the general vicinity of borings B-1, B-2 B-3, B-5, and B-7.
6.1.3 Subgrade Stabilization
Subgrade Compaction: Upon completion of subgrade documentation, the exposed subgrade
within the 10 -foot expanded building and 5 -foot expanded pavement and embankment limits
should be moisture conditioned to within -3 and +3 % of the soil's optimum moisture content and
be compacted with suitable equipment (minimum 10 -ton roller) to a depth of 10 inches. Moisture
conditioning of the soil should consist of proper drainage of the site and air drying of the soil.
Drainage of the area is essential for removing surface water from the site to reduce the impact of
surface water on the moisture of the soil. Drying is accomplished through the evaporation of soil
moisture. Disking and tilling of the soil accelerates the drying process, by reducing the size of soil
lumps, thereby increasing the surface area exposed to evaporation. ECS recommends the upper
12 inches of the site be disked to facilitate drying.

Truss Plant Expansion February 14, 2018
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2 Page 13
Once the moisture contents are within the recommended percentages, the subgrade compaction
within the expanded building and pavement limits should be to a dry density of at least 98% of
the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698). Beyond these areas, compaction of at
least 95% should be achieved. ECS should be called on to document that proper subgrade
compaction has been achieved.
Subgrade Compaction Control: The expanded limits of the proposed construction areas should be
well defined, including the limits for buildings, pavements, fills, and slopes, etc. Field density
testing of subgrades will be performed at frequencies in Table 6.1.3.1.
Table 6.1.3.1 Frequency of Subgrade Compaction Testing
Location
Frequency of Tests
Expanded Building Limits
........ ......... ......... ......... .........
.........
1 test per 2,500 sq. ft.
.... ......... .........
Pavement Areas
1 test per 10,000 sq. ft.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Outparcels/SWM Facilities
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
1 test per 2,500 sq. ft.
.
..............................................................................................................
All Other Non -Critical Areas
1 test per 10,000 sqft.
Subgrade Stabilization: Is some areas, particularly low-lying, wet areas of the site, undercutting of
excessively soft materials may be considered inefficient for pavement areas. In such areas the use
of a reinforcing geotextile or geogrid might be employed, under the advisement of ECS. Suitable
stabilization materials may include a Mirafi 550x geotextile fabric or Tensar TX140 geogrids. The
suitability and employment of reinforcing or stabilization products should be determined in the
field by ECS personnel, in accordance with project specifications.
6.2 EARTHWORK OPERATIONS
6.2.1 Structural Fill Materials
Product Submittals: Prior to placement of structural fill, representative bulk samples (about 50
pounds) of on-site and off-site borrow should be submitted to ECS for laboratory testing, which
will include Atterberg limits, natural moisture content, grain -size distribution, and moisture -
density relationships for compaction. Import materials should be tested prior to being hauled to
the site to determine if they meet project specifications.
Satisfactory Structural Fill Materials: Materials satisfactory for use as structural fill should consist
of inorganic soils classified as SM, SC, SW, SP, GW, GP, GM and GC, or a combination of these
group symbols, per ASTM D 2487. Natural fine-grained soils classified as clays or silts (CL, ML)
should generally not be considered for use as engineered fill, but may be evaluated by the
geotechnical engineer to determine their suitability at the contractor's request. The materials
should be free of organic matter, debris, and should contain no particle sizes greater than 4 inches
in the largest dimension. Open graded materials, such as gravels (GW and GP), which contain void
space in their mass should not be used in structural fills unless properly encapsulated with filter
fabric. Suitable structural fill material should have the index properties shown in Table 6.2.1.1.

Truss Plant Expansion
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2
Table 6.2.1.1 Structural Fill Index Properties
February 14, 2018
Page 14
Location with Respect to Final
Frequency of Tests
Expanded Building Limits
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Max % of Fines
Pavement Areas
LL
PI
.............................................. .............................................................
1 test per 10,000 sq ft. . per lift
Grade
Passing # 200 Sieve
Building Areas
35 max
9 max
35
Pavement Areas
35 max
9 max
35
Unsatisfactory Materials: Unsatisfactory fill materials include materials which to not satisfy the
requirements for suitable materials, as well as topsoil and organic materials (OH, OL), elastic Silt
(MH), and high plasticity Clay (CH).
On -Site Borrow Suitability: A majority of the near surface soils are unsuitable to re used as
structural fill. Moisture conditioning should be anticipated for the soils to achieve the optimum
moisture content for fill placement.
6.2.2 Compaction
Structural Fill Compaction: Structural fill within the expanded building, pavement, and
embankment limits should be placed in maximum 8 -inch loose lifts, moisture conditioned as
necessary to within -3 and +3 % of the soil's optimum moisture content, and be compacted with
suitable equipment to a dry density of at least 98% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density
(ASTM D698). Beyond these areas, compaction of at least 95% should be achieved. ECS should be
called on to document that proper fill compaction has been achieved.
Fill Compaction Control: The expanded limits of the proposed construction areas should be well
defined, including the limits of the fill zones for buildings, pavements, and slopes, etc., at the time
of fill placement. Grade controls should be maintained throughout the filling operations. All filling
operations should be observed on a full-time basis by a qualified representative of the
construction testing laboratory to determine that the minimum compaction requirements are
being achieved. Field density testing of fills will be performed at the frequencies shown in Table
6.2.2.1, but not less than 1 test per lift.
Table 6.2.2.1 Freauencv of Compaction Tests in Fill Areas
Location
Frequency of Tests
Expanded Building Limits
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
1 test per 2,500 sq. ft. per lift
Pavement Areas
1 test per 10,000 sq. ft. per lift
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
All Other Non -Critical Areas
.............................................. .............................................................
1 test per 10,000 sq ft. . per lift
Compaction Equipment: Compaction equipment suitable to the soil type being compacted should
be used to compact the subgrades and fill materials. Sheepsfoot compaction equipment should
be suitable for the fine-grained soils (Clays and Silts). A vibratory steel drum roller should be used
for compaction of coarse-grained soils (Sands) as well as for sealing compacted surfaces.

Truss Plant Expansion February 14, 2018
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2 Page 15
Fill Placement Considerations: Fill materials should not be placed on frozen soils, on frost -heaved
soils, and/or on excessively wet soils. Borrow fill materials should not contain frozen materials at
the time of placement, and all frozen or frost -heaved soils should be removed prior to placement
of Structural Fill or other fill soils and aggregates. Excessively wet soils or aggregates should be
scarified, aerated, and moisture conditioned.
At the end of each work day, all fill areas should be graded to facilitate drainage of any
precipitation and the surface should be sealed by use of a smooth -drum roller to limit infiltration
of surface water. During placement and compaction of new fill at the beginning of each workday, the
Contractor may need to scarify existing subgrades to a depth on the order of 4 inches so that a weak
plane will not be formed between the new fill and the existing subgrade soils.
Drying and compaction of wet soils is typically difficult during the cold, winter months.
Accordingly, earthwork should be performed during the warmer, drier times of the year, if
practical. Proper drainage should be maintained during the earthwork phases of construction to
prevent ponding of water which has a tendency to degrade subgrade soils. Alternatively, if these
soils cannot be stabilized by conventional methods as previously discussed, additional
modifications to the subgrade soils such as lime or cement stabilization may be utilized to adjust
the moisture content. If lime or cement are utilized to control moisture contents and/or for
stabilization, Quick Lime, Calciment® or regular Type 1 cement can be used. The construction
testing laboratory should evaluate proposed lime or cement soil modification procedures, such as
quantity of additive and mixing and curing procedures, before implementation. The contractor
should be required to minimize dusting or implement dust control measures, as required.
Where fill materials will be placed to widen existing embankment fills, or placed up against
sloping ground, the soil subgrade should be scarified and the new fill benched or keyed into the
existing material. Fill material should be placed in horizontal lifts. In confined areas such as utility
trenches, portable compaction equipment and thin lifts of 3 inches to 4 inches may be required to
achieve specified degrees of compaction.
We recommend that the grading contractor have equipment on site during earthwork for both
drying and wetting fill soils. We do not anticipate significant problems in controlling moisture
within the fill during dry weather, but moisture control may be difficult during winter months or
extended periods of rain. The control of moisture content of higher plasticity soils is difficult
when these soils become wet. Further, such soils are easily degraded by construction traffic when
the moisture content is elevated.

Truss Plant Expansion
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2
6.3 FOUNDATION AND SLAB OBSERVATIONS
February 14, 2018
Page 16
Protection of Foundation Excavations: Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the
footing bearing level if the foundation excavations remain open for too long a time. Therefore,
foundation concrete should be placed the same day that excavations are made. If the bearing
soils are softened by surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed
from the foundation excavation bottom immediately prior to placement of concrete. If the
excavation must remain open overnight, or if rainfall becomes imminent while the bearing soils
are exposed, a 2 to 3 -inch thick "mud mat" of "lean" concrete should be placed on the bearing
soils before the placement of reinforcing steel.
Footing Subgrade Observations: Most of the soils at the foundation bearing elevation are
anticipated to be unsuitable for support of the proposed structure. It will be important to have
the geotechnical engineer of record observe the foundation subgrade prior to placing foundation
concrete, to confirm the bearing soils are what was anticipated. If soft or unsuitable soils are
observed at the footing bearing elevations, the unsuitable soils should be undercut and removed.
Slab Subgrade Verification: A representative of ECS should be called on to observe exposed
subgrades within the expanded building limits prior to structural fill placement to assure that
adequate subgrade preparation has been achieved. A proofrolling using a drum roller or loaded
dump truck should be performed in their presence at that time. Once subgrades have been
prepared to the satisfaction of ECS, subgrades should be properly compacted and new structural
fill can be placed. Existing subgrades to a depth of at least 10 inches and all structural fill should
be moisture conditioned to within -3/+3 percentage points of optimum moisture content then be
compacted to the required density. If there will be a significant time lag between the site grading
work and final grading of concrete slab areas prior to the placement of the subbase stone and
concrete, a representative of ECS should be called on to verify the condition of the prepared
subgrade. Prior to final slab construction, the subgrade may require scarification, moisture
conditioning, and re -compaction to restore stable conditions.
6.4 UTILITY INSTALLATIONS
Utility Subgrades: The soils encountered in our exploration are expected to be suitable for
support of utility pipes. The pipe subgrade should be observed and probed for stability by ECS to
evaluate the suitability of the materials encountered. Any loose or unsuitable materials
encountered at the utility pipe subgrade elevation should be removed and replaced with suitable
compacted structural fill or pipe bedding material.
Utility Backfilling: The granular bedding material should be at least 4 inches thick, but not less
than that specified by the project drawings and specifications. Fill placed for support of the
utilities, as well as backfill over the utilities, should satisfy the requirements for structural fill given
in this report. Compacted backfill should be free of topsoil, roots, ice, or any other material
designated by ECS as unsuitable. The backfill should be moisture conditioned, placed, and
compacted in accordance with the recommendations of this report.

Truss Plant Expansion February 14, 2018
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2 Page 17
Excavation Safety: All excavations and slopes should be made and maintained in accordance with
OSHA excavation safety standards. The contractor is solely responsible for designing and
constructing stable, temporary excavations and slopes and should shore, slope, or bench the sides
of the excavations and slopes as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and
bottom. The contractor's responsible person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the
soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures. In no case should
slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth,
exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations. ECS is providing this
information solely as a service to our client. ECS is not assuming responsibility for construction
site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be
inferred.
6.5 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Moisture Conditioning: During the cooler and wetter periods of the year, delays and additional
costs should be anticipated. At these times, reduction of soil moisture may need to be
accomplished by a combination of mechanical manipulation and the use of chemical additives,
such as lime or cement, in order to lower moisture contents to levels appropriate for compaction.
Alternatively, during the drier times of the year, such as the summer months, moisture may need
to be added to the soil to provide adequate moisture for successful compaction according to the
project requirements.
Subgrade Protection: Measures should also be taken to limit site disturbance, especially from
rubber -tired heavy construction equipment, and to control and remove surface water from
development areas, including structural and pavement areas. It would be advisable to designate a
haul road and construction staging area to limit the areas of disturbance and to prevent
construction traffic from excessively degrading sensitive subgrade soils and existing pavement
areas. Haul roads and construction staging areas could be covered with excess depths of
aggregate to protect those subgrades. The aggregate can later be removed and used in pavement
areas.
Surface Drainage: Surface drainage conditions should be properly maintained. Surface water
should be directed away from the construction area, and the work area should be sloped away
from the construction area at a gradient of 1 percent or greater to reduce the potential of
ponding water and the subsequent saturation of the surface soils. At the end of each work day,
the subgrade soils should be sealed by rolling the surface with a smooth drum roller to minimize
infiltration of surface water.
Excavation Safety: Cuts or excavations associated with utility excavations may require forming or
bracing, slope flattening, or other physical measures to control sloughing and/or prevent slope
failures. Contractors should be familiar with applicable OSHA codes to ensure that adequate
protection of the excavations and trench walls is provided.
Erosion Control: The surface soils may be erodible. Therefore, the contractor should provide and
maintain good site drainage during earthwork operations to maintain the integrity of the surface
soils. All erosion and sedimentation controls should be in accordance with sound engineering
practices and local requirements.

Truss Plant Expansion February 14, 2018
ECS Project No. 33:4052R2 Page 18
7.0 CLOSING
ECS has prepared this report of findings, evaluations, and recommendations to guide
geotechnical -related design and construction aspects of the project.
The description of the proposed project is based on information provided to ECS by 84 Lumber
Company. If any of this information is inaccurate, either due to our interpretation of the
documents provided or site or design changes that may occur later, ECS should be contacted
immediately in order that we can review the report in light of the changes and provide additional
or alternate recommendations as may be required to reflect the proposed construction.
We recommend that ECS be allowed to review the project's plans and specifications pertaining to
our work so that we may ascertain consistency of those plans/specifications with the intent of the
geotechnical report.
Field observations, monitoring, and quality assurance testing during earthwork and foundation
installation are an extension of and integral to the geotechnical design recommendation. We
recommend that the owner retain these quality assurance services and that ECS be allowed to
continue our involvement throughout these critical phases of construction to provide general
consultation as issues arise. ECS is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or
recommendations of others based on the data in this report.

APPENDIX A — Drawings & Reports
Site Location Diagram
Exploration Location Diagram

NJ
Q
L
or
MCA
•
rr
SITE LOCATION DIAGRAM TRUSS PLANT
EXPANSION PROJECT NO. TS
C, SHEET 33:4052
DUNN, NC 28334 DATE I OF 2
91200013

ENGINEER DRAFTING
WEG MME
DATE
6/28/17

APPENDIX B — Field Operations
Reference Notes for Boring Logs
Boring Logs B-1 through B-7
Subsurface Cross -Sections

EN
REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS
MATERIAL 1,2
DRILLING SAMPLING SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS
SS
Split Spoon Sampler
ASPHALT
Pressuremeter Test
CONCRETE
Shelby Tube Sampler
RD
Rock Bit Drilling
WS
GRAVEL
`7 o'
TOPSOIL
BS
Bulk Sample of Cuttings
REC
Rock Sample Recovery %
VOID
Power Auger (no sample)
RQD
BRICK
HSA
p D
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
4.00-8.00
31 -50
Hard
>8.00
FILL
MAN -PLACED SOILS
GW
WELL -GRADED GRAVEL
gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines
GP
POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL
gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines
GM
SILTY GRAVEL
gravel -sand -silt mixtures
GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL
V-3
gravel -sand -clay mixtures
SW
WELL -GRADED SAND
gravelly sand, little or no fines
SP
POORLY -GRADED SAND
•
gravelly sand, little or no fines
SM
SILTY SAND
sand -silt mixtures
?
SC
CLAYEY SAND
'
sand -clay mixtures
ML
SILT
non -plastic to medium plasticity
MH
ELASTIC SILT
I I
high plasticity
�
CL
LEAN CLAY
M°
low to medium plasticity
CH
FAT CLAY
high plasticity
OL
ORGANIC SILT or CLAY
non -plastic to low plasticity
OH
ORGANIC SILT or CLAY
high plasticity
PT
PEAT
highly organic soils
COHESIVE SILTS & CLAYS
DRILLING SAMPLING SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS
SS
Split Spoon Sampler
PM
Pressuremeter Test
ST
Shelby Tube Sampler
RD
Rock Bit Drilling
WS
Wash Sample
RC
Rock Core, NX, BX, AX
BS
Bulk Sample of Cuttings
REC
Rock Sample Recovery %
PA
Power Auger (no sample)
RQD
Rock Quality Designation %
HSA
Hollow Stem Auger
Very Stiff
4.00-8.00
COHESIVE SILTS & CLAYS
PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION
DESIGNATION
PARTICLE SIZES
Boulders
12 inches (300 mm) or larger
Cobbles
3 inches to 12 inches (75 mm to 300 mm)
Gravel: Coarse
3/4 inch to 3 inches (19 mm to 75 mm)
Fine
4.75 mm to 19 mm (No. 4 sieve to 3/4 inch)
Sand: Coarse
2.00 mm to 4.75 mm (No. 10 to No. 4 sieve)
Medium
0.425 mm to 2.00 mm (No. 40 to No. 10 sieve)
Fine
0.074 mm to 0.425 mm (No. 200 to No. 40 sieve)
Silt & Clay ("Fines")
<0.074 mm (smaller than a No. 200 sieve)
COHESIVE SILTS & CLAYS
UNCONFINED
DENSITY
<5
COMPRESSIVE
SPT5
CONSISTENCY
STRENGTH, Qp4
(BPF)
(COHESIVE)
<0.25
<3
Very Soft
0.25 - <0.50
3 - 4
Soft
0.50 - <1.00
5 - 8
Firm
1.00 - <2.00
9-15
Stiff
2.00 - <4.00
16-30
Very Stiff
4.00-8.00
31 -50
Hard
>8.00
>50
Very Hard
GRAVELS, SANDS & NON -COHESIVE SILTS
SPT5
DENSITY
<5
Very Loose
5-10
Loose
11 -30
Medium Dense
31 -50
Dense
>50
Very Dense
RELATIVE
AMOUNT
COARSE
GRAINED
(%)B
FINE
GRAINED
(%)a
Trace
<5
<5
Dual Symbol
10
10
(ex: SIN -SM)
(WD) While Drilling
With
15-20
15-25
Adjective
>25
>30
(ex: "Silty')
Stabilized Water Table
Classifications and symbols per ASTM D 2488-09 (Visual -Manual Procedure) unless noted otherwise.
2 T be consistent with general practice, "POORLY GRADED" has been removed from GP, GP -GM, GP -GC, SP, SP -SM, SP -SC soil types on the boring logs.
3Non-ASTM designations are included in soil descriptions and symbols along with ASTM symbol (Ex: (SM -FILL)].
4Typically estimated via pocket penetrometer or Torvane shear test and expressed in tons per square foot (tsf).
5Standard Penetration Test (SPT) refers to the number of hammer blows (blow count) of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch OD split spoon sampler
required to drive the sampler 12 inches (ASTM D 1586). "N -value" is another term for 'blow count" and is expressed in blows per foot (bpf).
6The water levels are those levels actually measured in the borehole at the times indicated by the symbol. The measurements are relatively reliable
when augering, without adding fluids, in granular soils. In clay and cohesive silts, the determination of water levels may require several days for the
water level to stabilize. In such cases, additional methods of measurement are generally employed.
Minor deviation from ASTM D 2488-09 Note 16.
8Percentages are estimated to the nearest 5% per ASTM D 2488-09.
Reference Notes for Boring Logs (03-22-2017) O 2017 ECS Corporate Services, LLC- All Rights Reserved
WATER LEVELS
WL
Water Level (WS)(WD)
(WS) While Sampling
(WD) While Drilling
SHW
Seasonal High WT
ACR
After Casing Removal
v
SWT
Stabilized Water Table
DCI
Dry Cave -In
WCI
Wet Cave -In
Classifications and symbols per ASTM D 2488-09 (Visual -Manual Procedure) unless noted otherwise.
2 T be consistent with general practice, "POORLY GRADED" has been removed from GP, GP -GM, GP -GC, SP, SP -SM, SP -SC soil types on the boring logs.
3Non-ASTM designations are included in soil descriptions and symbols along with ASTM symbol (Ex: (SM -FILL)].
4Typically estimated via pocket penetrometer or Torvane shear test and expressed in tons per square foot (tsf).
5Standard Penetration Test (SPT) refers to the number of hammer blows (blow count) of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch OD split spoon sampler
required to drive the sampler 12 inches (ASTM D 1586). "N -value" is another term for 'blow count" and is expressed in blows per foot (bpf).
6The water levels are those levels actually measured in the borehole at the times indicated by the symbol. The measurements are relatively reliable
when augering, without adding fluids, in granular soils. In clay and cohesive silts, the determination of water levels may require several days for the
water level to stabilize. In such cases, additional methods of measurement are generally employed.
Minor deviation from ASTM D 2488-09 Note 16.
8Percentages are estimated to the nearest 5% per ASTM D 2488-09.
Reference Notes for Boring Logs (03-22-2017) O 2017 ECS Corporate Services, LLC- All Rights Reserved

CLIENT
Job #:
BORING #
SHEET
I
84 Lumber Company
33:4052
B-1
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Truss Plant Expansion - Dunn Job# 30-
84 Lumber Company, Pierce Hardy Limited
2383001
Partnershil2OTM
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT'
200 Emmett Road Dunn Harnett County, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
RQD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
W
Z
Z
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
n
z
a
o
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION
w
ZO
LL
J
w
SURFACE ELEVATION 176.5
a
W
w
w
0
F
w >
9
® STANDARD PENETRATION
o
uai
aw[
w
Co
BLOWS/FT
(CL) LEAN CLAY, tan/orange, moist, very soft
175
z
S-1
SS
18
18
1
2
(CL) LEAN CLAY, gray/red, moist, very stiff
4
S-2
SS
18
18
7
5
10
17
(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, tan/orange, moist,
S-3
SS
18
18
Stiff
*17
170
5
7
15
8
(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, tan/red/orange, wet,
S-4
SS
18
18
stiff
5
6
1:
10
$
165
(SC) CLAYEY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, red,
wet, medium dense
5
S-5
SS
18
18
5
11
15
6
160
(CH) FAT CLAY, purple, wet, very soft
1
S-6
SS
18
18
WO
0
20
WOH
END OF BORING @ 20'
155
25
150
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL 8 WS [I WD®
BORING STARTED 06/01/17
CAVE IN DEPTH Qa 15'
W WL(SHW) t WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 06/01/17
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG Track FOREMAN Jake
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
Job #:
BORING #
SHEET
I
84 Lumber Company
33:4052
B-2
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Truss Plant Expansion - Dunn Job# 30-
84 Lumber Company, Pierce Hardy Limited
2383001
Partnershil2OTM
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT'
200 Emmett Road Dunn Harnett County, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
RQD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
W
Z
Z
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
n
z
a
o
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION
w
ZO
LL
J
w
SURFACE ELEVATION 176.5
a
W
w
w
0
F
w >
9
® STANDARD PENETRATION
o
uai
aw[
w
Co
BLOWS/FT
(CL) LEAN CLAY, red/tan, moist, soft
175
z
2
3
S-1
SS
18
18
i
(CL) LEAN CLAY, tan, moist, stiff
5
S-2
SS
18
18
7
15
5
8
(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, red/orange, moist,
S-3
SS
18
18
medium dense
170
4
6
15
9
(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, red/orange, wet,
S 4
SS
18
18
medium dense
=
5
16
10
9
165
(SC) CLAYEY MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND,
red, wet, medium dense
4
S-5
SS
18
18
6
11
15
5
160
(CH) FAT CLAY, purple, wet, very soft
1
S-6
SS
18
18
WO
0
20
WOH
END OF BORING @ 20'
155
25
150
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL 9 WS [I WD®
BORING STARTED 06/01/17
CAVE IN DEPTH Qa 16'
W WL(SHW) t WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 06/01/17
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG Track FOREMAN Jake
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
Job #:
BORING #
SHEET
I
84 Lumber Company
33:4052
B-3
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Truss Plant Expansion - Dunn Job# 30-
84 Lumber Company, Pierce Hardy Limited
2383001
Partnershil2OTM
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT'
200 Emmett Road Dunn Harnett County, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
RQD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
W
Z
Z
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
n
z
a
o
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION
w
ZO
LL
J
w
SURFACE ELEVATION 1 76
a
W
w
w
0
F
w >
9
® STANDARD PENETRATION
o
w
m
BLOWS/FT
uai
aw[
(CL) LEAN CLAY, tan, moist, soft
175
1
S-1
SS
18
18
2
4
2
(CL) LEAN CLAY, tan, moist, stiff
5
S-2
SS
18
18
5
11
5
6
170
(CL) LEAN CLAY, red/gray, moist, stiff
4
S-3
SS
18
18
5
12
7
(CL) LEAN CLAY, gray, moist, stiff
ra
77
5
S-4
SS
18
18
—
5
1
10
5
165
(CH) FAT CLAY WITH SAND, tan/gray, wet,
soft
1
S-5
SS
18
18
2
3
15
1
160
(CH) FAT CLAY WITH SAND, tan, wet, very
soft
WOH
S-6
SS
18
18
WO
0
20-
WOH
OF BORING @ 20'
-END
155
25
150
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL 9 WS [I WD®
BORING STARTED 06/01/17
CAVE IN DEPTH Qa 15'
WL(SHW) t WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 06/01/17
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG Track FOREMAN Jake
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
Job #:
BORING #
SHEET
I
84 Lumber Company
33:4052
B-4
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Truss Plant Expansion - Dunn Job# 30-
84 Lumber Company, Pierce Hardy Limited
2383001
Partnershil2OTM
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT'
200 Emmett Road Dunn Harnett County, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
RQD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
W
Z
Z
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
n
z
a
o
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION
w
ZO
LL
J
w
SURFACE ELEVATION 175.5
a
W
w
w
0
F
w >
9
® STANDARD PENETRATION
o
w
m
BLOWS/FT
uai
aw[
(CL) LEAN CLAY, tan, moist, firm
175
2
S-1
SS
18
18
2
5
3
(CL) LEAN CLAY, tan/orange/red, moist, stiff
6
S-2
SS
18
18
7
15
5
8
170
(CL) LEAN CLAY, red/gray, moist, stiff
Fo
4
S-3
SS
18
186
14
100%
8
(CL) LEAN CLAY, gray/white, moist, stiff
4
S-4
SS
18
18
6
1
10
—
6
— 165
(CH) FAT CLAY, white/pink, wet, soft
2
S-5
SS
18
18
2
3
15
1
160
(CH) SANDY FAT CLAY, orange, wet, very soft
1
S-6
SS
18
18
WO
0
20-
WOH
OF BORING @ 20'
-END
155
25
150
30
145
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL 9.5 WS [I WD®
BORING STARTED 06/01/17
CAVE IN DEPTH @ 16.0'
WL(SHW) t WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 06/01/17
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG Track FOREMAN Jake
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
Job #:
BORING #
SHEET
I
84 Lumber Company
33:4052
B-5
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Truss Plant Expansion - Dunn Job# 30-
84 Lumber Company, Pierce Hardy Limited
2383001
Partnershil2OTM
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT'
200 Emmett Road Dunn Harnett County, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
RQD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
W
Z
Z
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
n
z
a
o
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION
w
ZO
LL
J
w
SURFACE ELEVATION 175.5
a
W
w
w
0
F
w >
9
® STANDARD PENETRATION
o
w
m
BLOWS/FT
uai
aw[
(CL) LEAN CLAY, tan/dark gray, wet, very soft
175
2
S-1
SS
18
18
2
1
(CL) LEAN CLAY, tan, moist, very soft
2516
S-2
SS
18
18
WOH
Wo 0 13.8
5
WOH
170
(CL) LEAN CLAY, red/gray, moist, stiff
5
S-3
SS
18
18
5 1
8
(CL) LEAN CLAY, red/tan, wet, stiff
3
S-4
SS
18
18
4
10
5
165
(CH) SANDY FAT CLAY, tan/yellow, wet, stiff
3
S-5
SS
18
18
4
15
5
160
(CH) SANDY FAT CLAY, pink/white, saturated,
very soft
WOH
S-6
SS
18
18
wo 0
20—WOH
155
(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, yellow/pink,
saturated, very loose
WOH
S-7
SS
18
18
wo 0
25
WOH
END OF BORING @ 25'
150
30
145
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL 8 WS [I WD®
BORING STARTED 06/01/17
CAVE IN DEPTH @a 17'
WL(SHW) t WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 06/01/17
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG Track FOREMAN Jake
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
Job #:
BORING #
SHEET
I
84 Lumber Company
33:4052
B-6
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
Truss Plant Expansion - Dunn Job# 30-
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
84 Lumber Company, Pierce Hardy Limited
2383001
Partnershil2OTM
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT'
200 Emmett Road Dunn Harnett County, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
RQD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
n
LL
z
W
a
z
o
Z
Z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION
w
J ZO
w
SURFACE ELEVATION 1] j
a
o
W
w
uai
w
0
aw[
F
w >
w
9
m
® STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT
(CL) LEAN CLAY, tan, moist, firm
175
2 18-----&47
3 7 20.3
2517
S-1
SS
18
18
4
3
(CL) LEAN CLAY, tan, moist, stiff
S-2
SS
18
18
4 1
5
170
6
5
(CL) LEAN CLAY, red/orange/gray, moist, stiff
S-3
SS
18
18
7 14
7
4
(CL) LEAN CLAY, gray, moist, stiff
ra
S-4
SS
18
18
7 15
10
_ 165
$
(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, orange/red, wet,
loose
3 22.0:
2518
S-5
SS
18
18
4 7
15
160
3
(CH) FAT CLAY, gray/pink, wet, very soft
WOH
S-6
SS
18
18
wo 0
20
155
WOH
(CH) FAT CLAY, orange/pink, wet, very soft
WOH
S-7
SS
18
18
wo 0
25
150
WOH
END OF BORING @ 25'
30
145
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL 10 WS [I WD®
BORING STARTED 06/01/17
CAVE IN DEPTH Qa 16'
WL(SHW) t WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 06/01/17
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG Track FOREMAN Jake
DRILLING METHOD HSA

CLIENT
Job #:
BORING #
SHEET
I
84 Lumber Company
33:4052
B-7
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Truss Plant Expansion - Dunn Job# 30-
84 Lumber Company, Pierce Hardy Limited
2383001
Partnershil2OTM
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT'
200 Emmett Road Dunn Harnett County, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING
STATION
RQD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
W
Z
Z
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
n
z
a
o
w
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION J ZO
LL
w
F
SURFACE ELEVATION 172,5 w >
a
W
w
w
0
9
® STANDARD PENETRATION
o
w
BLOWS/FT
uai
aw[
Co
(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, tan, moist, very soft
2
S-1
SS
18
18
WOH 1
170
1
(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, tan, moist, firm
2
S-2
SS
18
18
3 7
5
4
4
S-3
SS
18
18
4 8
165
4
(CH) FAT CLAY, orange, wet, firm
2
S-4
SS
18
18
3 7
10
4
160
(CH) SANDY FAT CLAY, tan/gray/white, wet,
very soft
-
WOH
S-5
SS
18
18
wo 0
15
WOH
155
(CH) SANDY FAT CLAY, orange/pink, wet, very
soft
30.7-0
2519wOH
S-6
SS
18
18
wo 0
20-
WOH
OF BORING @ 20'
-END
150
25
145
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
WL 7 WS [I WD®
BORING STARTED 06/01/17
CAVE IN DEPTH @a 12'
'7 WL(SHW) t WL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 06/01/17
HAMMER TYPE Auto
5- WL
RIG Track FOREMAN Jake
DRILLING METHOD HSA

SOIL CLASSIFICATION LEGEND
CONCRETE
V❑
U IGNEOUS
. ASPHALT
VOID
❑ MITA-
-0 GRAVE
ST -SHELBY TUBE
RC -ROCK CORE
PM -PRESSURE METER
%611-WELLGRADEDGRAVE ®GC-CLAYEYGRAVEL
®a -LOW EASTfaTY MY
E]SP-POORLY GRADED SAND
®OH---PLA5—TYORGANICSATSANO—S
❑WR - WEATHERED ROCK
.-FILL
6M -SILTY GRAVEL SW -WELL GRADED SAND
®MH -HIGH PLASTICITY SILT
MSC-QAYEYSAIM
®OL- LOW EASTICITY —NX SATS AND QAY
PWR- PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
.-POSSIBLE FAI
6P-IOOQ-GRAM GRAVEL ®ML- LOW PLASTICITY SAT
SM-5ILTVSAND
®CH -HIGH PLAS—TY CLAY
PT -PEAT
.-PROBABLE FILL
172.5
5
150
142.5
SURFACE MATERIALS I ROCK TYPES
TOPSOIL
CONCRETE
V❑
U IGNEOUS
. ASPHALT
VOID
❑ MITA-
-0 GRAVE
11 SEDIMENTARY
SYMBOL LEGEND
WATER LEVE - bU W* DRUL"/SAMPLING
i WATER LEVEL SEASONAL, HIGH WATER
i
WATER LEVEL AFTER CASING REMOVAL
WATER LEVE- AFTER 24 HOURS
PLASTIC WATER %PASSING 4200 SIEVE LIQUID
NMO% CONIENI% ABB%] LIMN%
X •
NOTES:
1 SEE INDIVIDUAL BORING LOG AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
2 PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT (ASTM D1586).
3 HORIZONTAL DISTANCES ARE NOT TO SCALE.
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE
SOIL PROFILE
nn
412
172.5
165 m
G1
f
O
3�
157.5
m
f
150
142.5

SOIL CLASSIFICATION LEGEND
CONCRETE
V❑
U IGNEOUS
. ASPHALT
VOID
❑ MITA-
-0 GRAVE
ST - SHELBY TUBE
RC -ROCK CORE
PM -PRESSURE METER
�6W-WELL GRADED GRAVE ®6C -CLAYEY GRAVEL
®Q-LOWEA5TICI--
[MSP -POORLY GRADED SAND
®OH---PLA5—TY—NI-T5ANO—S
❑WR-WEATHEREDROCK
M -F -L
6M -SILTY GRAVEL SW -WELL GRADED SAND
® MH -HIGH PLASTICITY SILT
f SC-CLAYEYSAND
® OL-ILOWIIASTICITY OR --AND—
[] PWR- PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROLK
.-POSSIBLE FIII.
6P -POORLY GRADED GRAVEL ® ML -LOW PLASTICITY SILT
SM -SILTY SAND
® CH- HIGH PLASTICITY CLAY0
PT -PEAT
.-PROBABLE FILL
172.5
5
150
142.5
SURFACE MATERIALS I ROCK TYPES
TOPSOIL
CONCRETE
V❑
U IGNEOUS
. ASPHALT
VOID
❑ MITA-
-0 GRAVE
11 SEDIMENTARY
SYMBOL LEGEND
WATER LEVE - bU W* DRUL"/SAMPLING
i WATER LEVEL SEASONAL, HIGH WATER
i
WATER LEVEL AFTER CASING REMOVAL
WATER LEVEL AFTER 24 HOURS
PLASTIC WATER %PASSING 4200 SIEVE LIQUID
NMO% CONIENi% ABB%] LIMN%
X •
NOTES:
1 SEE INDIVIDUAL BORING LOG AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
2 PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT (ASTM D1586).
3 HORIZONTAL DISTANCES ARE NOT TO SCALE.
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE
SOIL PROFILE
nn
412
172.5
165 m
G1
f
O
3�
157.5
m
f
150
142.5

APPENDIX C — Laboratory Testing
Laboratory Test Results Summary
Particle Size Distribution Reports
Plasticity Chart

Laboratory Testing Summary
Page 1 of 1
Sample
Source
Sample Depth
Number (feet)
MCI
M
Soil
Type2
Atterberg Limits3 Percent
Passing
LL PL PI No.200
Sieve4
Moisture - Densit (Corr.)5
Maximum Optimum CBR
Density Moisture Values Other
cf
B-5
2516 3.5-5.0
19.6
CL
36 16 20
B-6
2517 1.0-2.5
20.3
CL
47 18 29
B-6
2518 13.5-15.0
22.0
Sc
34.7
B-7
2519 18.5-20.0
30.7
SP
1.6
Notes:
Definitions:
1. ASTM D 2216, 2. ASTM D 2487, 3. ASTM D 4318, 4. ASTM D 1140, 5. See test reports for test method, 6. See test reports for test method
MC: Moisture Content, Soil Type: AASHTO, LL: Liquid Limit, PL: Plastic Limit, PI: Plasticity Index, CBR: California Bearing Ratio, OC: Organic Content, NV: No Value, NP: Non -Plastic
Project No.
Project Name:
PM:
PE:
Printed On:
33:4058
Pinehurst Automall
Mike Ellis
Winslow E. Goins
06/28/17
ECS Southeast, LLP
6151 Raeford Road, Suite A
Fayetteville, NC 28304
Phone: [phone]
©'°'

6
0
m
-�
Particle Size Distribution Report
100
0
0
0
90
10
.v
80
20
70
30
M
cu
-0
W
z 60
40 n
LL
M
Z
W
Z 50
50
v,
w
C7
O
Of
y
E
W-60
60 'U
W
co
U,
W
m
C
20
80
0
10
90
0
L
100
~
1
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
c
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
% +3"
% Gravel % Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse
Medium
Fine Silt Clay
0
34.7
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.
PASS?
Material Description
(,
SIZE
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, orange/ red, wet, loose
E
#200
34.7
0
o
Atterberg Limits
PL= LL= P1=
c
Coefficients
D90= D85= D60=
D50= D30= D15=
o
D10= Cu= Cc=
Cn
Classification
USCS= SC AASHTO=
Remarks
ASTM D-2488 Visual/manual method used.
X
0
Natural Moisture content - 22.0%
(no specification
provided)
0
Source of
Sample: B-6
Depth:
13.50-15.00
co
Sample Number:
2518
Date:
WU
ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP
Client: Ryan Homes
2
6151 Raeford Road, Suite A
C E
Project: Truss Plant Expansion -Dunn Job# 30-2383001
Fayetteville, NC 28304
Phone: [phone]
F AM Fax: [phone]
Project No: 4052 Figure
Tested By: LMP Checked By: M

6
0
m
-�
Particle Size Distribution Report
100
0
0
0
90
10
.v
80
20
70
30
M
cu
-0
W
z 60
40 n
LL
M
Z
W
Z 50
50
v,
w
C7
O
Of
y
E
W-60
60 'U
W
co
W
M
C
20
80
0
10
90
0
L
100
~
1
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
c
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
% +3"
% Gravel % Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse
Medium
Fine silt Clay
0
1.6
0
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.
PASS?
Material Description
(,
SIZE
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
(SP) FINE SAND, orange/ pink, wet, very soft
#200
1.6
E
0
o
Atterberg Limits
PL= LL= P1=
c
Coefficients
D90= D85= D60=
D50= D30= D15=
o
D10= CU- Cc=
Cn
Classification
USCS= SP AASHTO=
Remarks
ASTM D-2488 Visual/manual method used.
X
0
Natural Moisture content - 33.7%
(no specification
provided)
0
Source of
Sample: B-7
Depth:
18.50-20.00
co
Sample Number:
2519
Date:
WU
ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP
Client: Ryan Homes
2
6151 Raeford Road, Suite A
C E
Project: Truss Plant Expansion -Dunn Job# 30-2383001
Fayetteville, NC 28304
Phone: [phone]
F AM Fax: [phone]
Project No: 4052 Figure
Tested By: LMP Checked By: M

60
51 a 50
a It
M U 30
Cn
co
Y co
Q
o d
20
IN
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
,
, ,
,
G
,
,
,
,
0
00,
ML or OL
MH or OH
CL -ML
i
i
i
1U LU W 4U 5U bu to bu 9U 1UU 11U
LIQUID LIMIT
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS
(CL) LEAN CLAY, tan, moist, very soft 36 16 20 CL
Fn Project No. 4052 Client: Ryan Homes
X Project: Truss Plant Expansion -Dunn Job# 30-2383001
m
a)
'[[source of Sample: B-5 Depth: 3.50-5.00 Sample Number: 2516
NOECS SOUTHEAST, LLP
6151 Raeford Road, Suite A Phone: [phone]
Fayetteville, NC 28304 Fax: [phone]
Tested By: LMP Checked By:
Remarks:
OASTM D-2488 Visual/manual
method used.
Natural Moisture content - 19.6%
Figure

60
51 a 50
a It
M U 30
Cn
co
Y co
Q
o d
20
IN
0
0 10 20 30 40
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, orange/ red, wet, loose
(CL) LEAN CLAY, tan, moist, firm
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
,
,
, ,
,
G
,
,
,
,
0
ML or OL
MH or OH
CL -ML
i
i
i
bu bu to bu 9U 1UU 11u
LIQUID LIMIT
LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS
34.7 Sc
47 18 29 CL
Fn Project No. 4052 Client: Ryan Homes Remarks:
X Project: Truss Plant Expansion -Dunn Job# 30-2383001 LASTM D-2488 Visual/manual
m method used.
�
Source of Sample: B-6 Depth: 13.50-15.00 Sample Number: 2518 Natural Moisture content - 20.3%
L
° ■Source of Sample: B-6 Depth: 1.00-2.50 Sample Number: 2517
EECS SOUTHEAST, LLP
6151 Raeford Road, Suite A Phone: [phone]
Fayetteville, NC 28304 Fax: [phone]
Tested By: LMP Checked By:
Figure

APPENDIX D — Supplemental Report Documents
ASFE Document

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

subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engi-
neer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for
the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction
observation.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to
Misinterpretation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineer-
ing reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your
geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team
after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review
pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors
can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction
conferences, and by providing construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon
their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or
omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should
never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Contractors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what
they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-
tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, 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 ad-
ditional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer.
A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient
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 unantici-
pated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines.
This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led
to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such
outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory
provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these
provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin
and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read
these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should
respond fully and frankly.
Geoenviponmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-
mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical
study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually re-
late any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g.,
about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated
contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous
project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental in-
formation, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance.
Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, op-
eration, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from grow-
ing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised
for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive
plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention
consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to
the development of severe mold infestations, a number of mold prevention
strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, wa-
ter infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the
geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in -this report,
the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention
consultant; none of the services performed in connection with
the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted
for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of
the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself
he sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the struc-
ture involved.
Rely on Your ASFE-Member Geotechnical
Engineer For Additional Assistance
Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engi-
neers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine
benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your
ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
ASFr=
The Best People on Earth
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone:' 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail: [e-mail] www.asfe.org
Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's specific
written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes
of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm,
individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being anASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
I IGER06045.OM